Prasad Rajen: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Prasad Rajen: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 19 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3775. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I wish I could say it is a pleasure to take my last call on this bill the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill but I do not think it is a pleasure. In fact it is with some sadness that I get to speak on this particular bill in its third reading.  
From the time that this bill has been in the House we have looked for some kind of logic that it was trying to present that we could agree with and that we could relate to and that could relate also to the reality of what we find out there. We searched we examined and we listened very carefully to the thinking of those who are experts by anybody’s calculation who presented to the Social Services Committee. They were people who have researched this field who work in this field every day and who came to the select committee with a lot of thinking and a lot of experience behind them to tell us what they saw in this bill and what the gap was between what ought to happen and what was being provided in this bill. What we found was a big gap between all the factors that needed to be taken into account to make life better for our children for our mums and for our families and what the provisions of this bill provide. For us there was a real disconnect between what the Government has said it is trying to do and what this bill will produce from our perspective.  
Government members are convinced that these are the only provisions that will reduce welfare numbers and this has been their driving goal throughout this—what will reduce welfare numbers. Those who submitted told us that they are wrong—that they are absolutely wrong. Yes we did work hard at the Social Services Committee and I wish we had worked hard to understand what they were telling us as well. In fact in my view members of the select committee from the Government side have actually not argued their points with any rigour particularly in the third reading debate where we went clause by clause. The rigour was not there.  
Tim Macindoe 
: We’re in the third reading debate. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: It was left time and time again Mr Macindoe—time and time again it was left to the Minister for Social Development to take call after call from the chair and simply explain the same logic the same things that will happen. There will be wraparound services this will be great etc. That happened time and time again. Members obviously were not that convinced. They were very ready to clap when the Minister gave one of her 5 or 10-minute renditions from the chair during the Committee stage but certainly they did not expand rigorously their arguments. They were not convincing.  
But let us be clear. Labour believes and this side of the House believes passionately in investment—in actually investing in those who are likely to be caught and who are likely to find themselves on their own caring for young children or adolescents for that matter. We agree that we ought to invest in that particular group. We would invest in helping young people prepare much better for their adult lives and their early adult lives. We would provide sole parents with real opportunities to prepare for work through programmes like the training incentive allowance which the other side does not believe in. We know they work because they worked for the Minister herself. She is our best case in point if you like. But that is all gone and what we now find—what the Government members put in place of that—is the rhetoric of investment. The rhetoric of investment is hollow because it somehow takes a word that has positive connotations and imposes that on the logic of this bill trying to make it good.  
It is quite interesting: when Labour spends money on social services and on welfare then it is welfare dependency; when the Government spends money then it is investment. That is intellectually dishonest. It is quite amazing that Tim Macindoe gets up and talks about this side of the House being dogmatic in terms of dogma. Well that is exactly what that member is doing and that is exactly what the Government is—absolutely dogmatic. And it is absolutely unfounded by research and by anything else. Dogma does not need that kind of logic. I thought this Government was going to use research that was evidence based and evidence led. Well it is not.  
We have said throughout this debate that the Government is focused only on getting people off welfare and it seems that it is at any cost—and it is at any cost. The Government denies this but this is its only motive. The Government tries to mask this in the language I have talked about—the language of investment etc. and the language of wraparound services. Who argues against wraparound services? Of course we should have wraparound services; that should be there now. There is nothing radical about that. But the Government has not given us the logic of how that is going to be done. What it really has done is it has really been narrow in its analysis. For one member it was that these young women have made a lifestyle choice. For another it is about hope and ambition. For another it is just a new system. What is it? Why do the members opposite and the Government not get their way round? My friend and colleague Mr Macindoe tells me he came to the House just for this purpose. I want to ask Mr Macindoe why he bothered. If this was to be his finest hour why did he bother? Because I do not think this is going to do that. Of course for the Minister it is a bit like the cavalry. She said “Change is on its way.”—the cavalry is coming.  
When we examine the arguments the members opposite have presented we have exposed all of them. They say that work is the best way; therefore we must have work testing. Well of course work and creating work is the best response to welfare; we have heard enough about that. But this is not what they have been saying. There is no real plan to create that work only a concession that if there is no work there then this will not apply. Why bother? Why do we not focus on wraparound services? Why do we not focus on getting those who are on benefits in the best place possible to enter the workforce? This is what the previous programme did which is what the Minister herself is the beneficiary of—and good on her. I have congratulated her in other speeches on taking the opportunities that were made available then and finding her way through. And why do we now pull the ladder for others? It seems as if this whole bill and this whole area of welfare reform is designed to pacify a group of their constituency who really believe that the problems of New Zealand can be traced to those who are on welfare and if we did not have that then everything else would be fine.  
It is the same when we get to their arguments about parenting. This is an anti-parenting bill. A mother of a 1-year-old now has to be work tested and if there is a 5-year-old as well then that mother will not have the time that she needs to care for the child. 
Hon Amy Adams 
: Rubbish! 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: It is in the bill Amy Adams. That is in the bill. Read the bill Minister because that is in the bill. That is the argument. I wonder whether members opposite and members of the Cabinet really understand what this bill is about. They are saying that for a mother with a 14-year-old under this Government the 14-year-old is on their own—I say to that member. They are on their own because there will be no protection if their mother happens to be a welfare beneficiary. That is what this Government has produced and yet we know from all the evidence that that young age and that older age are exactly when the caring abilities of the parents are needed for those children.  
This side is passionate about this bill because this Government is destroying family life. It pretends to be family orientated but it is destroying family life. There is a bill next week that will do it as well. We will argue the same argument next week. That is what this Government is doing. Then it brings on people like John Banks who tells us in his sycophantic way that this is the best thing since sliced bread. When did John Banks become relevant to this Parliament? All he has done is make inane calls on points of order about somebody using a particular word. There is just so much wrong about this bill. From the get-go to the closedown now we have argued consistently that it is bad. We have also looked to see what could be salvaged and there is not much. Thank you.