Bradford Sue: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading 
Bradford Sue: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13459] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I would like to take a relatively brief call on the second reading of the Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill to raise a few issues in particular before we go into the Committee stage. My first concern is related to the proposal that appears to replace the special benefit with a new measure called temporary additional support. It looks as though the current discretionary regime will be replaced by a rules-based system operating through regulation. That takes some of us who have been around for a while back to the ill-fated attempt by National to do the same thing with its social welfare reform legislation in the mid-1990s. That bill met with massive opposition from beneficiary advocacy groups and community social services organisations generally and eventually even the Nats backed down on it. 
It is very difficult to regulate for the totality of human existence and if a regulatory regime is introduced there will always be people who fall through the cracks. Because the special benefit is a benefit of last resort that leaves no assistance available for those whose circumstances just happen to fall outside those that are contemplated by the officials who are drafting the regulations. No matter how well intentioned this Government might be—and overall I believe it is with this bill—I still think it is dangerous to do away with the discretion around the special benefit. Beneficiary advocates have lobbied hard over the last few years as I am sure the Minister is all too well aware to persuade the Ministry of Social Development to hang on to discretion and to train its staff to exercise it properly. It is a great pity that it appears we are to lose that unless other things happen first like the lifting of benefits to levels that mean there will be much less need for third-tier assistance. 
In a similar vein it is also of concern that the temporary additional support being proposed presumably by regulation also will be capped at 30 percent of the main benefit. That takes no account of the fact that the exigencies of human existence are infinite and that at times people can find themselves in extraordinarily difficult circumstances through no fault of their own. While I accept totally that the State cannot and should not ever be expected to automatically be capable of picking up all the pieces of people’s lives I believe that ideally Work and Income staff should retain the ability to make fair judgment calls based on the realities of the situation rather than being completely constrained by regulation. 
However taking a longer-term perspective the Green Party would in the end prefer to see the need for third-tier benefits done away with altogether; but that is dependent on the total reform of the welfare system a bullet Labour is not yet prepared to bite as the Budget and this bill make very clear. We look forward to the day when the Social Security Act of 1964 will be thrown out completely by a Government that is willing to start over with an income support framework based on principles of sufficiency simplicity and universality. Meanwhile it is no good getting rid of third-tier assistance while benefits are still too low for people to live on and it is no good working towards universality if what that means is basic levels are reduced to the lowest common denominator; for example limiting everyone to the rate of the unemployment benefit. I am grateful that the Labour Government has not headed down that particular path with this bill and that Labour is evidently committed to making sure no one will lose as the different stages of the legislation are gradually implemented. 
The second area I will quickly touch on is the question of how the package does and does not affect beneficiaries who do not have dependent children. Apart from increases in the accommodation supplement which will apply in a highly variable fashion according to circumstance beneficiaries in this category face an uncertain future especially with the eventual loss of the special benefit as well. For example the Wellington People’s Resource Centre believes that a single person with severe disability and low-housing costs could well end up worse off as a result of those initiatives. I would be interested in the Government’s response to that given its assurance that no one will lose out as a result of the changes announced today. 
My fear is for single beneficiaries with high needs but low living costs which is a situation for many people in this and other cities. At the same time I also recognise that the benefit system with all of its layers and its some 35 different forms of assistance continues to be used really as a way to subsidise the inadequacies of a health system that often does not treat people well or in time whether they have physical or mental health problems. The Green Party applauds the Budget gift of more money for joint operations but this does not solve the much deeper crisis embodied by the fate of tens of thousands of people on a sickness benefit or invalids benefit who are simply not well enough to work but would love to do so if they could regain their health sufficiently to be able to take on employment. 
Finally I reiterate some frustration on the part of the Green Party—and I have heard this shared by other members in the House tonight—that substantial increases in support for families will take so long to roll out. The people this bill is aimed at helping—low to medium income families—need support now not later. It would have been great if Dr Cullen could have seen his way clear to using some of his windfall to put a little more than $170 million into this package for the 2004-05 year. I know that a billion dollars or even $500 million for this year would have looked uncomfortably like a serious election bribe but in fact that is what the 30 percent of the country’s children who live in poverty need now and not later if it is to be done at all. This legislation and the family directions package are to be welcomed for the enormous step they make towards restoring a greater degree of equity in our society. I am just sorry that we could not have done it a little more quickly and with less discrimination against beneficiaries and their families.