10. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this
to the Minister for Social Development and Employment
Does she stand by her statement that “From 1 April 2009, Work and Income will talk to their clients in a much more generic way about their income support. The focus of discussions about income support will be on ensuring full and correct entitlement to financial assistance rather than making any reference to specific benefit type.”?
Hon RUTH DYSONHow can she justify issuing a ministerial directive to dictate the words that Work and Income staff must use when talking to beneficiaries, including banning mention of the type of benefit people receive; and how is this going to work in practice when the benefit types remain in force within the Social Security Act but staff are not allowed to refer to them?
How silly is it to attempt to ban staff from referring to benefit types when presumably beneficiaries are still permitted to refer to the type of benefit they receive; or is she going to try to ban that, as well?
The aim is to treat people as individuals with specific needs and ensure that those specific needs are recognised and supported so that the person can move off a benefit into a job.
Sue MoroneyWhat are the advantages of taking a more generic approach to the provision of income support to clients?
The aim is to treat people as individuals with specific needs rather than lump them into categories. We should move away from stereotypical and derogatory terms such as that used by the Opposition Leader, John Key, when he referred to sole parents—mothers on the domestic purposes benefit—as “for want of a better term, breeding for a business”.
What is it that the Minister thinks is going to be said when someone comes into a Work and Income office and says he or she would like to get on to the domestic purposes benefit because of need; is that person not allowed to talk about that now?
That person will get his or her full and correct entitlement, unlike when that member’s party was in Government and people had to argue every inch of the way.
Why does the Minister not put some effort into the important issues such as the ever-increasing sickness and invalid benefit numbers, which now total almost 132,000, instead of this ridiculous attempt at PC nonsense of banning members of her department from referring to the benefit that a person is wanting to get?
I am delighted to inform the member that yet again she is wrong with her figures. Between June last year and June this year the number of people on a sickness benefit actually declined. I am not able literally to make them well but I have often recommended to people who are feeling sick to stop listening to the member who asked the question.
How ashamed is she that after almost 20 years of announcements, re-announcements, and name changes, the single core benefit—also known as phase 2—has been reduced to nothing more than a bossy and absurd attempt to control the rules that come out of people’s mouths; what is next, a ministerial direction on what people at Work and Income are to think?
When that member’s party was last in Government, Work and Income staff were forbidden to put any photos of their family in their offices, and they were forbidden to have any personal items on their desk; that is PC gone mad.
I seek leave to table the relevant page of the Cabinet paper “Special Needs Grants Core Benefit Changes and Further Work”.
I seek leave to table the statement in which National Party leader John Key referred to sole mothers—sole parents—as “breeding for a business”.
Madam SPEAKER