Prasad Rajen: Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Prasad Rajen: Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:665;Page:13168] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 It was interesting to listen to the speech from Katrina Shanks a little earlier on in this debate on the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill. I rather suspect that Government members make too much of aspiration. It seems to me that they use that word in a way that is designed to explain everything that is nice and good and nothing else. It is like voting for motherhood and apple pie. There was an assumption in what Katrina said that there is no aspiration on this side of the Chamber. We do not need to talk about it on this side of the Chamber but on that side of the Chamber that is all they talk about. 
Katrina Shanks was saying what a mess Labour made when we were in Government. But we had the lowest unemployment in the OECD—take a bow New Zealand—and why do those members not acknowledge that? We did not talk about aspiration; we simply did it. It was done in such a way that anybody who wanted a job was able to get one. We do not talk about aspiration; we do aspiration. How awful it is for members opposite that the previous Labour Government had to subsidise New Zealand’s low-wage system through Working for Families. Some members opposite may remember the $50000-a-year Waihi family consisting of two professionals and two children who could not make ends meet. It was the prelude to all of the work that gave form to Working for Families. I do not hear that in the comments from the other side. The members there say that this side is not aspirational at all but they have all the licence to use that term. The other side talks— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: So we’re not allowed to think like that? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: That member has low aspirations; he only shouts. He does not deserve any comment. 
I would call Tim Macindoe a friend and a gentleman in the Chamber. However Mr Macindoe said that we should get everybody back to work—who would argue with that—and that we should do everything we need to do as a nation State to get everybody back to work. I say to Mr Macindoe that no one would disagree with that. That is what we have been trying to do. But I would like Mr Macindoe and others from the Social Services Committee to answer why we need this punitive approach. I ask why we need this approach that eventually only gives a tremendous amount of power to case managers at Work and Income. Those are the people who will have the power. They are not particularly highly trained for the kind of work that those members want them to do—although they are very effective so I am not criticising Work and Income. 
In my earlier speech I talked about what this bill is about. It provides a window to two alternative futures for New Zealand. There is the one that this side proposes and the one that that side proposes. However let us give members opposite an opportunity to prove me wrong. Members on this side have put up a number of very very useful amendments designed to ask the Minister to think very hard about what this bill is about. She should take the amendments to really achieve the kinds of aims she has. I agree with Mr Macindoe that we would like to get everybody back to work. But so far all that the Minister in the chair the Hon Paula Bennett has done is play with her cellphone read Cabinet papers or what is on her phone and take two calls to simply tell us what we already know. This is the opportunity for the Minister in the chair to argue with us to take up the questions this side has posed time and time again and to begin to answer them but the Minister does not care. Of course she does not care in the sense that she does not care to answer these questions. I would not accuse her of not caring about the issue which would be unkind— 
Amy Adams 
: You just did! 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I just took it back. The Minister does not care enough to answer the questions. But I invite the Minister and the members opposite to consider some of these questions. There is major contention here.