Social Development and Employment, Minister—Statements

Oh, so last year!

Hon Members

Oh, so retro!

I guess that is about one all, I would say.

Does she stand by her many statements that people who bring information to Opposition members of Parliament can expect her to provide information to “put a bit of balance around the story”?

I certainly did that in one incident, and, yes, I stand by what I said at that time.

Will she be asking her ministry to seek information on the woman who has come to the Opposition because she has been pursued and harassed by Work and Income to register as a job seeker, even though she is 78 years of age and the correspondence is being sent out by the senior services office of Work and Income?

To be fair, the Ministry of Social Development administers $20 billion, looks after 1.1 million people a year, and takes about 215,750 phone calls. It would be fair to say the ministry occasionally gets it wrong.

In light of information provided to the Opposition, what is the reason investigators from the Ministry of Social Development are sending letters to people unknown to them, asking them to provide information about their neighbours, and is Mr Peter Reedy from Hamilton, who has received such a letter, correct when he says: “It is an un-Kiwi thing to do. We do not live in Nazi Germany.”, and that he has no intention of spying on his neighbour?

Certainly, but we do live in a country where we want fairness in our benefit system, and we will be following up those who present with fraud and are fraudulently taking taxpayers’ money. We will be doing something about it, and that was not predominantly done under the previous Government.

Is she aware that there are many such cases being brought to MPs arising from her language and her zealous approach to beneficiaries, and that people, particularly those who have English as a second language, are scared to speak out, in fear of retaliation from her?

In the first year of my being Minister there was a 95 percent increase in correspondence to the office compared with what had been received in the previous 10 years. That represents people welcoming themselves to write, and that is people who are interested in what we are doing. [ Interruption] I could give the member the percentage of positives to negatives, if she likes, because people are loving this National Government.

Parata Hekia Parata Link to this

I am on my feet. I hope it was an interesting answer, because I could not hear one word of it.

Can the Minister explain what has happened with welfare dependency over the last decade?

Yes, I can. I will take just one number in particular, and look at the sickness benefit, for example, which grew by 51.6 percent. [ Interruption]

I apologise to the Minister, but a moment ago I made it clear that I could not hear the Minister’s previous answer. I need to be able to hear answers. I ask members, and on this occasion the Opposition front-benchers, to please be a little more reasonable with their interjections.

Mallard Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this

I fear that they are trying to drown me out when they do not like to hear the actual figures. The sickness benefit, which grew by 51.6 percent—

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a very simple point of order. You know, and I think the Minister knows, that she is not allowed to comment on your ruling. She just did.

That is correct. I ask the Hon Paula Bennett to please answer the question.

The sickness benefit grew by 51.6 percent. To put some real numbers under that, in the year 2000 we saw 33,560 people on it, and in 2008 we saw 50,896 on it. Under the previous Government, for 9 years we saw those core benefits growing, when supposedly that Government should have been doing something to bring the numbers down.

Does she believe that her “name and blame” approach that she has been taking to people on benefits will be reinforced by her inclusion of Peter Saunders, a so-called expert, on her Welfare Working Group—a man who has stated that there is a link between low average intelligence and a low-class position, and that low-income people are innately more stupid and more often end up on welfare—and does she believe that paying overseas extremists like Peter Saunders is good use of public money?

I make no bones about it that for years we have seen nothing done about long-term welfare dependency. It is complex, and it is hard, and there is no one answer for one person. We need many answers. We are stepping up. I back the Welfare Working Group to look at a range of initiatives and a range of decisions, and let us see where it ends up before we start rushing to those sorts of conclusions.

I seek leave to table two letters to a woman who is 78 years of age, telling her that she has to front up for work or training.