Collins Judith: Social Security Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Collins Judith: Social Security Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8941] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 The National Party voted for this bill at its first reading to get it to the Social Services Committee. We did it on the basis that although we thought it was a very imperfect bill as presented to us it was at least a very small step in the way of encouraging people to understand that the able-bodied cannot continue to stay on benefits when they can get work. We also thought it was a very small step in asking sickness and invalids beneficiaries—and particularly sickness beneficiaries—who can work to do something about getting some work. But what we found was very very weak. We said it at the time and we have said it in the select committee. 
Effectively sickness beneficiaries—and I say this bearing in mind that almost 25 percent of sickness beneficiaries by their own admission through the Minister can work and want to work—are now going to be simply required to make a plan to work. There is no requirement at all for anything in particular to happen with that plan. The plan may not necessarily be given to anybody to take away or anything like that. 
We heard from the Rotorua Peoples Advocacy Centre that it has just completed a study for the Families Commission. It found that not only did these plans—which are put in place for people on the domestic purposes benefit rather than having a work test—not necessarily work but also apparently they are not necessarily even given to the beneficiaries. When the Rotorua Peoples Advocacy Centre asked the Ministry of Social Development why it was that those people were not given plans to take away because after all if they had a plan it was quite good to have it in front of them—because they do not get another plan for another year—it was told that nobody does anything with them. 
I think that means we are being asked to pass a bill under which people are going to be asked to plan but not necessarily do anything with it or even necessarily take it away. National thinks that that is a silly thing to do. Either people are to have a proper plan they are to have some measures on it they are going to have some progress track and they are going to be helped to get into employment or they are not. But we are not going to be supportive of a plan that is nothing more than just a joke. 
So we are also saying here that we are very very disappointed at the last-minute change in the select committee that the Government forced in which removed “activity in the community” from the sanction provisions. This is in fact one of the few reasons why I thought we could have voted for the bill before—because we thought that provision was going to be in it. After all that is what was stated in the bill at its first reading. What we have now seen and what is presented to us is a bill where frankly everything that we believe in is just being pushed aside and our support has been taken for granted. At not one moment has the Government approached us to seek our support for these changes. [ 
Interruption 
] As the member over there keeps calling out let me tell him that the National Party will not support this bill in its current form. The Government had better start thinking about what it is going to do. 
One of the other interesting things that I found out in the last couple of days is that the Government has not necessarily advised New Zealand First that it will be removing the “activity in the community” programme from the sanctions provisions. I think that is something New Zealand First needs to know about. The Government has not even bothered to tell New Zealand First on whose vote it depends. United Future knew about it because its members were on the select committee—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh no the member just did not know when I spoke to her yesterday. Never mind someone in New Zealand First was told. 
So we have the situation where the Government is going to have some difficulties with this bill. I know that an amendment has been put up by another party and we will have amendments to put in the Committee stage. The reason for that is that either we are going to have a bill that means something or we are not. We are not interested in being seen to support this pathetic little excuse for a bill which is all about saying we are going to have a plan to have a plan when at the same time Steve Maharey from this Government said just a couple of years ago: “We’re going to give $128 million to get people off the sickness and invalids benefits.” What has happened in that time in the 3 years since then is that those numbers have gone up by yet another 7000 people. What that has meant is that this Government has wasted $127 million. 
I found it very interesting when looking at those figures to see that not only did they go up after Steve Maharey announced the Government was going to give $128 million of taxpayer dollars to get people off the sickness and invalids benefits but they actually went up more than they had the year before. So not only did they go up but the rate of increase actually got significantly worse. 
When I looked at this Government bill having sat on the Social Services Committee as the deputy chair having heard all of the submissions and having read it again and thought about it again I decided that the National Party will not support it. It is simply a sop. It is being used as a sop on the one hand to try to say: “Oh look it’s all right; it’s nothing much more than a plan.” to those who think that beneficiaries should not have to work even if they can; and on the other hand people like us—who feel that if one can work then one should work; that if one needs to look after oneself one needs to be able to do what one can—are supposed to be put off by this plan. But we found out from this official paper for the Families Commission that it was actually just a sop and that people are not necessarily even given their plans. 
So I suggest to the Labour Government that next time it wants to try to pull a swiftie it should think a bit longer on it. We are not prepared to support this bill. Some of the ideas of the bill are quite good but the Government has not followed through. It lost its bottle it gave in on the “activity in the community” and sanctions provisions and it put up this plan to have a plan. It is simply not good enough. If we supported this bill it would in fact be a travesty and we are not going to do so.