Fairbrother Russell: Social Security Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Social Security Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8942] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 Before attacking some of that submission from the previous speaker Judith Collins which was incredibly unrelated to the Social Security Amendment Bill—and it would have helped if she had had notes because she would have at least remembered the name of the bill—I want to pick up on a point made by the Associate Minister Mahara Okeroa who was the speaker before last. 
He spoke about the impossibility of determining which is the appropriate benefit at the time of application and how this new bill codifies and enables benefits to be readjusted retrospectively. That is one of the significant areas of change. I want to deal with the second significant area of change. It was recommended by the Social Services Committee; it was supported at that committee by the previous speaker because the committee voted unanimously for this amendment. The second— 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When we voted on that matter it was on the basis of the bill being sent back to the House as that member knows. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That was not a point of order. Thank you. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: As I was saying that change was supported by the previous speaker in the select committee; she voted in favour of the matter as the record shows there was a unanimous vote. I am not sure but perhaps the member was doing her hair at the time; certainly there was a unanimous vote by all the members paying attention in the committee. That second significant area of change that was recommended by the select committee relates to “activity in the community”. The previous speaker of course revealed her total ignorance of the change in the bill because she could not even pronounce the phrase “activity in the community”. It is a pity she could not do so because it is defined for her in clause 4. 
What is the change in respect of “activity in the community”? Let me make it very clear that “activity in the community” is a unique programme. It is a discrete programme. It is a label rather than a generic description. The programme is provided under contract to the Ministry of Social Development. “Activity in the community” is not as some people think and as demonstrated by the last speaker—if only she would think we would be far better off but assuming she does think she demonstrates the misunderstanding—participation in any community-based activity or voluntary work. It is not participation in any activity or voluntary work. Although the “activity in the community” option will no longer be available for people on the unemployment benefit it will become available for people on other benefits. Work experience and training programmes will still be available to people on the unemployment benefit. 
The changes voted for by Ms Collins and the National Party and brought forward by this Government make clear that people cannot be required to participate in “activity in the community”. If it is included in a person’s plan that person cannot be sanctioned for not participating in that particular activity. Of course the logic to that is quite clear because “activity in the community” is not related to work; it is for those beneficiaries who are unable to work. 
The question has been asked—and I have just tried to answer it—as to why the “activity in the community” option would not be available for people on the independent youth benefit. Well as I have just explained there is a very good reason for this as well. It is not appropriate to tie young people for up to 26 weeks into such a programme when they could be better off engaged in education and training opportunities or actively seeking work. I ask members to tell me what is wrong with that. What is wrong with having our young people actively seeking work? What is more there is work for them for the first time in many many years. 
The bill is not just about planning and activities although that is a major part of the bill. As well as planning and activities this bill introduces a number of other changes that are designed to make access to assistance easier and to modernise some of the provisions so that they reflect the reality of today’s society—of New Zealand in 2007 of New Zealand with a near full employment rate. I will give some examples of what the bill proposes to do. I have time to give only some examples; I could spend the rest of the evening outlining the broad ones but I will concentrate on just a few. 
The bill reduces the maximum stand-down time from 10 weeks down to 2 weeks. Who could complain about that? Judith Collins did. It rationalises the period of residency to 2 years for all benefits. Who could complain about that? Judith Collins did. It removes the qualifying child criterion for the domestic purposes benefit and widows benefit. Who could complain about that? Judith Collins did. It extends the definition of hospital care to include residential care of other kinds. Who could complain about that? Judith Collins did. It introduces a correction power so that a benefit can commence earlier than the date of application if the application was not made because of an error on the part of the ministry. Who could complain about that? Judith Collins can. It inserts new purpose and principle provisions in the Act and these purpose and principle provisions are fundamental in a day when we have near full employment and such a stable economy that people are investing in manufacturing and productive industries and people are being encouraged to boost the manufacturing sector. 
I have just outlined some of the benefits this bill introduces. The Working New Zealand programme reiterates as a key principle the long-held Labour view that people who for whatever reason are unable to work will be supported whilst assistance will be provided to those people who are able to work. This is the central thesis of the bill which was unanimously supported in the select committee according to the vote. I must say that the Green Party having supported it then expressed a reservation—and it is the only party on record as doing so. 
I repeat this fundamental thesis which is the key to Work and Income and social security benefits in the year 2007: those who are able to work will get assistance to work; those who are able to work will be helped into employment by planning and other forms of assistance; the ability to work will be determined not by the benefit received but by the situation of the individual; and those who are unable to work because of either illness or disability will not be required to go on to the work focus programmes. They will look at other options that are voluntary such as “activity in the community” which will add to their wellness and to their sense of person and sense of belonging in the community. But because that is without sanction it is there merely to aid their contribution as worthwhile human beings. So the key thesis of this bill—and the reason why it was supported I suspect by the National Party in the select committee—is that the bill for the first time in New Zealand determines that people will receive support to get into the workplace according to not the benefit they receive but their individual personal circumstances. 
This is a major bill. It is a bill that has been very well drafted. Many many submissions were heard. The committee was aided by very good advisers who deleted from the draft bill some of the clauses that needed further consideration. But those clauses that are clear have come forward in the bill that is now before the House for this reading. 
The philosophy of New Zealanders is that those who can work should work. There is absolutely no reason why anybody in this country in 2007 who is capable of working should be excluded from the workforce or be left out and this bill makes sure that nobody is left out. If people need assistance to become work capable even though they are able to work they will get that assistance but again the dividing line is not benefit-related. Those few individuals whose personal circumstances are such through tragedy disability and illness that they cannot reasonably undertake work will be under no pressure to do so. But community-based activities such as “activity in the community” will be available to them so that they have a sense of belonging because there is an old saying that before we receive we must first give. Every New Zealander appreciates the importance of that saying. So those who cannot because of their circumstances work—whether it be through ill health a disability or the like—can still contribute in a meaningful way through this bill but it is without sanction. It is without sanction. If the effort to contribute does not work out as those people had hoped then that disappointment does not attract official sanction. 
That is the exciting aspect of this bill. It is not a bill that isolates one based on the benefit one receives; it is a bill that defines help by one’s ability to contribute. I commend this bill to the House.