King Annette: Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill — First Reading 
King Annette: Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9906] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the first reading of the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill. The policy this bill will implement is to give beneficiaries a kick in the backside. The policy this bill will implement is to tell beneficiaries the dream is over. The dream is over; the dream the Minister for Social Development and Employment herself took when she was in the position to take it; the dream she took so that she could get ahead and get a job and bring up her family; and the dream she would like to deny to others. Well I say to her that I have never heard a beneficiary tell me that living on the benefit is a dream. 
We have just heard nothing but pure spin from that Minister—pure spin. She said that in the time of the previous Labour Government we did nothing about beneficiaries unemployment or the whole benefit system. I shall tell that Minister what we did. We took the number of unemployed people on the benefit down from over 400000 New Zealanders to around 280000 in the time we were in Government. That was not doing nothing; that was ensuring we put in the right support to help people to get jobs and to get training. We did not pull out the support that they needed which is exactly what the National Government did at the first opportunity. It cut the training incentive allowance took away scholarships and did not put the focus on creating jobs which it ought to have done. We now have 345000 people on benefits in New Zealand. That number has gone up from 280000 under that Minister’s watch and she has the cheek to tell this House that the previous Labour Government did nothing about beneficiaries. 
Well if she thinks this bill will solve the problem then she really is in cloud-cuckoo-land as Paul Henry said last week. I tell the Minister that when one work tests people for a job the first principle is that there have to be jobs for people to go into. It is interesting that even Treasury said not to do it now that the timing is not right to try to work test sickness beneficiaries into jobs—and I will get on to that shortly. If there are no jobs out there and the Minister is bringing in her “kick in the backside” and is “ending the dream” as she says where are the jobs? Where are the jobs that go from 9 to 3 with school holidays off? Where are the jobs for people who are unwell who have to take medication and have to have medical treatment? Where are the employers who are coming forward as the Minister blames and shames beneficiaries because they are in that predicament? That is exactly what the Minister is doing. She stands up and talks tough although she herself was quite happy have the advantage that a good social security system gives this country. 
I have to say that the stated intent of this bill is not what the bill means. In fact the Minister claims that the bill will give a fairer system of social assistance to New Zealanders. Let me just read what the Attorney-General said about the Minister’s own bill and her policy. The Attorney-General is the most senior Minister in Cabinet in terms of being a lawyer. He is the Attorney-General. He is the top lawyer in the National Government. Let me just read what he says—[ 
Interruption 
] I hope the shrieking Minister listens because she obviously did not read this when it came to Cabinet. This is what her own colleague the Attorney-General said: “The stated objective of the Bill as a whole is to create a fairer benefit system with an unrelenting focus on beneficiaries entering or returning to employment. While this is an important and significant objective the different treatment of people on the [DPB single parent] compared to women on the [widows benefit and DPB women alone] does not deserve this objective because it does not”—it does not—“create a fairer benefit system or encourage beneficiaries to enter or return to employment. Nor does it recognise the benefits of work for women on [the widows benefit] and the [DPB women alone]. Expressed another way the limit is not rationally”—listen to this—“connected to the Bill’s stated objective. Nor do the distinctions appear to serve any other valid non-discriminatory objective.” That statement was not from the Opposition; that statement came from the Attorney-General who is a Minister in that Government on that side of the House. 
This is not a bill that is fair to all people who are in receipt of a benefit. This is not a Labour bill. This is not our policy. It is National’s policy. It has chosen to discriminate against certain groups of women and men on the benefit. It has chosen to say that a person who receives the widows benefit equals good but a person who receives the domestic purposes benefit and is a single parent—who is on the benefit because she is divorced because her husband took off with somebody else or because she does not have a partner—is bad and should be work tested. But not if she is a widow and there is a subliminal message in that. It comes from the fact that John Key’s mother was a widow. She was not one of those domestic purposes benefit recipients who got themselves pregnant and then were on the State’s purse. That is the subliminal message because there is no other reason why a Government that is going to discriminate—as this Government wants to do—does not say that it includes all people. 
The other discrimination is that men who are widowers will be work tested under this policy but women who are widows will not. That is not Labour’s policy; it is National’s policy. Why would the Government discriminate in such a way? It does not make sense and the Attorney-General said it did not make sense. 
This bill sets out some objectives. It has a clear focus on work. You know most New Zealanders want to work. Members should never forget the 3000 New Zealanders who queued outside a supermarket only a few weeks ago to get 150 jobs. They queued for hours because they wanted to work. They could not all have a job but they wanted to work. And most New Zealanders do want to work. They want a job. But this policy says they ought to get a job. Well if the Government can help to train and prepare people for the jobs can help them into work that is fine. But to bring in this policy when everyone knows that 168000 people are unemployed now—and that does not count all the jobless—is crazy indeed. 
What did Treasury say about this policy? Treasury is not necessarily known for its sympathy I have to say for those on benefits but this is what it said: “we do not support the introduction of the SB work-test into legislation at this time. We recommend that the issue of work testing for those on health and disability-related benefits be considered by the proposed Welfare Working Group”. That would have been the place for us to look at these changes. “Currently” Treasury goes on to say “the SB is not appropriate for a part-time work-test as it is designed for people who will eventually return to work full-time (the majority do). Applying a part-time work test to the current SB would require someone to seek additional hours of work for minimal financial gain. For example a Sickness Beneficiary on minimum wage would receive approximately $1/hour in additional income for each hour worked beyond the abatement threshold (70% abatement applies…)”. That means that a person who is sick who goes out to work will work for $1 an hour under this policy. 
Labour will not support this bill going to the Social Services Committee. We will vote against this bill going to the select committee. The bill has one or two very small matters of assistance to beneficiaries. It lifts the threshold for abatement to $100 from $80 but if the Government really intended to do something about the level of abatement it would lift it to $130 not $100. The bill puts into legislation rather than leaving it to convention the pegging of the benefit to the CPI and it lifts the threshold of abatement for a non-qualifying spouse on superannuation. But apart from that this bill is ill-thought-out. It is not even based on evidence or research as the Minister’s own regulatory statement says.