Prasad Rajen: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePrasad Rajen: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9179. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): This Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill epitomises the major differences between the National Government and the Labour Opposition on how New Zealanders should be treated and how to address the development needs of our most vulnerable citizens. While National is trying to pander to the punitive perspective of its conservative well-heeled constituents and supporters and show them that it is tough on those who in their eyes are abusing the benefit system Labour is more interested in finding lasting solutions and pathways to prosperity for its most vulnerable citizens. The backdrop to this bill has always been the legendary stories about mothers on the DPB not taking care of their children spending their moneys unwisely and having more children just to continue to be on the benefit—that it is a lifestyle option for many that they are work-shy and that they care little about the health of their children. In other words they have no social responsibility towards the child-caring role that they should focus on as a matter of priority. That is the kind of rap that National has given the most vulnerable and then it develops these punitive measures.For this National Government the singular focus has always been on reducing the number of people on benefits and its members display no concern about who gets caught up in the backwash. They have created an image of beneficiaries as bludgers and now they must hit them with as many disincentives as possible no matter what might be the impact on vulnerable children. Some of the language used by the Government members in this debate demonstrates this agenda. They use that language and the concept of lifelong costs of benefits to justify their punitive measures.Where National has chosen to be less generous towards the poor and those who rely on the benefit system to keep body and soul together and care for their children at a time when there are few jobs for them to apply for Labour will focus on job creation job training and getting people ready for work through voluntary activities they choose educational opportunities they take up and voluntary contributions they will make to society. The National Government places little value on the poor taking care of their children full-time themselves and it takes away their option to be good parents. The Minister for Social Development is saying that if you are poor and rely on a benefit income you have no rights to the care of your children yourself—Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: She’s not saying that at all. That’s nonsense.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Does the member deny that? That is exactly what this bill is saying. That is exactly what the sanctions are about; they are about childcare compulsory childcare for the 3-year-olds. Why do parents not have a choice Mr Lotu-Iiga? Why not? Why not give those parents the choice? No they do not have the choice. What this Government is saying is that when these parents avail themselves of a benefit they forgo the right to provide full-time care themselves for their children over 3 years old. That is what the impact of this bill will be. If this is not nanny State I do not know what is. However this Minister’s spin recasts this as backing the poor to live in her image. Or is it? Or is it? As I recall this was good enough for her but it is not for others. Despite the crocodile tears it was good enough for her but not for others.Labour on the other hand places a very high value on the parenting role and will enable parents to fulfil that role if that is their wish. Labour believes that parents are the best at providing care for their children even if the parents are supported financially to do that. If parents need assistance to be better parents then that is the assistance thatshould be provided rather than compulsorily removing that opportunity for them only because this National Government wants to appease those who cast this sub-population in a negative light—because that is what National members do. National members say that because some parents abuse the welfare system all parents on benefits are tarred with the same brush so rights have to be taken away from all of them. They could not come up with any answers to that in the Social Services Committee apart from saying that it was fair. They are reluctant to go after those who are wealthy and visit havoc in the commercial sector through their unconscionable behaviour but the poor and the marginalised are fair game.There is no leadership in this way of operating. I say this to this Minister: history will not judge her contribution well and she will be remembered for the misery she will cause through the provisions in this bill very much as Ruth Richardson is remembered for her attack on beneficiaries.Simon O’Connor: Oh come on.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Maybe the member back there was far too young to remember it but that is exactly what Ruth Richardson did and that is what she is remembered for. You have to wonder whether this National Government has a compassionate soul or whether it is just politics. Labour places a much higher value on what parents do with their children during the formative years.John Hayes: Who wrote this? You didn’t.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Yes I did and if the member does not know what formative years are I will spell it out for him. At least I do write my own speeches not like that member who barely gives one. Labour understands what the evidence says about those early years unlike those three interjectors opposite and will provide the best opportunities to them to be the best that they can be. The decent society owes this to the most vulnerable not to make life more miserable for them. The provisions of this bill demonstrate no compassion and no understanding of the plight of the poor at all. The Government has come up with words like it wants to be “fair” and to be “balanced” but these sentiments have a very different meaning from what is demonstrated in this bill. There is very little in this bill that is fair.National says the best way to get conformity from sole parents and those dependent on a benefit is to place sanctions on them if they breach some of the conditions of their benefits. All this will achieve is the continued social exclusion of large numbers of people from sharing in the benefits of a society they have helped create. Social inclusion will be the dream and maybe members opposite do not care about that but we do. Those who are reliant on benefits today were taxpayers yesterday or will be tomorrow. Life goes through many phases I say to members opposite and I say to this Government and we must not make it difficult for our citizens especially the most vulnerable to transition through these phases undamaged. What this bill proposes would result in a sizeable proportion of the most vulnerable transiting through these phases much more damaged and yet this is what these provisions will do for many. They will become bitter and will start life without any respect for the collective society of which they are a part. Is that the kind of society—a society of winners and losers—that this Government is trying to create? There may be short-term political gains and there may be short-term dollar gains but there will be no long-term gains for the soul of this society.National has a system of social obligations transactions and sanctions while Labour will work on all the needs of the most vulnerable while enabling them to be their children’s carers while they prepare for work. Work is only one aspect of development. Placing disproportionate emphasis on it over the other roles a parent has and a family has in the care of children and in the care socialisation education and guidance of ourchildren is a big mistake that this Government is making in this particular bill. This will be a cost and future generations of New Zealanders will have to pay for that and a future Labour Government will have to come back and sort out the mess that this will create.But this Government is not listening and is not interested. It knows that this is not about the poor and the marginalised and their needs and interests; it is about quenching the insatiable thirst for punishment and for giving the appearance of being strong. National is punitive while Labour is developmental. There are so many other ways of achieving the goals of bringing up the next generation of citizens as responsible people apart from those presented in this particular bill. There are many other ways of enabling parents to be good parents but this National Government has not been interested in any of its welfare reforms in taking leadership in these areas. Its supporters want the blood of misery the pain of failure the perverse joy of keeping people beholden and the sense of power to do something only because they know they can. There is no science in these proposals. National creates its own method of calculating the cost of welfare which is intellectually dishonest. National wants to divide and rule and this bill is the latest episode in its story of how to achieve that. We remain implacably opposed to this bill.