Sio William: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sio William: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8932. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Thank you very much Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity. The Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill as I said in an earlier contribution really is flawed from the get-go. Therefore it becomes quite difficult for the New Zealand public to find any genuine desire by this Government as represented by this significant change to the Social Security Act that this is going to address the problems that people currently face. 
I recall submissions to the Social Services Committee where there was a call by submitters to please support parents in poverty to become good parents. In so far as the public is concerned it appears that this bill is targeting unemployed people targeting solo parents and targeting generally low-income communities that are just struggling to make ends meet and are doing it tough in this economic environment. Nothing in this bill whether Part 1 Part 2 or any of the four parts of this bill provides any hope to the people who are trying to do their best in raising young children who struggle to try to meet the rising costs of childcare facilities and who are trying to make ends meet in terms of providing food on the table. 
I will give you some examples. In Mangere there were some vacancies available for seven jobs in the local Carter Holt Harvey. Over 200 people applied for those jobs and I understand that people sat around even though the company had filled the seven positions wanting to know from the employer whether there were going to be other jobs. 
Again I go back to the first statement I made. The premise that this bill is based on is flawed wrong and just totally unacceptable and that is evidenced by the overwhelming opposition put forward by the community who have made submissions here. I know of people who are currently under the Ministry of Social Development system who have been told to go out and find 10 employers and get 10 interviews to show their genuineness that they are looking for work. There are 175000 people on the unemployment benefit actively looking for work but over 200000 are people whom the Salvation Army classifies as discouraged unemployed. These are people who have been unemployed for more than a year and who through no fault of their own are unable to find work because the jobs just are not there. Again I make the point that nothing in this bill indicates to the unemployed 175000 or to the over 200000 discouraged unemployed that this is going to somehow help them get out of the rut that they find themselves in. 
 What is gravely disappointing for many is that they were promised—they were promised—by this Government a brighter future. They were promised 170000 jobs. None of those promises as far as the unemployed the discouraged unemployed and solo parents are concerned have panned out for them. In many ways that is a bad look for politicians generally. When the Government makes those promises and fails to deliver it makes every politician in this Chamber look bad. 
It is sad that when this bill comes into force there will be sanctions upon those who are receiving the benefit and who fail to find work. If their benefit is cut what then happens to them? What then happens to their ongoing living expenses? What happens to those children in those families? Because this is already happening today and this bill is going to accelerate that and enforce that. As far as working-class communities throughout New Zealand are concerned this is an attack on their dignity it is an attack an undermining of their desire to work and I think if the Government had not placed the foundation of this bill on such false and flawed logic then we would be here discussing how many jobs are required and just the kinds of activities that the Government should be funding in order to ensure that jobs are made available. But it is not just jobs. 
If there is a solo parent—and I gave the example earlier of Charlotte Murray—with two young children when this bill comes into force she will find herself having the stress of not only having to go out to find work but having to find work that pays enough to be able to support her and her two young children aged 2 and 5 years old. I would have thought that a good step by this Government if it fails to address the need for job creation is at least to try to alleviate the barriers between those who are unemployed those who are discouraged unemployed—the barriers that they face—and being able to match them with whatever jobs might be available. But the problem is that nothing in this bill again addresses the barriers that submitters have identified—the barriers to work—which are first having those jobs. The second is that if they do not have the skills what opportunities are available to them when this Government has shut down access to tertiary education and shut down access to a whole range of community and adult education that was once there? 
The Government keeps harping on about those dependent beneficiaries—kick them in the teeth it will. The problem is that if we look back to the last Labour Government that last Labour Government was able to create jobs reduce the number of unemployed and reduce those who were on the benefit and that should show to this Government that if you are wanting welfare reform you have got to create jobs not kick people who are already struggling to make ends meet not kick people who are hard-done-by through the economic failure of this Government to meet the economic challenges. But that is what is happening. I do not know whether this Government has taken the opportunity to read and consider the many many submissions and the constant emails that come through from mums dads the unemployed people without skills people with qualifications—tertiary qualifications—who today continue to look for work. It is wrong when somebody who graduates at tertiary level with a degree fails to find a job within 6 months fails to find a job within 1 year fails to find a job within 2 years. It is wrong when we see people who are tertiary qualified driving taxis just to make ends meet. To make things worse not only does this bill put people between a rock and a hard place but the other legislation which seems to be consistent with the theme of bill—that is kick people in the teeth kick them in the guts when they are down—all fails to deliver— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: What clause is that? 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: Well it is clause 30 100—let me see— 
Hon Member 
: 64. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: Clause 124 OK. And what this does—clause 124 Part 2; you can look at the schedule or clause 107. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right. Clause 107 makes reference to those on the sickness benefit and that is a real bad thing for this Government to be kicking people on sickness benefits who cannot help themselves.