Sio William: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sio William: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8906. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Talofa lava Mr Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity. I want to make some remarks about the objectives of the bill the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill before I get on to Part 1 which is the substantive part of this particular bill. 
I am reminded of the building of a fale in Samoa. When you begin the building of the fale you have got to make sure that the posts of that fale are on a solid foundation and that they stand firm and straight. If they do not stand firm and straight what happens is the rest of the house is all over the place. I make reference to that because this bill here significantly changes the Social Security Act which we have had for quite a long time. The Government presented to the Social Services Committee the objectives of this bill which I will read out. It: “reduces benefit dependency: is work focused and [encourages] independence: supports an investment approach that focuses resources where they will be most effective:”—in reducing benefit dependency—“is able to work with a greater number of beneficiaries to support them into work: reinforces social norms and improves social outcomes through the introduction of social obligations for parents and encouraging beneficiaries with warrants to arrest to clear them.” 
On the surface of that those objectives seem—on the surface—to be OK. But when you really dig deep into them why is it that we are condemning those who are reliant and dependent on support? Why is that? Why is it that we are condemning mothers beneficiaries and those who are in unemployment through no fault of their own? When we consider this why should we not be considering that a child dependent on their mother is just as important? Why is it that we consider that the dependency of employers on our education system to provide a skilled workforce is OK yet we cannot accept the dependency of a solo mother who requires our collective support? Why is it OK for us to accept that businesses can depend on tax-funded roads for the distribution of their goods and services? Why is it that we cannot accept the fact that there is a group of people in our community who through no fault of their own end up being dependent on the collective support of the country because either they are unemployed they are sick their husband has left them or they are on their own because of death in the family? Why is it? Because of the flawed foundation of this bill—the flawed purpose—everything else is flawed as far as I am concerned. 
One cannot help—and this was raised by one of the submitters—but think that this second round of welfare reform is based in part on flawed United Kingdom laws. That raises more questions because not only does it look like New Zealand is about to repeat the mistakes of another country but the select committee considering the bill the Social Services Committee has been left in the dark over how the new rules for those currently on a sickness or invalids benefit will work. 
I want to draw your attention to the regulatory impact statement particularly with reference to children because at the end of the day many many submitters said that the group of people who will be detrimentally affected by this bill is children. At the end of the day when you sanction mothers when you sanction solo parents when you force them to work test who suffers? The submitters who came to the select committee said that it would be children. Here is what the regulatory impact statement said: “the home environment remains by far the most important domain for child development …”—by far the most important domain for child development. And here we have got clauses in this bill that say that a mother must find full-time work or part-time work. Therefore a mother is compelled to place a young child into long-term childcare facilities. And yet in the regulatory impact statement which was given to this Government it says that “by far the most important domain for child”—[ 
Bell rung 
] Mr Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call Su’a William Sio. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: Thank you very very much Mr Chair. What a wonderful Chair you are. It says that by far the home environment is the most important domain for child development. The regulatory impact statement then says that long-duration childcare from birth is harmful—long-duration childcare from birth is harmful. But this is what this bill is going to place a lot of children into because mums—solo parents—are going to be forced to place their children into long-duration childcare because of the work testing and the sanctions that are going to be imposed upon them. Long-duration childcare is required when a mother is required to work full-time or substantial part-time as is in the bill. 
Furthermore the regulatory impact statement says that the OECD found regarding child developmentthat “a return to work of the mother before the child is 6 months old may have more negative than positive effects.” on the development of that child. There is so much evidence—there is a huge body of evidence—that says that the most critical period in the child’s development is from birth to 7 years and I think that has not been given consideration by the Government in implementing this bill. 
I want to say that the submission from the public that stood out for me the most was from a solo mother by the name of Charlotte Murray who gave her own experience as a single mother with two children aged 2 years and 5 years. Her submission was that mothers with young children who are forced into work are going to be under extreme stress and they are going to pass that stress on and she submitted that in turn that is going to be harmful to the children. I do not know how the Minister and the members of her Government cannot really recognise that there is an issue here that has not yet been addressed. 
I want to also point to the fact that there were many submissions from the disability community. I want to quote what they said because it is more powerful in their words. Darren Kemp says that it is costly being disabled. It is costly living on a benefit. It is costlier living on a benefit when one is disabled and no one should be worse off than they already are. Darren Kemp says that his solution is job creation and job creation on a large scale not forcing sick people to look for jobs. He said that the Government bill should really be called the “Forcing the Sick and Solo Parents to Look for Work with No Support Bill.” 
I want to go on because I think it is important. Darren Kemp says there is a lot of anxiety for beneficiaries with neurological illnesses who get taken off the benefit and then put on again. He opposes these reforms because this is the practical implication he sees for people with neurological illnesses. The submission was that Work and Income case managers including receptionists require a major attitudinal change in order to support people with dual disorders and to stop the ignorance. The point he was making was that this was going to create havoc for people with disabilities and particularly so when even the managers and those who are dealing with them from Work and Income themselves have difficulty understanding the disabilities. So welfare changes will result in endless medical certificates and loads of paperwork by doctors with no knowledge of the impact it will have on people particularly on people with dual disorders. Many with dual disorders are denied Work and Income support to enable them to attend interviews and they said: “No interview no job.” This is another submission by Robin Williams. He said that more than 70 percent of patients with attention deficit disorder will have dual disorders. These disabilities are permanent; they remain for ever. Their point is that there is a high rate of unemployment for those with disorders. There is a high rate of unemployment for blind people. Blind people want to work but unemployment for blind people is at 60 percent.  
The point I am making is that people whether they are a solo parent whether they are unemployed or whether they have disabilities want to work but the foundation of this bill—