Turei Metiria: Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill — Second Reading 
Turei Metiria: Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:13072] 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I have a sense of déjà vu about this Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill which the National majority on the Social Services Committee has reported back to the House with virtually no significant changes despite overwhelming opposition from the submitters. I think that only four of the 70-odd submitters supported this legislation. 
Hon Member 
: Four? 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Only four. All the experts involved in social policy development for the last 20 or 30 years have opposed this legislation with some going as far as saying that it should be thrown out. It was not even remedial; there was nothing we could do to make it fair just or appropriate for the needs of sole parents in particular and their children. 
Before I continue with our concerns about the bill I will acknowledge the work of the officials. It was a very difficult and fractious select committee process because these issues are very significant. They are about whether we treat children and their families with respect. The officials have to pursue Government policy. If Government policy is cruel and degrading then the officials have no choice but to be part of the development of cruel and degrading legislation which this bill is. 
Back in 1991 I was very active in the National Unemployed and Beneficiary Movement. I witnessed firsthand the effects of those twin attacks. I suffered as a person on the dole and later as a sole parent with a small child on the domestic purposes benefit. The previous National Government’s 1991 benefit cuts and the Employment Contracts Act came into effect at the same time. Those measures heralded 10 very long years of low economic growth high unemployment downward pressure on real wages and employment conditions and poverty—severe poverty—for anyone unfortunate enough to be on a benefit or a low income. 
Here we see National which claims to aspire to closing the wage gap with Australia doing exactly what the Australians have just confessed was a failed policy. National is attacking workers’ rights with measures such as this bill and the precise opposite of what it claims it wants to do will occur. This legislation will not close the wage gap with Australia; it will make it much much worse. Not only that it will increase further the gap between rich and poor in this country to an even more unacceptable level. 
I challenge the Minister for Social Development and Employment to tell the House why the Government is forcing tens of thousands of beneficiaries—many of them will have limited skills and a marginal capacity to work because of their illness or disability or they will be parents who want to be good parents and care for their children—into a labour market that cannot provide them with work. This bill will do nothing for those people. It is simply a matter of supply and demand: if more people are competing for the same number of jobs then real wages for everyone will go down not up. If the trend of recent employment rates revealed today in the June household labour force survey continues then we will have even more people competing for fewer jobs which will create even greater downward pressure on wages. 
This bill is a driver of poverty. This bill is a driver of low wages. This bill is a driver of child neglect. That is what this legislation does under Minister Paula Bennett. Policies such as these were a large part of the cause of the wage gap with Australia blowing out under the previous National Government. With bizarre back-to-the-future reasoning National is claiming that even though this plan failed and increased the wage gap in the 1990s somehow it can close the wage gap with exactly the same plan now. We know that this is ideological faith-based legislation. There is no evidence—no evidence—that any measures in this bill will achieve the outcomes— 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Faith-based ha ha! 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Faith-based legislation is what it is. There is no evidence that it will do anything. We will look at the Australian example in a moment. 
I want to make the point that motherhood is a job. Motherhood is a highly valuable significant job that is never given the credit it deserves. The women and the men—the mothers and fathers—who are sole parents who are out there caring for and raising their children are doing an incredible job. What they do not need from anyone is the disrespect and disgraceful disregard that this legislation and this Government is showing them. Parents need support to continue the most essential job of raising our children to be productive and happy citizens of this country. That will happen only if they are treated like respected citizens of this country. This legislation does not do that. 
We in the Green Party do not agree with the “work first” ideology that says that any paid work no matter how menial it is or how lowly the pay rates and conditions are is better than no paid work at all. In fact we know that a significant contribution is made by those who are on benefits and who cannot work because of their circumstances. They make a huge contribution to volunteer labour in this country and that adds enormous value to the services that provide support for the people who need it. That is being attacked in this legislation as well. 
The punitive approach in this bill particularly towards domestic purposes beneficiaries coupled with the abolition of the training incentive allowance for tertiary education risks parents being moved off benefits and into low-paid temporary or casual work. The result will be an increase in labour market churn which will be exacerbated by the extension of the 90-day fire-at-will law. That will make it worse and make it even more insecure for families who need a much more secure base. As a consequence there will be significant negative implications for workforce productivity and wages. 
Parents are the best-qualified people to make decisions about what is best for their children and about how they should balance their childcare responsibilities. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Ha ha! 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Paula Bennett laughs at the idea that parents are the best-qualified people to make these decisions. So much for the nanny State accusations made by National! Paula Bennett does not think that parents are the best people to decide. Paula Bennett says that she is the best person to decide. She knows what children need. She knows what solo parents should be doing. She knows what those children need in their childcare and how they should be raised so she will force their parents out to work knowing that if they cannot find work and if their case manager is not supportive then those beneficiaries could lose half of their benefit. A beneficiary’s children— 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: But she won’t support them to study. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: She will not even support beneficiaries into study which in a recession is the most practical new thing that we can do. For people who have low qualifications in a very poor job market with high unemployment we should be supporting them into study. But not this Minister. This Minister will use punitive measures to attack their children and drive those families further into poverty. 
There are significant child welfare concerns about children being left at home alone if sole parents are forced against their better judgment to go out to work. Those risks to child welfare were identified in 2002 in the evaluation of the 1999 welfare reforms. That was the last time we applied work testing to sole parents. The 2002 evaluation clearly showed that there was a serious issue and that further work needed to be done on child welfare if that programme was to continue but there has been no further research. There is a very serious concern that the Government is undertaking these measures knowing that there is no evidence to show that it will achieve its objective. No evidence or work has been done to ensure that there will not be serious child welfare issues if sole parents are forced to go out to work. 
Leaving children at home alone is a form of child abuse; this is structural child abuse in my view. What will happen with those families and those children? The Minister can frown and shake her head but she knows as well as I do how difficult it is for sole parents to be able to take good care of their kids. Other members in this Chamber also understand very clearly what that life is like and know of the efforts that sole parents go to in order to make sure they can raise their kids well and take care of them. When sole parents need social support they go to the Government and ask for it and they get it. They get it they deserve it and they are entitled to it because it helps them to raise their kids well. But this Government will make that virtually impossible for those people—virtually impossible for those people. 
We know that this policy has failed in Australia. In fact just this year Australia relaxed its work-testing regime for sole parents to make sure that part-time study and volunteer work are also part of the package for social assistance. It is not just paid work in that package as this Minister is imposing here. Not only is there no evidence that these proposals will work but also where similar proposals have been put in place elsewhere there is evidence that they have failed. Everywhere else in the world is backtracking from these sorts of proposals. The issue is that if we guarantee the essentials then we can guarantee the opportunities for beneficiaries and their families.