Fairbrother Russell: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9111] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 Is it not absolutely incredible to sit in this Chamber and see the Tories—knowing what the debate will be about; knowing they will have to meet a sturdy challenge when we are bringing the benefit system into the year 2007; and knowing they have all the time in world with Government-supplied computers to compute ones and twos—rise on their hind legs stand in the Chamber and make assertions? When challenged to provide the evidence they say: “Yes I can provide the evidence.” When asked what the number is they say: “Oh it’s about one or two.” We get prevarication evasion hedging and rhetoric and we go from hearing allegations that cannot be proven to grandiose statements that have no substance at all. 
Is it not ironic that the Tory party in this Chamber is saying there should not be some provision to help people who want to work and who can work back into work? Is it not absolutely ironic that the Tory party wants to encourage people to stay on benefits? 
Of course the last speaker Anne Tolley who represents East Coast is faced with percentages that are totally embarrassing to her own argument. There has been a 45 percent decrease in the number of unemployment beneficiaries in the East Coast in the 12 months to April 2007—a 45 percent decrease. Now that is a figure she could have looked up very easily on her computer or found in any other resource. She could have come to the Chamber with that figure and said: “We the Tory party which likes to encourage work independence self-motivation greed and great sums of money think we should celebrate the decrease in the number of people on the unemployment benefit. We think we should be talking about a 45 percent reduction as being something we can boast about.” But no National members cower in embarrassment because the policies of this Government to provide full employment are working so astoundingly well that they can meet that argument only with assertion prevarication and evasion. 
The simple truth is that if one can find an unemployed youth in Hawke’s Bay one is very lucky because in Napier there are just two of them. And they will not be in that position for very long because it is important that our youth get to work. The bill we are discussing today does just that. It changes the mindset demonstrated to us by the last speaker who whinged about someone who seems to have fallen through the cracks. That member has the expectation that people will forever be beneficiaries of the State rather than take advantage of the work opportunities available to them. 
The Social Security Amendment Bill is a bill for the year 2007. This bill will take us through this century starting with the high times of high employment. We will encourage people who have not previously had a mindset to work to get out and work. But the bill is not sanction-based as such; the whole work idea starts with a plan. It is a plan that is discussed with the person applying for a benefit. As soon as people walk into Work and Income for a benefit the director-general will immediately be able to say that suitable work is available for them right now that they can do. So without delay without prevarication and without finding excuses to avoid work a person who comes in for help from the State can be directed to a position of gainful and profitable employment. And who can be unhappy with that? Who indeed? 
This sort of philosophy was envisaged way back in 1972 by a royal commission in a breathtakingly large report—the Royal Commission on Social Security in New Zealand which examined in some detail the purposes of New Zealand’s statutory scheme for social security. It concluded at paragraph 3.42(f): “Social security cash benefits are only one aspect of the total problem in maintaining incomes and raising living standards.” The commission went on to refer to a number of factors such as taxation wages employment health housing and cultural policies. 
This Government is right on the ball as laid down by the royal commission. This is a Government that is attacking the need for employment. It is attacking health housing and cultural policies that have been inhibitions to full employment. So I find it exceedingly ironic—in fact if it were not so tragic it would be funny—that the Tory party is standing up and having to defend the idea of keeping people on a benefit in this year 2007.