King Annette: Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
King Annette: Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:665;Page:13147] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I will go back to the very first submission that was made several months ago to the Social Services Committee on the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill by the Legislation Advisory Committee of the Law Commission. Its job is to look at legislation and give advice to the Government. I have found in my experience that it gives extremely sound advice on legislation and most Governments listen to it. 
It said that the Social Security Act itself was the worst statute that it has ever seen and that this Parliament has seen. It said that it is a dog’s breakfast it is incomprehensible it has been amended close to 50 times it is a disgrace it needs to be repealed rather than revised and it is incumbent on Parliament to produce good-quality laws. I say to the Minister in the chair the Hon Paula Bennett that rather than put through the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill which is yet another series of amendments to the original Act she should take the opportunity to be the Minister that does a whole rewrite of the Social Security Act. It is a wonderful opportunity to work across Parliament to get agreement on what ought to be in a totally rewritten Act. 
I had that opportunity with the rewrite of the Policing Act. Over a 2-year period we were able with the help of the National Party in Opposition and the other political parties to rewrite the legislation in a way that we got agreement on every issue except one which was whether police officers could be local body candidates. With that one exception the entire bill which was 50 years old was rewritten by this Parliament with wide buy-in on the approach that we would take. 
I say to the Minister that this is a fantastic opportunity to rewrite the Social Security Act and for her to be the Minister that does that rather than bringing in more amendments to legislation that was described as a dog’s breakfast incomprehensible and a disgrace. There would be far more cooperation and agreement if such a process was put in place. We need to look at what ought to be part of modern legislation for the 21st century and ask what we are trying to achieve from social security legislation. I do not believe that any members of Parliament do not want us to have a good sound social security system for those who need it. That has been in place for many years—a social security system to support people when they need it. It has lots of patches in it lots of things that do not work well and lots of contradictions. Why not rewrite it? All this bill does is add a few more patches to this very tatty coat. I think that through these amendments the Minister is losing sight of what we have social security for. 
What is really sad about this legislation is that those who will suffer the most from it will be the children. I would like us to stop for a moment and think about where we put children in New Zealand in terms of legislation. I believe that the child of a beneficiary is just as important as any child I have had as my grandchildren as a child of a member of this Committee or as a child of any New Zealander. Those children are just as valuable. Those children deserve the same investment in their lives as we would want to see put into the lives of our children and our grandchildren. 
Tim Macindoe 
: That’s why this bill offers them more hope. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is why this bill is not right I say to the member for Hamilton West. It does not have the key elements that would support a child who is being raised in a sole parent family for example. 
What is needed? We need to ensure that the carers of the children have the opportunity to move into the workforce. What do they need to move into the workforce? They need education and training. One of the amendments that I have put forward amends new section 102 in clause 27 by adding subclause (2)(a) to treat education as if it were work. If people are getting training and education then it should be treated as if it were work because they are looking to move themselves from receiving the benefit to being able to support their family with an education. That is the first thing. 
If they have education and they need to be retrained then their retraining should be invested in. They should be told that they can start it quite early and we can help them train so that when they go into the workforce they have a job that supports their family. One of the problems when people are pushed into work at a low-paid job say for 15 hours a week is that they are not any better off. First of all at 15 hours a week they do not get the in-work tax credit. So if we are sending them back to work it should be for at least 20 hours because then they would be eligible for the in-work tax credit and there is a little more assistance for them. Helping them get training and education in order for them to get a job that will take them out of poverty and that will give them a career path would be one of the two key elements that could be put in place through legislation. 
The second element is strong parenting support. The Minister has been a parent on her own; many members in this House have identified themselves as sole parents and so was I. I was not a sole parent on a benefit; I was a sole parent working and raising a child on my own. I know how hard that is. I know how torn parents are when they are trying to go to their children’s sports games trying to do their job and trying to provide for them. Sole parents know they are it in the main for their children. I know how difficult that is so we need to have parenting support alongside them—parenting information and education. We are really bad with giving that support in New Zealand. In some countries parenting education is universally available to every parent in a whole variety of different ways. 
People need adequate income to raise children. We have seen some extremely sad stories appearing. I do not believe that people who write these stories are necessarily sympathetic to beneficiaries but they show that there are beneficiaries who have insufficient income to care for those children. 
When it comes to jobs I ask the Minister what she thinks about the refugee women who are on a sole benefit. I have a lot of them in my electorate. They have come from places like Somalia. They came because they were single women with children but no partner. They do not speak English. It is very hard to get a job. They will not move off the benefit in a hurry but when their child is 6 the pressure that goes on them if they have not got into the workforce is huge. They need a lot of support with income parenting and so on. 
The other thing that is needed is quality childcare. Do we want the children of beneficiaries to be put into low-quality childcare just so we can get the parents to work? Why should they not have access to high-quality childcare and after-school care when their children go to school? I ask members to look at this bill. They will see that the standards for out-of-school care are being reduced so that there only needs to be one person looking after children in out-of-school care. They can do it now in private homes. I thought we had tried to get away from that approach because it opens it up to all sorts of problems and the likelihood of abuse. Having high-quality out-of-school care is very much part of what should be provided. 
There needs to be flexibility. Sole parents want flexibility to care for their children and be with them after school. They want a job where they can have school holidays. Who will look after their children when they are on their own? They also need all those early intervention services. Those are just some examples of what would be put into good legislation if the Government truly wanted to move people from the benefit into long-term employment with the ability to take primary responsibility for themselves and their family. That is what a Government should put alongside sole parents in order for them to take that primary responsibility not this approach which has seen a cut to the training incentive allowance. A punitive approach will be put in place if people do not take up jobs. This approach does not provide enough in childcare; it does not give quality assistance to these people. It has more of a compulsory budgeting approach if they get themselves into trouble rather than working alongside them. I ask the Minister to take the opportunity to rewrite the Act and for her not to do any more of this piecemeal legislation change.