Sio William: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sio William: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 19 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3766. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Malo le soifua. Thank you for this opportunity. I rise on behalf of the Labour Party and I want to simply say that the contribution and presence of Mr Banks after four decades is evidence that the right-wing ideology of the Jim Bolger Government failed New Zealand and that the “mother of all Budgets” of “Ruthless Ruth” during his era failed New Zealand communities. It is also evident that they have never learnt their lesson.  
I would say to this House that the Government’s Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill is flawed and introduces punitive measures that are similar to those punitive measures of the decades that Mr Banks hails from and that are more characteristic of underdeveloped countries than of a developed nation such as ours. Labour opposes this bill because it does nothing to address the real issues of economic growth productivity and employment. It fails to address the barriers that are faced by New Zealand communities such as the availability of jobs such as skills and education and such as the barriers that sole parents face of child care and the rising cost of early childhood education.  
This debate if we listen to the numerous submitters who came forward and provided evidence is a debate that is important and it ought to be taken seriously. However I do not think that in the period from the first reading to the select committee consideration to the second reading and even throughout the Committee stage the other side has taken seriously the impact and the ramifications of the bill and the systems that the Government is introducing in this bill. I cannot help but be reminded again and again and again by the substantial submissions made by significant organisations that service our community and that deliver and are engaged at the coalface of our communities the length and breadth of New Zealand. Significant organisations such as the Salvation Army the Child Poverty Action Group the women’s organisation the Human Rights Commission the Children’s Commissioner the Families Commission all of them raised concerns and all of them did not support the bill that is here. The Salvation Army—and I remind members on the other side—said succinctly that we are moving away from the fundamental purpose of the Social Security Act of 1964. I want to repeat it for the sake of this House. The purpose of the Social Security Act which this bill now amends is “(i) to help people to support themselves and their dependants while not in paid employment; and (ii) to help people to find or retain paid employment; and (iii) to help people for whom work may not currently be appropriate because of sickness injury disability or caring responsibilities”—for young children or those who are elderly or sick—“to support themselves and their dependants:”.  
I also want to remind this House that as a developing nation we are a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and above all we should be the shining example in this region of upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I draw your attention to article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “(1) Everyone has the right to work to free choice of employment to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone without any discrimination has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity and supplemented if necessary by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests.” Article 24: “Everyone has the right to rest and leisure including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.” Article 25: “(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate to the health and well-being of himself and his family including food clothing housing and medical care and necessary social services and the right to security in the event of unemployment sickness disability widowhood old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children whether born in or out of wedlock shall enjoy the same social protection.”  
I think we have drifted as a country so far away from the fundamental principles and values that we as a country signed up to. We have drifted so far away with this bill from the fundamental purpose of the Social Security Act 1964 which established our system. No person I have ever met no one in my community no one in the schools I visit whether they be in my electorate or in other electorates ever talks about how it is their lifestyle choice to be on a benefit. That is not a lifestyle choice contrary to what the other side believes. Jobs jobs jobs are what this Government fails to deliver. I think that this Government here has mastered the act of appearing to be busy while actually doing nothing—I have got it wrong—the art of looking busy while achieving nothing because so far this Government seems to concede the fact that it cannot deliver jobs for the country and is simply sitting on its hands allowing thousands and thousands of New Zealanders to leave our shores for the safety of Australia for the jobs and the quality of life that Australia seems to offer them.  
As I said the whole bill is very reminiscent of what Mr Banks’ era delivered which we as a country suffered for many many years. In fact in 1999 when Labour came into power we were challenged with the high unemployment that National had left this country with. In 2008 when we left power unemployment was relatively low at 3.5 percent. We are now for women at 7.1 percent. While 160000 unemployed New Zealanders continue to look for work this Government introduces a bill which will introduce sanctions or threats as I have called them because if they do not do what the department will force upon them then they will be faced with sanctions. My greatest concern is that despite the intention the Minister for Social Development had in drafting this bill those individuals who will suffer as a consequence—whether intentional or not—will be children and young people because when they are 5 years old their mum or their dad will be forced to go out to look for work. If they do not find a job they will be sanctioned. At 14 years old that young person will be left at home because their mum or dad will be forced to go find a job.  
I want to say to this Minister that sole mothers do not have a choice. That is not a lifestyle choice. Sole parents want to be able to provide for their families and want to provide for their children and what this Government is doing by introducing sanctions on sole mothers really is a kick in the guts for them. At the end of the day it will be the children who will suffer and I will point my finger directly at that Minister as responsible.