9. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this
to the Minister for Social Development and Employment
Can she confirm that total current and non-current beneficiary debt is now $763.8 million, and in dollar terms how much has total beneficiary debt increased since 1999?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this
Yes; in total, debt, which covers fraud, overpayment, and recoverable assistance, has increased by $313 million. That is why, in the last 12 months, we have had more than 346 data-matching programmes comparing more than 12 million records; visited more than 15,000 clients to check their entitlement; completed 39,000 individual investigations and reviews; and prosecuted 905 fraud cases, with a 95 percent success rate. There is a bill before the House that will enable us to continue this good work. I thank the member and her party for supporting it.
Does she stand by her predecessor’s answer to an oral question on 16 May 2007 that confirmed that beneficiary debt had increased by more than $300 million under Labour, and can she confirm that the current debt owed by current beneficiaries is actually increasing by $1.25 million every month under her stewardship?
I can confirm the accuracy of the answer given by my predecessor to the member’s question. I cannot confirm the accuracy of her interpretation of the percentage of that figure because, tragically, she put the wrong denominator against the answer to that question. I am not surprised that she got it wrong when she said that 70 percent of beneficiaries are now in debt. That is not correct at all. I am not surprised, because it would have been accurate under the previous National Government, when total beneficiary numbers were more like 400,000, as compared with the current numbers.
Russell Fairbrother Link to this
Why does the Government provide recoverable assistance to beneficiaries?
Although people can live off a benefit it can be difficult for them to meet unexpected costs or to pay for expensive, but necessary, items. In those circumstances they can, and should be able to, apply for a loan from Work and Income. They might need to replace their fridge, or they might need petrol money to go to their mother’s funeral or maybe even to pay for the tow truck company that towed the grandmother’s car while she was visiting her sick grandchild at Starship Children’s Health. Is it the policy of the National Party that those families should have to go to loan sharks instead? I hope not.
Sue BradfordDoes the Government recognise that one of the main reasons for ever-rising beneficiary debt is that benefits are fundamentally too low for people to live on, particularly at this time of rising food and fuel costs; if so, what is the Government going to do about it?
We have maintained and delivered on our commitment to ensure that the CPI adjustment is delivered to beneficiaries every year.
Why did Labour promise in 1999 to provide budgeting advice to all beneficiaries, but instead it has abolished the compulsory budgeting advice referral system that the previous National Government had set up in 1995, and now, in 2008, the Ministry of Social Development cannot even advise how many, if any, beneficiaries have received any kind of budgetary advice?
The member confuses the provision of services with an obligation imposed in order to receive a benefit. That is not our policy, at all. In fact, I can demonstrate that that policy was not successful. In the 3 years from 1996 to 1999 the size of debt for Work and Income was growing at over 10 percent per year; last year it was growing at 2.5 percent—a big difference.
Is she worried that her Government’s decision to abolish the compulsory budgeting advice referral system, depriving beneficiaries of good budgeting advice, has resulted in many of them turning to loan sharks, and that in an environment of increasing demand by food banks, sky-high living costs, and soaring interest rates, many of these beneficiaries are under immense financial pressure?
Does she stand by her answers to written questions that confirm that the debt owed by women on the domestic purposes benefit has increased from $67 million in 1995 to almost $120 million today, and what responsibility does she accept for the dire financial situation of these women?
Yes, I can confirm the answers to the written questions to which the member refers. I just want to compare percentages, because the member consistently puts in the wrong denominator and, therefore, gets the wrong percentage. Of total current clients’ debts—
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is quite irresponsible of the Minister to mislead the House and talk about percentages and to say that I am referring to percentages, when she knows that I am not. She should just stick to the truth.
Madam SPEAKERI think we will hear the Minister’s answer. As members well know they cannot require a particular answer to their question.
The current percentage owed by clients to Work and Income is 19.8 percent, and in 2000 it was 18.8 percent. So I would not get too upset about the accurate figures as opposed to the ones that that member makes up.
I seek leave to table the answers to questions for written answer Nos 17688, 17689, 17690, 17691, 17692, 17693, and 17699.