Shanks Katrina: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Shanks Katrina: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9240] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Committee stage of the Social Security Amendment Bill. The National Party is opposing this bill but it does recognise that a handful of good amendments are contained in it. 
The most important changes in this bill are that it introduces a new pre-benefit activity requirement for applicants and that the unemployment benefit will enhance the current requirements for people who are work tested. The bill introduces planning requirements for sickness and invalids benefits it introduces an activity requirement for young people receiving an independent youth benefit and it updates the maximum stand-down period to 2 weeks. 
This bill is meant to change the focus from a “benefit first” mentality which Work and Income had adopted to a “work first” mentality. Unfortunately this amendment is not inspirational enough for either Work and Income or its clients. Work and Income and its clients can still think of their unemployment entitlements first as opposed to considering what work they should be looking for what work they can do and how they can get there. 
 Even though Labour claims that the number receiving the unemployment benefit has dropped it is a fact that the numbers on the sickness benefit and the invalids benefit have risen. It is also a fact that there has been a movement of people from the unemployment benefit to the sickness and invalids benefits. Can this be interpreted as those beneficiaries actually getting sick as a result of decreased personal expectations the stress of not being employed or the lack of social interaction that results from unemployment? 
Recently I spoke to a constituent who was on a domestic purposes benefit. She stated that she had been on the benefit for a number of years. She had not once been asked whether she would like to go back to work. She had not once been asked by Work and Income what type of work she would like. She had not been once been asked how Work and Income could help her to find work. The sad thing was that she wanted to work she wanted to improve her standard of living she wanted to improve her life and she wanted to improve her children’s lives. She wanted to retrain; she wanted a good job. She has done this now all on her own. She has had no help. This legislation this change for her will not help her at all. It will not improve her life. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Why? 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Because there was not a “work first” mentality; it was a “benefit first” mentality. 
This bill also talks about children—16 17 and 18-year-olds—who can go on to the domestic purposes benefit to look after those who are invalids or sick and those who could be hospitalised. This is a good thing but do we really want to trap these young people into being on the domestic purposes benefit to provide for relatives and others in need? Surely the Government itself can provide for these people in need. Surely we can provide a safety net for them without 17 and 18-year-olds doing so. 
The sanctions in this bill make interesting reading. It is clear that when people fail to meet requirements without good reason a sanction will be imposed. However activity in the community is exempt from that sanction. We do not support this bill but we do recognise that there is the odd thing in it that will help.