Lole-Taylor Asenati: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLole-Taylor Asenati: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9183. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First): Talofa lava. Allow me to say to Melissa Lee the previous speaker that there is a saying that to one without faith no explanation is possible—no explanation is possible. I also want to acknowledge SamLotu-Iiga. Tonight he quoted Margaret Thatcher. Can I also remind Peseta that Margaret Thatcher also said that if you want something said ask a man; if you want something done ask a woman. [Interruption] Ha ha! But first of all allow me to say to the Minister for Social Development tonight happy birthday Hon Paula Bennett. I think it is better that we start off by wishing you many happy returns for tonight.However I wondered whether the Minister would know one famous leader who actually said: “Let me tell you something that we Israelis have against Moses. He took us 40 years through the desert in order to bring us to the one spot in the Middle East where there is no oil!”—no oil. This bill the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill reminds me of that. This bill has been introduced for the sake of being seen to be doing something. That is what this bill reminds me of. The Minister is taking New Zealand beneficiaries and ordinary New Zealanders on a fantasy job recruitment where there are no jobs—there are no jobs. This bill is now in its third reading and New Zealand First has not changed its stance. I want to acknowledge all the submitters because we worked really hard in the Social Services Committee to try to make some changes to this bill. New Zealand First has raised a lot of concerns about this bill and it would not surprise me that later on down the track we will be back in the House trying to provide remedial reforms to the unintended or unforeseen circumstances that this bill will create.If I might say so it is troubling that this Government is willing to push through a policy that will create more social harm than social good. The Minister responsible for this bill needs to front up to all New Zealand families out there who will be targeted and unfairly mistreated because of the underlying assumptions and perceptions that pertain to this bill. Is the honourable Minister prepared to take responsibility and accountability for what she has put forward if it all falls apart? Is she? Is she really? Or will she push the blame elsewhere and try to position herself under the National safety net where its Ministers just get a slap on the wrist?This bill as is will be detrimental to the well-being and welfare of innocent beneficiaries. Innocent beneficiaries should receive social security for the right reasons when the need arises. These are real people. These are real New Zealanders. These are real ordinary people with real problems that the Minister has probably forgotten about since she received her last benefit payment. Drug testing beneficiaries in order to get them into paid work is something that needs to be introduced in this country but it needs to be administered correctly.The Government states that it is adopting an investment approach to social security. We all like the sound of that. The public’s expectation of any Government is to do this. I acknowledge that the honourable Minister’s dream is to invest our taxpayers’ hard-earned money in a policy that would revamp and revitalise our economy—and New Zealand First shares the same vision if it means that there will be more jobs—and to ensure that beneficiaries are able to attain the skills and relevant training so that they may prosper in that well-invested economy. No one would think that this is too much to ask; I cannot see why though. However the Government needs to prioritise its commitments properly to ensure that New Zealanders are being treated fairly and justly. It is also equally important that taxpayers’ money is being used in the most cost-effective way possible because that would make it an investment approach.The cost of drug testing beneficiaries could potentially surpass $14 million a year. Well that is according to the chief executive officer of the Early Childhood Council. Maybe this is why the Government intends to test only beneficiaries who are considered to be “at risk”. How it intends to determine who will be in this category can only lead us to assume that racial profiling will definitely be utilised in the process. Inevitably this will create further disharmony within society and will develop certain perceptions thatsome people have regarding Māori and Pacific families who are receiving social security.One of the other main concerns that we have raised in the first and second readings is about the social obligations regarding dependent children. This Government cannot be serious about taking away the rights of parents to raise their children in the way they see fit. In the very early stages any child needs to be around their parents and for goodness’ sake not all parents who receive social security are bad parents nor do they lounge around all day taking drugs. It is impossible to expect them to all be in such circumstances.New Zealand First’s principles clearly outline that money spent on education will be treated as an investment not as expenditure. Educational achievement is both in the national interest and in the individual’s interest. Educational investment is critical for economic and social recovery. So surely the National Government would accept that this is a common-sense principle and one that it should support. Home education is the ultimate investment in education as the parent retains full control of a child’s education. The social obligations of this bill will deny beneficiary families this option at both school level and preschool level.Although many of those who have contacted us share our view wholeheartedly they agree with the need for welfare reform. But New Zealand First completely disagrees with having any restrictions on parental freedom to act in the best interests of children particularly their health and education needs. Parents will not be free to meet the health and education needs of their children under the provision of the social obligations and sanctions in this bill. I am a mother of three children and I know that the first 2 to 4 years of my children’s lives were the most important time when my children learnt specific ethics manners knowledge of their environment and those innate abilities to be nurtured. They learn those values and develop their innate abilities that cannot be taught at school or in early childhood education. Often it is the mother or father who would help nurture their children’s innate abilities at this early stage. We may be having problems with education or underachievement amongst our young children but it is also punitive to enforce such policy.This bill is not a scenario this Government wants to espouse. Unfortunately this is what will happen if this bill continues and is passed in this House. There are other more effective alternatives that would fulfil this Government’s investment approach more appropriately. It is about being tough but fair. It is about reinforcing the egalitarian values that underpin our democracy with people’s basic human rights. These basic human rights lead to self-determination. The people of New Zealand deserve better than what this Government is giving them. Thank you.