Ngaro Alfred: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ngaro Alfred: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8735. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill in its second reading. I do not want to be negative in my approach; in fact I want to be quite positive. So I will not be talking about Labour doing nothing to stop fraud abuse in the welfare system allowing it to go largely unchecked or fudging the welfare fraud data to hide the problem of welfare abuse. It even shifted beneficiaries between different types of benefit rather than stopping that and supporting them into work. Labour let the number of sickness beneficiaries increase from 33000 in 1999 to 46000 in June 2008 and the number on the invalids benefit increase from 53000 to 85000. I will not talk about those things because they are negative statistics. They are the results of a previous Government which said with all its intent that it was wanting to benefit the people of our communities. 
Instead I am going to talk about the purpose. We are investing in what people can do not in what they cannot do. This bill introduces new benefit categories. It ensures a work-focused system. It introduces new social obligations and provides benefit payments to be stopped for those who are running from the police. We are fixing the system and investing in people’s potential. The reforms we are making still hold on to the original intent of the purpose and principles and my colleague Melissa Lee spoke about the editorial in the  
Dominion Post. 
 It talked about the critics of this bill who either have been misled and are not reading the details or are misleading with untruths about the intent. 
The intent of these amendments is still true supposedly to the architects of the Social Security Act itself. If you read section 1A of the Social Security Act 1964 here is what the purpose says: “The purpose of this Act is to enable the provision of financial and other support as appropriate to help people to support themselves … to help people to find or retain paid employment;”. In the “Principles” of that Act: “Every person exercising or performing a function duty or power under this Act must have regard to the following general principles: (a) work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being:”. This is the intent of the amendments and the changes that we are making. 
I just want to address a couple of issues before I finish. There has been a lot of scaremongering about the sanctions that we are introducing. I wonder how many members on the other side—when was the last time they were actually in a Work and Income office? I visited the Mangere Work and Income office. I spoke with some of the staff there. I asked questions about this. We are not about just protecting policy for policy’s sake or for legislation and its changes; instead we want to know whether this is making a difference.  
I want to ask this question to the members over there on the other side. What happens in a Work and Income office when the bell is rung? What does that mean? I will tell you what that means. It means when the bell is rung that someone has been able to secure full-time employment. That is right. So the bell is ringing—[ 
Interruption 
] The bell is ringing Mr O’Connor. Why? Because a father who had been unemployed and on a benefit for 10 years finally found an opportunity for work and employment. The bell was rung. Why? [ 
Interruption 
] That is right Mr Prasad. Because a mother who had been on a domestic purposes benefit for 15 years found full-time employment. The bell was rung. Why? Because people found opportunity. The sanctions that people talk about are not the hardships that are being realised in the offices of Work and Income in the places of hardship that have been talked about. Instead people are realising that here are opportunities. Regarding work-test obligations there was a mother who said for the first time she was asked what it would look like if she could work. She said that she was afraid. The office staff took her through a process where not only did she gain confidence but the bell was rung for her. So what this bill is doing is ringing the bell for opportunity so that the very people we are talking about—those who are vulnerable—will realise their potential. Why? Because we are investing in what they can do not in what they cannot do. I support this bill.