Fairbrother Russell: Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15097] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 Picking up on the point of my friend across the Chamber I must say that I am an excellent select committee chair only because I am so lazy and let the committee members do what they want. We get through the work quite quickly as a result but I do not take credit for anything else. 
The argument that Dr Hutchison is reduced to running in this Committee amuses me somewhat. It is a shame when a man with great professional practice is reduced to running oxymoronic arguments. He said it has taken 8 years for the Labour Government to get around to bringing in this legislation the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill. Well let us think back. In 1999 when Labour came into power the National Government had been in power for 9 years and not once did it bring forward a bill such as this. So we could say of the last 17 years that the National Government did absolutely nothing for most of it. 
The real truth—and it is hard to find; the officials do not know the real answer either—is probably a mixture of two things. First when this inspired Government came into office in 1999 it met a run-down Public Service—the Public Service had been under attack through cost cutting as had the beneficiaries—and the money was not there for the infrastructure development. It has taken this Government a long time to get the Public Service back on track and it is not being helped by the current rhetoric and vague promises from the Leader of the Opposition who says that he will bash the public servants and reduce their number and all of those sorts of things that are endearing him highly to the public servants in Wellington. The public servants in Napier whom I speak to are just throwing up their hands in horror because they work very very hard. Not one of them believes that they put in less than a 10-hour day. They are worried about that rhetoric which has no substance. 
I will get back to the bill. The real truth in that complaint by Dr Hutchison is simply that it takes time for good things to evolve. It is accepted that this is a good bill. I do not really buy too much into grandiloquent arguments that there is some great moral cause in saving beneficiaries from accumulating debt because I must say that in the 25 or 28 years I acted for many beneficiaries going to jail I do not recall one of them worrying about the debt they had accumulated from doubling up on the system. 
The really important part of this bill is that it is morally neutral but takes away the privacy rights of people who for example are going to prison or leaving the country. They forgo that privacy because the new section 180 enables the department that controls these individuals to disclose what is otherwise privileged and private information. But the price of doing that is greater efficiency so that debts are not being accumulated that must be recovered later on which is always a more painful process. It makes for more efficient administering of our benefits system. 
I do not see this legislation as necessarily having closed in on any great moral compass or on any great moral imperatives; it is really a sensible piece of infrastructural legislation that pulls together what has been 8 years of this Government building a sound and competent infrastructure of civil servants public servants and techniques such as computerised systems which can work together. 
The bill really says to the public of New Zealand that this Government is able to bring everything together to move us forward so that those people on benefits get their full and due entitlement—I do not see it as charity; I see it as a citizen’s right to receive a benefit in a time of need—and so that when their benefit time ceases there is less for them to worry about because in return for forgoing their right to privacy the system will pick up the time they cease the right to entitlement and the benefit will stop there and then. 
This is a reflection of a very good Government that has built infrastructure that will support a bill that on the face of it is as simple as this is. The complex issues are the release of privacy and each beneficiary is effectively caught by the new section 180. But the price of that is that there is no further embarrassment down the road of collecting moneys wrongfully paid. 
This is a good bill; it reflects a very good Government and a very very good Minister who has brought this bill forward. 
Nathan Guy 
: Who’s that? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: The member obviously could not recognise quality if he fell over it but we on this side of the Chamber appreciate the very good Minister—and her predecessor who also did an excellent job in this field. This is a very good bill; we recommend it. It says to the public of New Zealand that this is the sort of thing they can expect from a very efficient organised administration that cares for the populace of New Zealand but is also careful to make sure that the taxpayer dollar is spent wisely and prudently. It is coherent and cogent legislation. I recommend Part 1 to the Committee accordingly.