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:13160] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I would like to respond to some of the comments and contributions made by the backbench members of the Government such as they have been. I feel that the National backbench members are being very much treated like mushrooms. They have been kept in the dark and fed a lot of manure. When we listen to the contributions of some of those members we realise that they know very little about this bill. 
Let me start with Tim Macindoe who made a very impassioned speech before dinner. He said that the Labour Party did not understand this bill and that this bill would give beneficiaries in New Zealand great hope and great aspirations. From this little bill they will get such great hope and great aspirations. But I want to know how. How will they get this great hope and great aspirations? How does this bill give a beneficiary a job? That is what Mr Macindoe said—that this bill will give them a job. What job I ask Mr Macindoe comes out of this bill? 
If National backbench members believe that we create jobs by passing some amendments to legislation that has been described by the Legislation Advisory Committee as a disgrace because it has had over 50 amendments to it already then they have strange beliefs about job creation. There has to be a plan for job creation and there has to be a plan for the economy. I notice that National got a plan on Saturday. John Key put out his quick six-point plan. It was so recently written that the date on it was 1 August. This plan had nothing about how the Government was going to create jobs. So how will these poor beneficiaries get great hope and great aspirations out of this legislation? 
The key to moving people off any benefit is to have jobs for them to go to. We have heard from all around New Zealand—from the provinces from the far north to the south—that there are no jobs for people to walk into. Beneficiaries will not have this great hope and this great aspiration because there are no jobs for them. So what is this bill all about? It is supposed to be about the principles of fairness and an unrelenting focus on work. Well as I have just told the Government there is no good in having an unrelenting focus on work when by the Minister’s own comments we have a real shortage of jobs. 
There are around 68000 unemployed people and young people—people under 25—cannot get a job. There are around 60000 people on the unemployment benefit who cannot get a job. But we know they will work if there are jobs out there. We cannot believe the idea that there is an unrelenting focus on jobs because there is no plan for jobs there is nothing happening for jobs and there is one silly little bill that talks about it. 
The next issue is around fairness. I point out to the Minister the submission that came from the Law Society. I do not believe that the Law Society is an organisation that makes submissions to bills lightly but it made a submission on this bill. The Law Society opposed this bill because it is not fair. It is not fair because it discriminates—that is what the society said. 
Amy Adams 
: They didn’t like the Electoral Finance Act either but that didn’t stop you. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I say to the member for Ashburton or whatever it is called that the bill discriminates against men and that is the point that the Law Society made. This bill discriminates—[ 
Interruption 
] Well she is very like the former member there. She is very keen on having some very hard legislation for beneficiaries. 
I believe that Amy Adams is a lawyer so she might be interested in the Law Society’s submission. The society said that this bill discriminates against men. Does the member believe it discriminates against men? Well the Social Services Committee did the submissioners did the Human Rights Commission did the Law Society did and—can we believe this—the Attorney-General did. The Attorney-General one of National’s own Ministers also said that the bill discriminates. He said it discriminates against men because under the work test in the bill a widower can be work tested but a widow will not be. The Law Society said that that is discrimination. 
Why would we bring in a work test that discriminates against one sector of society in such a blatant and obvious way? The Minister’s answer was honest. She said that it was the National Government’s decision. There was no rationale no reasoning no evidence no research and no science behind the decision. It was just something the National Government wanted to do and then its members argued that New Zealanders would understand. Well this is the 21st century and we believe that men and women are pretty much equal. We on this side of the Chamber believe that if the Government is bringing in a bill it should at least not discriminate on gender—because it discriminates in lots of other ways as well. The bill also discriminates against single women. That is what the Law Society said; it discriminates against single women. 
This bill has been panned by the organisations that we would normally listen to. They say it is not a fair bill. Then we had comments from the Minister herself. She said that this was a rather emotive debate. I have to tell the Minister that there are some very very strong feelings out there in the community about the way this Government is treating beneficiaries. It started with the Minister’s own attitude towards sole parents. She thought fit to release personal information to teach them a lesson for speaking up. That is why she released the information. They knew they were up against a Minister and a Government that had it in for beneficiaries. So when the Minister says it is an emotive debate I tell her to read some of the stories that are coming out in newspapers around New Zealand—some of them very sad—about the way beneficiaries are treated and how they believe they will be treated. 
The Minister also left us rather confused as to what the bill does. She said—and she has made many speeches saying this—that the bill will have an unrelenting focus on jobs. She has said that the Government will end the dream for beneficiaries and give them a kick in the backside. Then today in her first contribution she said that actually the bill will not do that at all. She said people will not be made to work. Does the Minister know that at this very moment—and I can provide the information for her if she wishes—New Zealanders who are on the invalids benefit are being assessed by her department and put on the sickness benefit? 
A person has to be pretty ill to get onto the invalids benefit. That person has to be unable to work long term. Those New Zealanders who are on the invalids benefit are being assessed and put on the sickness benefit. Then what happens to them under this bill? They can be work tested. Under this bill people on the invalids benefit are not being work tested; only sickness beneficiaries are. By moving beneficiaries off the invalids benefit and putting them on the sickness benefit the department can now say that they are fit to work. We are talking about people who have long-term chronic mental illness. We are talking about people who have intellectual disabilities. We are talking about people who have been on the invalids benefit for quite a number of years and are likely to always be on the invalids benefit. 
The Prime Minister made a speech—he put out a press statement—and said that this Government will not make anybody work who does not want to work. He put out a statement saying that. I believe that most New Zealanders want to work when they have the opportunity to do so but if the plan is to remove some of those people who are on the invalids benefit and put them on to the sickness benefit for the purpose of then saying they are fit to do part-time work then I believe the Government should be honest about it. The Government should tell the people of New Zealand what it is doing. 
I would like to comment just briefly on Mr Garrett’s contribution to this bill. He took an even-handed approach but I was quite interested in his story about the woman who had in vitro fertilisation and was going to go on the domestic purposes benefit. Something about that story does not quite add up. There are a number of criteria around receiving in vitro fertilisation including the woman’s relationship. If it was not done by the State then she paid for it. If she paid for the in vitro fertilisation treatment then obviously she has some money. She does not represent the people we are talking about who are on the benefit. I do not know many people who have had enough money to pay for in vitro fertilisation get themselves pregnant and then say they are going on the domestic purposes benefit. Most people who end up on the domestic purposes benefit come out of broken relationships and broken marriages.