Bradford Sue: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bradford Sue: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10050] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The title of this bill reflects once again the morass that is the Social Security Act 1964 as amended once again. Various parts of this Act have been amended literally dozens of times since 1994—54 times at my last count which may well be an underestimate. It is way past time that this antique mosaic of fragmented law change was thrown out and a new Social Security Act written. Rather than amending it piece by piece we should be starting again with a comprehensive law based on principles of simplicity equity and sufficiency. All the brave talk of the universal core benefit starting in 2000 led some of us to believe that we might conceivably see such a new streamlined Social Security bill by 2007 or 2008 but it is manifestly not to be and random amendments like the one we have before us today continue. 
I feel that this particular rendition deserves its own unique title not the ubiquitous Social Security Amendment Bill which has as usual been applied. Given the new direction in which the Government is now sending the welfare system perhaps this little number could be more rightfully called the “Work First Welfare Last Bill”. After all this is the overarching tenor of the changes contained in the purposes and principles provisions. As I have pointed out in earlier debates on this bill although there are good features to this legislation and I do not want to disrespect them—for example the reduction in the length of the stand-down period and some beneficial changes to the domestic purposes benefit—there is an underpinning problem with the new interpretation of welfare provided in clause 23. As Louise Humpage and Susan St John said in an article in the  
New Zealand Herald  
last week this bill “wipes away any notion that our social security system is about ensuring everyone can participate as citizens.” 
Getting as many beneficiaries as possible into the paid workforce as quickly as possible now appears to be the primary purpose of the welfare system which is a long way from the original 1938 Act and from the recommendations of the two royal commissions on social security in 1972 and 1988. This new direction for welfare means that people with long-term and major injuries illnesses and disabilities will be subject to the same planning for employment requirements as are sole parents as will their spouses or partners even when they are in a primary-carer role. The problem with this is not that these people now have access to employment services—I think that is great and I welcome this change in approach by the department—but that the overall sense is that the only kind of work that is valued by this society is paid work not for example the work of caring for children if the person is the primary carer of those children. 
Even worse should a more conservative Government come to power this bill ironically promoted by a Labour-led Government will make it very easy for a Government to introduce and implement things like forced work for the dole not only for unemployed people but also for those on the domestic purposes benefit invalids benefit and sickness and emergency benefits. If that is not a policy of the National Party I would really welcome clarification from National members at any time as to what their welfare policy is. 
Work first and welfare as a last resort is where this bill takes our social security system which is why a title along those lines would be more appropriate. The Green Party will continue to oppose this bill not because we do not support some of its more beneficial changes but because its overarching purpose is to take our welfare system in a direction over time that is likely to become more and more harmful to those most affected especially if and when we again enter a major recession.