Prasad Rajen: Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePrasad Rajen: Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 April 2014. Volume:698;Page:17460. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): I am pleased to take my final call on the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill which started some time ago. Certainly the debate we have had over the various stages of this bill and even today does get one to think about a whole series of things related to the subject of this bill which really is as the Government likes to call it welfare fraud.What it gets me to do is to ask a number of questions the first being: which is most important solving the real problems facing New Zealand today—and we could identify those problems we hear every day in this House about housing shortages and the difficulties of housing—or creating well-paying jobs? Is that another issue we ought to be focusing on? Or is it more important to be talking about how we might increase the size of manufacturing other than in the primary sector? Or is it more important to talk about the effects of climate change on New Zealand and the changes that are already occurring? Is it perhaps more important to talk about a better start for our young children and their parents? Another issue could be developing a better-educated workforce.Is it more important to take that series of issues talk about them and put some real effort into making those kinds of changes or is it more important to be devising a scheme as this bill does to go after those who are—in the words of this bill and in the words of Government members—defrauding the State of $20 million through a set of prescriptions this bill provides us that in the end may or may not be successful and that are more than likely to produce unintended consequences in the lives of thoseaffected? Which is more important—to go after this relatively small amount of money or to address those other major factors which are what this House should be debating? But no what this Government has been doing over the last 5½ years is devising from time to time a whole series of programmes to really vilify particular sets of groups in our society. I would go even further. For me doing the former is much more important and doing less of what we are doing now would also be important.I say that because there are as many steps as we care to take within the present system that could work effectively without this bill at all. This bill is not necessary. Work and Income could work far more effectively with these families to ensure that fraud does not take place and that where it does take place the money is recouped by its everyday interactions with these families. It does that regularly and it does that in many different ways. But no the Government chooses this particular approach because somehow it taps into a vein that runs through New Zealand society. There is no leadership in tapping into that vein.I think that the Associate Minister for Social Development Chester Borrows himself actually gave a very good answer when in the second reading of this particular bill he tried to debunk the figures that this side had been talking about in terms of the size of the fraud that this group is alleged to have perpetrated and the size of the amount of money that has been recovered from this particular group compared with the dollar value of fraud that takes place in the taxation system. Our argument has always been: where is the fairness? Where is the equality? How can we compare these two particular areas? One is a powerful group; one is a vulnerable group.What he began to say was that in fact no the Government actually does quite a bit to go and recoup money from those who are tax-dodgers and those who have tax debt. He said it does that and it is very very successful. He said: “Obviously as listeners would have heard the assertion has been made time and time again that the Government is more interested in chasing after welfare debt than tax debt.” Then he went on to say that “The energy put into recovering tax debt and the money put into recovering tax debt is well in excess—in fact it is nearly five times as much—of what we are spending on welfare fraud.” So what the Minister was saying to us and what I read in his comments was that the Government and the Inland Revenue Department have been successful in quietly working through the tax system to recover debt.Have we seen in the time of this Government a sustained attack on tax debt or tax fraud? Have we seen that? No we have not. There has not been one. Have we seen as much as we have heard from the Government about welfare fraud—have we seen as much about those who are alleged to have engaged in tax fraud? We have not. No new legislation has been proposed by this Government to reduce the number of tax-dodgers or tax fraud. There has been no campaign against those who are in that particular sector. If the Minister is to be believed the Inland Revenue Department is quietly going about its business identifying who these people are and in fact prosecuting some of them as well.The prosecution also is very interesting because in the tax area jail sentences have been given to those who have defrauded $800000 plus. In the welfare fraud area it is $67000. So there is another set of standards being applied by this Government to really tap into that vein that runs through New Zealand society against welfare fraud or welfare in itself. There is something disingenuous about this Government’s approach to welfare. Ever since it has come into power it has produced a whole series of terms a whole series of language and a whole series of legislation that in fact in the end will produce nothing.But I want to talk about another aspect of this bill that is as worrying and that is to do with relationships. Here we have people—men and women—who for whateverreason have found themselves on their own with children. Because they have to provide for those children they have called on our State welfare to provide them with support and we as taxpayers do that quite gladly because you never know whose turn it is next or who might need the kind of support and the kind of safety net we provide. The belief there is that here is a group of people living in luxury and just simply taking from the State without giving anything back. The work they do bringing up children and bringing up the workers of tomorrow is never factored in.Much more seriously here are individuals who are bringing up children and they will from time to time form an attraction to somebody. Some kind of relationship develops. The way this bill is crafted it appears as if it provides for anybody who sees a beneficiary and a sole parent in particular form a relationship no matter what type it is—all the chattering classes will begin talking. This will be seen as an opportunity to report and complain even more to Work and Income to say that fraud is taking place. So for a relatively small amount of money we will begin to affect the everyday lives of a very vulnerable group of people.The Government members do not care about that but in fact this is quite serious. Even those people who are bringing up children on the parental benefit—how do they feel about forming relationships with others not knowing at what point it turns into anything serious but knowing that at any time it could be seen as fraud and then prosecution will start? That begins to develop a nasty approach by the State to them and allows others to malign this group even further. We have seen the National Party do that in the past. I rememberŌrewa too and those speeches that were given at the time because there is something that this Government does not like about those who are dependent on the State. But if somebody from business demands from the State it is fine it is OK and it does that. I think that is rather unfair and something that this side of the House will want to address.On this particular occasion we are supporting the bill because we do not want to be seen to be in any way supporting fraud of any kind but there is an inherent weakness and flaw in this bill. Thank you.