Twyford Phil: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Twyford Phil: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8728. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 Labour strongly opposes this bill the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Introducing reforms like these at a time of such high unemployment without tackling the well-established barriers that it is widely agreed keep people out of jobs such as the high cost of childcare and inadequate training and education opportunities means this bill will surely fail. Further we believe that the whole idea underlying this bill is wrong and unfair. It starts from the assumption that those people who temporarily seek the support of the State are bludgers are shirkers and do not want to work. That is the underlying idea behind this bill. 
Last night we debated the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill and frankly I felt sick being in this Chamber debating that bill because of what it said about this Government and what this Government thinks of its fellow New Zealanders. Its idea of helping young people get into the job market is to cut their wages and frankly I think that is a disgrace and this bill is no better. 
It is really interesting. This bill is based on the assumption embedded deep in the reptilian brain of the National Party that anyone needing assistance from the State is a shirker—a shirker and a bludger. The members on that side of the House should reflect on the history of our country and what their party and its forebears did in the 1930s sending people off to work camps and in the 1990s Ruth Richardson’s “mother of all Budgets”. It is exactly the same punitive fear of the poor and demonising of people who are out of work and it is exactly the same ethos and idea that underlies this bill. 
We know that under the fifth Labour Government when jobs were plentiful people took them. I remind the members on that side of the House that year after year—in fact for almost 9 years—this country enjoyed the lowest unemployment rates in the OECD. Year after year after year. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: How was invalids? How was sickness? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Do you remember that Minister? Do you remember that we had the lowest unemployment in the OECD? And you know what? When there were jobs people wanted to work. They took those jobs. People took those jobs when they were there but now mysteriously because there is a National Government suddenly all of these New Zealanders are lazy. They are bludgers. Young people who have barely left school who cannot get into the job market apparently are wasters and are bludgers. Middle-aged men and women who have had half a lifetime of work in the workforce who were laid off for no reason through no fault of their own apparently are bludgers and are lazy. People who are battling with mental illness and with disabilities under this National Government apparently need a good kick in the arse because they do not want to work. Let us give them a bit of stick and let us give them the bash—that is what this bill does. The members on that side of the House do not want to hear it. They do not want to hear it. Nikki Kaye does not want to go back to the people of Grey Lynn and explain to them why she is voting for a bill that demonises the unemployed and actually makes life more difficult for people who temporarily need the assistance of the State because they are out of work. That is a sad indictment of what this National Party thinks of its fellow New Zealanders. 
Instead of seeing the problem as a lack of jobs instead of seeing the challenge to come up with an active employment policy and instead of rethinking this Government’s economic policy in light of its signal failure to manage the economy in a way that generates new jobs what does it do? Ms Bennett frames the problem as one of welfare dependency. So the problem is not that there are not enough jobs. The problem is not poor economic management that has given this country one of the highest youth unemployment rates in the world. No the problem is welfare dependency. Ms Bennett the Minister is the former beneficiary solo mother who as one of the first things she did once she got into power as the welfare Minister cut back the training incentive allowance so people in the same life circumstances would not be able to benefit from the same support that she received from the State. She frames the problem as welfare dependency and her role as the Minister for Social Development is to rescue people from welfare dependency not to go to Cabinet and argue for a jobs policy but to rescue people from welfare dependency by putting in place a regime of punitive sanctions. I just think the National Party members should be ashamed of themselves coming to the House with a bill like this and voting for it. 
I want to touch on a few key parts of the bill that we have concerns with and on the basis of our opposition to this bill. We believe that the introduction of social obligations on parents who are welfare beneficiaries is both wrong and unfair and an overwhelming number of the submitters who came to the Social Services Committee submitted along those lines. We support the principle that all children should take part in early childhood education but we do not believe that it is fair or reasonable for that aim to be backed up by a sanction that would cut a parent’s benefit in half. What will that do for the well-being of children in some of the poorest families in this country? Decreasing the income into a child’s home in that way will ultimately do severe damage to the child. 
We remain disappointed that the Government has put in place an obligation on parents to put their kids into early childhood education without addressing the obvious holes in the provision of early childhood education. The Child Poverty Action Group came along to the select committee and told the committee provided the data that shows a large gap between the number of children in low-income areas in particular and the provision of early childhood education. But that is a mere detail to this Minister and to these National members. They do not care about the reality. They do not care about the facts. They are simply obsessed with a punitive approach that demonises people who need the support of the State. 
Secondly I turn to work obligations and the whole issue of assessment. We object to the assumption as I have said that underlies all of these provisions that people who are on welfare do not wish to work. We heard compelling evidence from people in the disability sector who said that many sickness beneficiaries and invalids beneficiaries are desperate to work but there are so many barriers in the way that make it difficult for them. Nothing in this bill will make it easier for people who battle a disability to get into the workforce. 
We remain concerned that the Minister has signalled a UK-style medical assessment regime for people who are on a sickness benefit or an invalids benefit. That is extremely concerning. That medical assessment model in the UK has been a disaster. In spite of repeated requests at the select committee to put more detail on that proposal the Government has failed to be transparent on that issue. 
We have seen a huge increase in the use of sanctions under this Government in the social development area. There is no assessment in place there is no evidence that the increase in sanctions has had any kind of success and we should see an assessment regime that actually looks to measure the harm or benefit that families have received as a result of the sanctions regime. 
In terms of drug testing Labour agrees of course that there is a problem with drugs in the workplace and that needs to be tackled with practical issues. But the Government has turned a deaf ear to the evidence the very persuasive evidence that was brought to the select committee by the Drug Foundation which said that a simple testing regime with sanctions is inadequate and actually could do more harm than good to our drug treatment system. The foundation argued that categorising all drug users as dependent when they may not be and placing them into treatment programmes will put pressure on an already under-resourced service. Labour does not support this bill.