Logie Jan: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Logie Jan: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5522. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JAN LOGIE (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. It is with a degree of suppressed rage that I am standing now to speak to the first reading of this bill the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. [ 
Interruption 
] I know. I am holding it back but it is actually there. 
The Green Party will be voting against this bill because we believe that all New Zealanders deserve good lives and fair futures. We know that if we guarantee the essentials we guarantee the opportunities. Today I will focus on the values that have been spoken of around this bill particularly in relation to people who are unwell or have disabilities. My colleague Holly Walker will focus on the impacts for children. 
For me people in receipt of income support are not problems to be solved. They are not nameless shapeless bludgers costing our country money or causing their children to live in poverty. I have in front of me today as I speak to this bill the faces and the voices of hundreds of people—people who are struggling stressed and very worried about what is to come. Some of these people are receiving income support and some of them are family members trying to support a loved one who is receiving income support. 
Talking about beneficiaries as if they do not know what is good for them and as if they need incentivising to take care of themselves or their children misses their fundamental humanity. I will not deny that some people’s decision making may be impaired due to long-term poverty mental health issues addictions violence or even continual rejection. But that is true whether somebody is in employment or not. I do not see people on income support as fundamentally any different from me. I am angry about the hardship they are subjected to now and the likelihood that this bill will make things even worse for them. I am angry and I am worried. 
The Government has said it will be focusing on what people can do not what they cannot and will be transforming the Ministry of Social Development to provide much more support for people to get into employment thus radically improving their lives. The Minister has accused Auckland Action Against Poverty in its response to the bill of wanting to leave people stagnating on welfare. She suggested that those who oppose these reforms are patronising and stereotyping people by not believing they can work. She characterises those of us with concerns as wanting to solve problems by throwing money around. She told us that being on a benefit is unhealthy and today she quoted the evidence from a doctor who showed that every day on a benefit over 6 months is equal to smoking 200 cigarettes. 
You know it is a clever line and I do not deny they are clever. It positions the Government as ambitious and willing to break with tradition and treat people receiving welfare as capable rather than not—needing help rather than punishment. In other words the Government is progressive and it is taking on a major problem in our society. But there are many problems with this and I will talk to just seven in this speech. 
The first problem is that the Government is not treating people as capable. Focusing on capability is critically important. Unfortunately the Government is not doing that. If it thought people were capable it would not feel the need to incentivise job-seeking behaviours with sanctions. Sanctions are punishments for when people are not doing something right. 
The second problem is that it individualises social problems. By focusing on the individual again this whole model misses employer biases when it comes to employing people with mental or physical illnesses people with disabilities or even people who have a name that is not European. It is incredibly frustrating for me that while this Government focuses on creating these incentives for beneficiaries to work there are thousands of people desperate to work who are being denied these opportunities because the Government refuses to recognises the structural inequalities that are locking them out of employment. 
Recently I have been working with People First a wonderful self-advocacy organisation for people with learning disabilities people whom we previously probably talked about as people with intellectual disabilities. They are really worried that the Government is going to decide that they are not work-capable and leave them languishing without support on the supported living allowance. I was encouraged to hear that this allowance will encourage people into supported employment so that may go some way to countering their concerns. However I do not think most people realise that over 600 people in this country are earning less than $3 per hour because there is a minimum wage exemption for them and that requires them to stay on a benefit go to these appointments and work. There are fundamental injustices here. 
I have also spoken to many people within the disability sector about the discrimination they are facing in gaining employment. I would like now to share a story from Allyson Hamblett who is the chair of the CCS Disability Action local advisory committee in Auckland. To quote her—this is a long quote so try to hang in there—“I have spent about 15 years working on the not-for-profit governance boards starting when I was 17 years old at the Cerebral Palsy Society. My father commented once that all the work I do means the Government is getting my services really cheaply. The current Government policies however make me feel incredibly guilty that I have been unable to turn my contribution to society into something that can support me financially. I feel guilty because I know that I have enough intellect and function to get paid work but employers look at the way I walk and talk then freak. They need to see me at the LAC board table. They need to see me having meetings with the regional manager. They need to see the ideas that are generated by the Auckland LAC. They need to see me in the other advocacy roles that take up my time.” This bill does nothing to get Allyson paid employment. It reinforces her sense of guilt and the sense that she has the problem when it is our society that has the problem. 
The third problem with this bill is that there are many people who may not be in a place to work. I have suffered from depression and I know how bleak the world can seem from that place and how even the smallest demands can seem impossible and reinforce existing feelings of inadequacy. The Government’s new policy sounds to me like the legislative version of the “pull your socks up” approach to depression. This has never worked and it will not work because even with the fancy new language depression is fundamentally different from laziness. Of course it helps in recovery to have people supporting you and encouraging you to do things like get up and go outside but a Government institution cannot be that person. It has too much of a conflict of interest especially in a wider cost-saving culture. Also being that supportive person does mean that you need to recognise that the healing process is not linear. Sometimes it will be OK not to get out of bed and it will be OK not to go to work and that is an important part in the process of recovery. 
The fourth problem with this bill is that it is based on a model that has not worked in other places. This model in the UK has resulted in an increasing number of suicides of people with illnesses and disabilities. 
The fifth problem with this bill is that it takes away people’s control of their own health. To require people who are sick to engage in work readiness activities and to look for work assumes that they do not know what is best for them. It assumes that they would not do that when they were ready. It even seems to assume their doctor does not know either. This legislation will require people diagnosed with cancer to focus on what they are capable of in terms of employment rather than what they are not. This will change once they have been diagnosed as terminal admittedly. If they want to keep working or to look for work then great—I am not against that—but surely in a reasonable society we would let somebody battling cancer focus on that battle not siphon off their energies into proving their work readiness or availability. 
The sixth problem with this bill is that not all work is better for you. Despite the evidence that was quoted there is plenty of other evidence that says the contrary and to quote from just one section of research: “These findings underscore the importance to a person’s well-being. Rather than seeking any new job the study suggests people who are unemployed … should seek new positions that offer more security autonomy and reasonable workload.” This legislation proposes a 13-week stand-down loss of income for anyone who turns down what Work and Income defines as suitable but has no allowance for security autonomy and workload. This will have negative health consequences.