Sepuloni Carmel: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sepuloni Carmel: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 18 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:13262. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I want to touch on what has come from that member. I was yelling out in my interjections that this legislation is nanny State and that is what members on that side need to realise. They assume that people on benefits do not want to work. They assume the very worst of the people who are accessing benefits. The National Government assumes that if it does not legislate for work testing and if it does not legislate with punitive measures then those people will not get out there and work. That is nanny State and those are the assumptions that members on that side of the House are making. 
Tim Macindoe 
: So finding a job is now “nanny State” in New Zealand. What an appalling attitude that is. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: I will touch on two things because I think I understand this issue a little more than does that member over there. I will refer to two things—two things that I remember having been a single mother and having been on the domestic purposes benefit myself. 
Chester Borrows 
: Because they all belong to you? You treat beneficiaries like a commodity. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: The first memory I will refer to I tell Mr Borrows when I went on that benefit was the stigma even amongst my own friends of being on the domestic purposes benefit. I remember at the time—because I was studying; I was a young brown mother who had got pregnant whilst at university—that I thought “I am going to access this now because for the majority of my life I will be working and I will be paying very good taxes.” I knew that at 20 years of age. Members on that side of the House assume that young mothers do not know that and that they do not want to do that. 
The other thing I remember very clearly is being a young mother and getting on a bus with a pram with a baby and with a bag and watching the reactions of the people on that bus. They were looking at me as though I was the scum of the earth. That is the stigma that I am talking about which the National Government is perpetuating in this legislation. Its members are making assumptions about beneficiaries. They talk about aspirations but they do not acknowledge that these people may actually have aspirations without there being the need to legislate with punitive measures to try to get them out into the workforce—as if they do not want to work. 
The other thing that those members do not acknowledge is that some people especially some mothers may be better off staying home and looking after their children and that it must come down to their being able to have the choice. It is about putting measures into place to support single parents to go on to further study if that is what they want to do and to support them to go on to employment—and to good employment prospects—if that is what they want to do. But if they feel they need to be at home with their children then the Government should be supporting them to do that rather than putting out messages to our society that say that all single parents should be out there working. Quite frankly even though I always knew that I was going to work and even though the vast majority of the single parents whom I know knew that they would go on to work as well for some it may not be the appropriate choice to make. But it comes down to them. It is quite interesting because members on that side of the House are usually about individual responsibility and individual choice but it is individual responsibility and individual choice for the people who are like them—like those members on that side of the House but not like the people we are discussing tonight. 
I will refer to a few examples from a Facebook group called Single Parents Fight Against Discrimination—It’s Not OK. Here are a few examples of women who have put their stories on that Facebook page. Let us start with a woman called Vanessa. She said: “Thank you so much for initiating this. I am an overwhelmed single mum and whilst angry about the ludicrousness of this policy haven’t known what to do about it. I am actually on the DPB caring for an adult daughter with a rare disorder and have now lost my ability to access the training incentive allowance. Even with the training incentive allowance it is stressful and never ever enough. I am doing one paper at a time as it’s all I can afford. The National Government’s policies seem to be so Draconian—trying to get us back to work yet taking away the rug from under our feet.” 
She is doing one paper a semester. Having worked at a university I think back say to the average arts degree which is about 24 papers over 3 years. If this person is doing an arts degree she can expect to finish that degree in 12 years at the rate she is going because she is not supported by our welfare system to take up full-time study as that side of the House cut the training incentive allowance. The legislation we are talking about here covers welfare reforms but on the study front members on that side of the House are denying women like this one the opportunity to take the pathway into higher level tertiary study because no longer will those women be able to get support from Work and Income New Zealand if they want to take up study at levels 1 2 or 3. For many people jumping into level 4 study would be quite a huge jump particularly if they have no secondary school qualifications. But common sense does not prevail on that side of the House. Those members do not understand that they should be supporting people to take up study at all levels because of the necessary requirements in terms of staircasing through. 
I will give members another example of someone who made a comment on this Facebook page. A woman called Hayley said: “Currently studying part-time towards my degree. If I had gone full-time I would have had less than $30 a week for food cleaning products and doctors’ bills left after childcare costs. We are not on an equal footing when it comes to higher education.” She is talking about sole parents. I remember very clearly last year when we were debating the cuts to the training incentive allowance and we questioned the Minister for Social Development and Employment. She said that times had changed and that if those women who are sole parents can get to university they are on an equal footing with everybody else. Well that is absolute rubbish. I have seen it from having provided support to students at university. Single parents have a lot more to contend with than do the vast majority of 18-year-old students. When they are trying to balance not only their study but a household by themselves they need as much support as possible. They are not on an equal footing and some equity consideration does need to be discussed and considered by that side of the House. 
I will read one more example from this Facebook page called Single Parents Fight Against Discrimination—It’s Not OK. A woman called Debbie said: “Thanks for starting this group guys. I am a single working mum. I am really angry and upset about Mr Dunne’s proposed income-splitting bill which would directly discriminate against working single mums like me whilst giving more play money to the Remuera housewives to spend on tennis and getting their nails done and to pay for their coffee over which they could bad-mouth women on the DPB oblivious to the poverty that many single mums suffer. We have to do something.” Those are real stories; those are the real people who are suffering at the hands of bad legislation— 
David Garrett 
: Yeah—on Facebook. Everything’s real on Facebook. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: Mr Garrett is saying “Yeah real people on Facebook.” Well there are a lot of real people on Facebook. A lot of them would be slightly fearful of coming out and telling their stories publicly because of what they have witnessed with the Minister for Social Development and Employment dragging those two women through the mud last year—or was it earlier this year—in respect of their stories. 
I know that Mr Borrows is looking over here and thinking that we are acting as though members on that side of the House do not care or do not have any compassion or heart. But when the Government puts through legislation like this and when the stigma that already exists for the groups of people we are dealing with and whom this legislation will affect is perpetuated then of course we will think that. Of course we will think: “Where is the compassion?”. 
There is absolutely no reason to do this. It has annoyed me—to no end actually—that when those unemployment rates came out 2 weeks ago and the country got to see how badly this Government was doing what did we see? We saw the Minister for Social Development and Employment and the Prime Minister get out there and talk up these welfare reforms and talk them up even more so than they had ever done before. Members on that side of the House know why. It is about shifting the lens and diverting attention on to beneficiaries so that Kiwis blame them rather than blame the Government for a job badly done. But the fact is that the Government has had no plan and it has created no jobs and this country is worse off than it was 22 months ago before this Government took office. 
Labour members do not support this legislation. We support the very real people who are out there struggling. We do not support the beneficiary bashing that is going on. We do not support the lack of compassion that members on that side of the House are expressing to some very vulnerable New Zealanders who are struggling at the moment. Thank you very much.