King Annette: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Annette: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 18 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:13246. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 The Minister for Social Development and Employment had an opportunity to rewrite the Social Security Act. She had the opportunity to do a full rewrite of an Act that was described to the Social Services Committee as the worst statute of this Parliament. The Act is a dog’s breakfast; it is incomprehensible. It has been amended close to 50 times and it is a disgrace. It needed to be repealed not revised with more patches put on it. 
But the Minister was not interested in a real change in social welfare policy. She wanted to pursue a political agenda and that is what she has done with this legislation which she calls a turning point for New Zealand. How can it be a turning point for New Zealand when at the same time she has a working party doing work on changes to social development for the future? Will that be a turning point as well—turning back and round and round in circles? It is just pure rhetoric. 
The Minister started the Committee stage on the original bill by saying the debate had been emotive with a lot of angst and scaremongering from the Opposition. Well I say to the Minister that I can only assume from those comments that she thinks those who made submissions on the original bill to the select committee were idiots because they did not understand the bill and they heard what the Opposition said about it. They were not idiots. They managed to read the bill. They managed to listen to what was said by the Government. They understood only too well what the bill meant. They were not idiots and they were not scared into putting in a submission. 
Our first clue that the Minister did not know anything about the strength of feeling about her legislation was when she made that comment at the beginning of the Committee stage. There were strong feelings in the Chamber. The bill was strongly opposed by Labour the Greens the Progressive Party and five of the six Maori Party members with only Tariana Turia voting with in the Government in a split vote from the Maori Party. The bill was supported by National backbenchers who sat like stunned mullets for most of the debate hardly able to get out of their seats to contribute to it. The real strength of feeling against this legislation is outside this Parliament from most of the submitters to the select committee. 
Do we all remember what John Key said about his Government? He said that his Government listens to the voices of New Zealand and values what the people of New Zealand tell it. The submitters to the bill overwhelmingly told the Government not to proceed with it. Were they listened to? They were treated as if they were idiots because they were stupid enough to make a submission against the Minister’s excellent bill. 
The submitters came from front-line organisations church groups and Government organisations and they came as individuals. Opposition came from newspaper editorials cartoons commentators and opinion pieces. Organisations such as the Law Society called the bill discriminatory. Why? Because it discriminates against men. Under this legislation a widower will be work tested but a widow will not. No reason is given for the difference other than that the Government believes that is what the people of New Zealand want. What century does the Government live in? We do not believe in discrimination against men or women. 
The Attorney-General said the legislation is discriminatory. Why did he say that? He said that because it discriminates between men and women. It discriminates between women who are widows and sole parent women. That is why it is discriminatory. 
Carol Beaumont 
: That is discriminatory. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is; it is disgraceful. 
The legislation was not fixed when we had the chance to fix it here in the Chamber. It was not fixed on the basis of the weight of submissions that were given to the select committee. Then there were the submissions themselves. Many of those submissions came from organisations we greatly admire and whose work on the front line is so important to the social fabric of New Zealand. We ask them to do a lot of our “hard lifting” when it comes to people who are in need. So when we hear from the Salvation Army an organisation I have a lot of respect for we usually open our ears and listen. 
The Salvation Army said that under this legislation the care of children will suffer. When the Minister spoke she said a lot about the idea that work was the way out of the problem that people on benefits have. She spoke about an unrelenting focus on work. But does she believe that caring for children is work? Does she believe that bringing up a child in the best possible way one can with the best care one can provide is work? Is that useful work? Does that contribute to New Zealand society? Well in my view it does. In my view the heroes are the people who are good parents looking after their children and making sure they contribute to society. Did we hear the Minister once mention children? This bill is about children and the care of children because the people most affected by this bill are those on a sole parent benefit. That is who is affected. She is not listening now and she did not listen then. 
The Salvation Army said that populism is not an appropriate basis for making policy. The Salvation Army who should know said that this bill may cause even more poverty in New Zealand and it is estimated by Massey University by Mike O’Brien who submitted to the select committee that poverty under this legislation will increase by between 14 and 17 percent. Who will be hurt by that? The children of those parents on benefits will be hurt. 
Why can we not get it into our heads that the best investment we can make in this country is an investment in everybody’s children—not just the children of the good; not just those who have husbands and wives and a nice little home. Good on them but do we not care about all children in this country? Do we not believe that all children should get a good start in this country including the children of beneficiaries? 
Wellington Women’s Refuge submitted to us and said that this bill may force women to stay in violent relationships and that the Government was only paying lip-service to violence against women. There was also a submission from Presbyterian Support and there would not be any members in this House if they are doing their job who have not dealt with Presbyterian Support. It said the bill sends a signal that paid employment is far more important than caring for children. It said that children will be disadvantaged by this legislation. 
The New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services said that research was needed. It said that the bill is not based on any research or evidence. The Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner Judy McGregor came to the select committee and provided some evidence from her project focusing on work which took her to 16 regions of New Zealand where she interviewed 300 employers. They said that it was the lack of jobs that is the critical component as to why people are not working. Overwhelmingly she said people want to get back to work but there is none available. For example 2700 people applied for 150 supermarket jobs. There are 159000 people in New Zealand out of work and another 19000 have been added in the last month. 
Unemployment went down when there were good times. The number of people on benefits went down in good times. The number of people on the domestic purposes benefit went down when there were jobs and Working for Families. That is the key to ensuring that people get a job. Alongside that we need to provide the support to enable them to do that. We have to have good childcare. We have to have good parenting help and support. We have to have early intervention and adequate income. We have to ensure that people have the ability to get the tools and the strength to go out and get a job not a job that leaves them in a poverty trap but one that takes them and their family somewhere in the future because they have education and training behind them. 
I ask why we should not treat education the same as work. I asked the Minister to do that. I put up a number of amendments to improve this bill but every one of them was voted against. This legislation will not do what the Minister said it will do. It will not improve the lot of people on benefits in New Zealand.