Sio William: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sio William: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 18 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:13249. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I say that the previous speech from Katrina Shanks was very disappointing; in fact it was a pathetic contribution. The fact that the member does not understand the arguments that Labour members are presenting about why the legislation is opposed by us tells the country a lot about why it is flawed and why it should be rejected. When I listened to the Minister for Social Development and Employment I was reminded that this Minister is an example of somebody who once upon a time received the domestic purposes benefit and through the support of taxpayers was able to raise herself up and get an education. She has managed to raise herself through the ranks of National and one would think that as she is now earning over $200000 a year and has the power to make change and effect positive change and help others who are in need she would reach out and give a hand up to the many other mothers out there and the many other people who are struggling and suffering. 
Instead disappointingly the Minister has introduced this legislation which is a kick in the guts for beneficiaries. That is the disappointment for me in respect of this Minister and the legislation that she has introduced to the House. The Minister herself has said that beneficiaries need a kick in the guts. 
Sue Moroney 
: A kick in the pants. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: They need a kick in the pants. In 2008 when I won my electorate seat the local media the  
Manukau Courier 
 asked me what I thought would happen with the National Party now being in power. I responded by saying that I thought people were gravitating towards Mr Key and that he had been given an opportunity. People thought he had a good smile and was genuine. But I said that in the end when we see this Government’s policies we will then be able to identify once and for all that this National Government is no different from the National Government of the 1990s and that under this Government and under Mr Key we will have to fight in Mangere and in Manukau to protect the things that are valuable to our community. 
One thing that is valuable to our community and that Labour values and one of the things that the previous speaker does not understand is the work of parenthood. Labour values the raising of children. Those are not necessarily paid jobs but they are important jobs if we are to build a strong nation going forward. They are important jobs if we want to ensure that all our kids—it does not matter who the parents are—are given every opportunity to be able to pick themselves up. The only way we can do that is by ensuring that we have policies in place that encourage and support education. One of the fundamental principles of policy development is that if one wants more of something one encourages it one supports it and one funds it. The parties have to encourage that. 
When we look at what this Government has done thus far with the cutting of adult and community education what does that say? It means the Government does not want community members to be able to lift themselves and to be able to receive that kind of education and skill development. When we see this Government cutting the funding going into early childhood education centres what does that mean? It means that this Government is saying it does not want to see our children accessing the same opportunities that the Minister received once upon a time for herself and her family at the expense of the taxpayer. It is disappointing that we have to fight for the things that once upon a time other people like the Minister received. Now that the Minister is in a position of power and influence she is unable to do the right thing and help those who are in need. 
We have seen what this Government has done and it is in a similar position with this legislation. This legislation states that there is to be an unrelenting focus on getting people into jobs. The reality is that this legislation is about forcing coercing and bullying beneficiaries to find jobs. I have to ask: where are those jobs? There are almost 160000 people who are unemployed. The rate is 16 percent for Maori and 14 percent for Pacific people. We ask this Government what it is doing to create jobs. If it is to have this unrelenting focus on getting beneficiaries into jobs then we want to make sure that those jobs are available. If these beneficiaries are to be punished for not getting into a job and they have their benefits reduced or cut by 50 percent and ultimately by 100 percent what will happen to them? Will they then spend the rest of their lives on the streets begging? Is that what we want to see? Is that what we are trying to build? Do we want to see the masses on the street as beggars while the select few control all the assets and the income of this country? I say that this legislation is threatening beneficiaries. 
Debate is good if the Government is listening but overwhelmingly the submitters to this legislation opposed it. They opposed it by saying that the assumptions that this Government is working on are flawed especially the assumptions about dependency. Associate Professor M A O’Brien said: “The bill is flawed in every sense and should be withdrawn.” He said further: “There is no evidence for the gross and obscene assumptions of dependency. The Government was making things up saying that there are significant numbers of dependent families and generational dependent families.” He continued: “These assumptions are flawed in every sense and should be withdrawn.” Another submitter the Waitakere Community Law Service said: “The Government’s bill assumes that women choose to be on the domestic purposes benefit.” Women do not choose to be abandoned by their husband or partner. Women do not choose to be bashed by a drunken husband and then left alone to fend for themselves and their kids. Women do not choose when a husband cheats on them and then abandons them and their children. This professor says that the assumptions made by this Government in defending its legislation are wrong. 
The Waitakere Community Law Service said further: “The Government assumes people choose and want to be on a sickness benefit.” That is wrong. A person does not choose one day to go out and find a drunken driver to run over his or her legs so that that person can go on the sickness benefit. One does not choose to have rheumatic fever. One does not choose to have leukaemia or have a stroke. These are people who are sick and destitute as a result of no fault of their own. Dr Huhana Hickey of Auckland Disability Law gave strong evidence opposing the Government’s bill “as it will harm disabled people.” She said further that this bill contravenes the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities—the right of disabled people to live well; the right of disabled people or any people not to be poor. 
According to the overwhelming evidence of submitters I say that this legislation will drive families— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: As I was saying before we were interrupted for the dinner break this bill will hurt the masses. It will hurt the many communities that are already struggling. The House may recall that once upon a time Mr Key said of beneficiaries and of the poor that they were the underclass— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That’s it; the honourable member’s time has expired.