Lole-Taylor Asenati: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lole-Taylor Asenati: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8733. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
: 
 We should measure welfare’s success by how many people leave welfare because they have secured employment not by how many are added because they see it as an easy way of living. Success in welfare is also dependent on paid employment or jobs being created for beneficiaries to undertake. More important these outcomes must be achieved without dictating to the good citizens of New Zealand how they should raise their children or that all childcare centres are better than good dedicated parents who passionately believe in quality home education that they themselves are more than capable of providing. 
 As a member of the Social Services Committee I know that Paula Bennett’s second phase of welfare reform seeks to alter categorical distinctions in the current benefit system and attach employment availability expectations upon those who receive a benefit. Currently we have seven categories that all beneficiaries fall under. The proposed changes reduce these categories to just three: one jobseeker support; two sole parent support; and three supported living payment. The three new categories are designed to reinforce the work focus slogan that is attached to these welfare changes which will ultimately affect any future eligibility criteria because there are strings attached to these three newly proposed categories. Guess what? It is work work and work. 
The Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill is designed to reinforce its primary focus of supporting beneficiaries to move into paid employment by introducing a suite of detailed rules for the new benefits that work collectively to create a much more active benefit system that encourages independence. New Zealand First supports this intention but New Zealand First challenges the Minister for Social Development and this Government to say how they can ensure that it is done fairly and properly. 
The new changes will not only seek to establish a work focus initiative within the benefit system but also include recipients who are either sick or disabled. There are absolutely no exemptions. But if the beneficiary is found to be unable to gain paid employment then they are afforded a delay in the work focus initiative. In addition payments will be temporarily stopped for beneficiaries who have arrest warrants that have been unresolved after 28 days of the incident. 
Furthermore beneficiaries are also expected to undergo drug tests in order to meet the requirements to partake in training programmes. New Zealand First supports this too. Anyone in this category should see this as a tool to help him or her to be detoxed from drugs or to kick the habit. After all at the end of his or her life they will never regret not having passed one more test not winning one more verdict or not closing one more deal. Drug testing is mandatory and failure to comply with the rules attracts penalties regarding benefit payments even though not all beneficiaries will be drug tested. As if there were no societal double standard about how beneficiaries are perceived this will create further inequality within our welfare system where some beneficiaries are targeted and others are not. This will become problematic in the future and foster greater disharmony for New Zealanders whether they receive a benefit or not. 
This may prove to be counterproductive if we examine the underlying intentions of the bill which aims to improve social and economic outcomes for all beneficiaries. It also intends to incorporate measures that protect the interests of children by encouraging parents to gain paid work and also increase their participation in programmes such as Well Child and early childhood education. Compulsory? I am sorry but that is not a good approach. 
New Zealand First supports the overall goal of the bill in assisting welfare-dependent individuals to gain paid employment. However we have reservations regarding job availability and the Government dictating how parents ought to raise their children. Our reservations are centred on practicality and how these changes will be administered. It has been established that the bill will adopt an active work-based approach but how will the Government roll out new welfare reforms that are attached to expectations of being available to work in regard to people who are on the invalids benefit or domestic purposes benefit for the care for the sick? 
The measures are drastic and forceful for New Zealanders who already have no choice and must do what they can with the variety of situations they must deal with on a day-to-day basis. Most beneficiaries already feel socially excluded. The proposed changes in this bill will further exacerbate inequality and expose beneficiaries to further scrutiny from the public and amongst themselves. 
With regard to drug testing of job seekers how is the Minister going to incorporate supportive measures to ensure that treatment is available? More important how will the Government determine who ought to be drug tested and who should not? That would require categorising beneficiaries with assumptions that they are all most likely taking drugs. It is highly counterproductive to be on drugs in the first place but how will job seekers be afforded a platform to attain paid employment when the Government is doing very little to assist them? We need to emphasise the importance of obtaining employment to those who pass the work test and receive offers of paid employment. We also need to emphasise our commitment to ensuring that beneficiaries stay off drugs by investing in initiatives that will help achieve this. Children will be better protected and have better chances in life if the Government is willing to invest more into helping beneficiaries who are on drugs to get off and stay off them. The way I see it is this: we are not simply investing in helping people to get off drugs; we are helping to secure a brighter future for the children who are affected and to improve their chances in life. Is that not worth fighting for? 
Mike Sabin 
: Yes. 
Le’aufa’amulia 
 ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: I am glad that you agree. Evidently the new approach is focused on getting beneficiaries off welfare and into paid employment but how many jobs is the Government going to create in order to accommodate requirements surrounding sole parents—for example that they work part-time when their youngest child is of school age and then full-time when their youngest child is 14 years? In what capacity will Work and Income assist in training and upskilling beneficiaries for “desirable” jobs? And how many resources are we going to roll out to complement these changes? 
One of the most crucial and problematic issues with the bill concerns the State trying to dictate to parents how they ought to parent. We never know the love of a parent till we become parents ourselves. This bill in theory means the State is forcing parents to put their children through early childhood education by the age of 3. This will not only impose rules on parents that will conflict with their freedom of choice but also separate parents from their children. I have gone through the submissions and an overwhelming majority of parents want to decide for themselves how they raise their children and when the appropriate time would be for them to be enrolled in early childhood education. This is a domain where the State needs to tread with caution because the backlash will only worsen the situation and the intentions of this bill. 
New Zealand First is committed to ensuring that people move from dependence on the State to a state of independence. We also believe that it is important for people to obtain and retain a sense of worth and self-esteem by making a contribution to their society. Can the Minister honestly say that she would be happy to clean toilets on the minimum wage with five children to feed because Work and Income is forcing her to accept paid employment? Can she honestly say that she would gain a sense of worth and self-esteem from being threatened with payment reduction or cancellation of benefit payments even though she would be contributing to society by cleaning up their waste? This will not only encourage people— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but her time has expired.