Sepuloni Carmel: Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill — Second Reading 
Sepuloni Carmel: Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:13066] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I stand to speak on the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill. The first thing I need to say is that it is disgraceful for the Minister for Social Development and Employment to stand in the House after having platformed herself as some sort of battling solo mother and martyr for solo mums out there and seek to take away things that she once claimed. She has already denied them the training incentive allowance and she is putting the boot in again to people who are already down and out. I think it is disgraceful. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I say to Mr Garrett that although Labour supports some provisions in the bill such as increasing benefit abatement income thresholds and the annual CPI adjustment of certain benefits it is fundamentally opposed to the provision on work testing and the discriminatory nature of the bill. Also of considerable concern is the Minister’s inability to adequately define welfare dependency which is the underlying reason for this bill. That point came up over and over again when we tried to get a definition out of the Minister. 
Labour agrees with the overwhelming majority of the submitters to the Social Services Committee who believed that many of the provisions in the bill are unwarranted. Many submitters believed that the amendments are a modern form of beneficiary bashing the likes of which they had not seen since the 1990s when National was in office. One reputable submitter a researcher believed that the bill was so flawed that it had no redeeming features and should be withdrawn. The Law Commission was also critical of the bill believing that it was in need of a major rewrite and should state citizens’ rights clearly. 
Labour has serious concerns regarding the proposed changes to the sickness benefit and the invalids benefit. Setting the limit on work hours at 15 hours per week is an arbitrary distinction that will disadvantage many beneficiaries. For example a person who is judged by a medical professional to be able to work slightly fewer than 15 hours per week would be eligible for the invalids benefit while another person who is judged able to work slightly more than 15 hours per week would be eligible to receive only the sickness benefit and thus would be on a much lower income. Given the minimal difference in capability to work between the two examples the proposed system would be obviously unfair. 
The proposed changes would also mean that someone with a newly acquired disability would be more likely to receive the sickness benefit than the invalids benefit and with it face increased pressure to find full-time work. For people who are struggling to deal with significant changes in their lives and who may or may not yet have access to necessary equipment that would enable them to work such as a wheelchair eligibility to receive the invalids benefit would allow them to put their focus where it needs to be—that is on adapting to life with a disability. To be forced on to the sickness benefit rather than the invalids benefit would be an unnecessary hardship. 
The submission from the IHC expressed the concern that people with intellectual disabilities particularly young school-leavers who are unable to find suitable employment will find it more difficult to qualify for an invalids benefit. They may instead find themselves on a sickness benefit and face unrealistic expectations about finding work. Many intellectually disabled people who can work need the invalids benefit as a safety net as they transition in and out of work. Changing the criteria for reapplying for this benefit will discriminate against intellectually disabled people and place undue financial and psychological stress upon them. 
Several of the major social service agencies that presented submissions to the select committee viewed most of the provisions of this bill as unnecessary. They believe that the Government’s concern about growing welfare dependency is not based on any evidence and that the current system is working well. Labour along with some of the submitters on this bill also believes that it makes little sense to continue with the changes proposed in this bill before the Government’s Welfare Working Group on welfare dependency has reported back with its recommendations for reform. 
Not one of the major agencies that work with domestic purposes beneficiaries and with those on the unemployment benefit supports the underlying assumption in the bill that the change will create a fairer benefit system with an unrelenting focus on beneficiaries entering or returning to employment. Rather the agencies believe that the bill will make matters worse for those on benefits and will drive even greater numbers to seek assistance from food banks and other voluntary service support organisations. 
Many of the voluntary services and support organisations that made submissions highlighted the increased workload that they are handling ever since National took office. One of the things that I thought was very interesting was the submission that came from Caritas the Catholic Church. It is concerned about the increasing pressure from this Government to support these people because the Government is devolving increasing amounts of responsibility to those organisations. The Catholic Church made it very clear that in its mind the State—the Government—has a responsibility to work alongside the church and similar organisations not to devolve responsibility to them. 
Labour believes that the provisions on work testing solo parents are fundamentally flawed. They show little appreciation of the demands of the parenting role on single parents and limit the ability of case workers to seriously consider individual circumstances on a case by case basis. They show little appreciation of the effect on single parents of having job responsibilities even when their children are at school. Labour believes that these pressures are not reduced because childcare responsibilities are demanding of single parents and often require full-time attention. They have been compared with the model of the two-parent household and on that basis the proposals in this bill reflect the presumption that all single parents with school-age children should be expected to take on employment. 
Labour believes that the current provisions of section 154(4) of the Social Security Act are sufficient to signal the importance of work if it can be reasonably factored into the care responsibilities of single parents. The irony is that in the maiden speech made by Paula Bennett now Minister for Social Development and Employment she stated that parents should have the choice “to work part time or full time in paid work or not at all or stay at home and raise their children.” However she seems to have changed her mind or perhaps when she made that statement she was talking about women who have a husband and the white picket fence and not those who are attempting to raise their children by themselves. 
Labour agrees with submitters that the proposals in this bill do not focus sufficiently on enabling single parents to prepare for the job market while they are single parents. There is evidence that when single parents are able to use the time when they have full-time parenting responsibilities to prepare for the job market by taking up educational opportunities they are able to come off the benefit and enter into sustainable and permanent jobs on reasonable pay. The effect of repealing the current provisions for a personal development and employment plan is that educational opportunities will no longer be considered. Labour is concerned that domestic purposes benefit recipients will be supported only if they choose to take on study at levels 1 to 3. The changes to the training incentive allowance already disadvantage recipients of the domestic purposes benefit who want to take on level 4 or higher qualifications. This bill will further disadvantage the recipients by acting as a deterrent to their enrolling in tertiary education programmes at levels 4 or higher. It will have a negative impact not only on the ability of those solo parents to develop themselves professionally but also on the children of those parents. 
Labour believes that these provisions demonstrate that the Government’s approach to single parents in this bill is punitive. No evidence has been presented on the Government’s belief that an unrelenting focus on work without taking into account the real demands of parenting will produce better outcomes for children and their parents. I think it is timely that today we saw the statistics on unemployment and saw the increase in unemployment that is happening in this country. It shows that the Government really does not have a plan it is doing nothing for those families and it is doing nothing to create jobs. Government members are saying that they will have an unrelenting focus on getting these people out into the workforce but they are doing absolutely nothing to build a workforce for them to go out into. 
Labour believes that the Government’s not having any targets for reducing the number of people on benefits through the provisions in this bill shows that it is proceeding from an ideological base rather than one based on good evidence and a real desire to improve the lives of children in single-parent households and enable single parents to prepare for a well-paying job when they enter the labour market. We will not be supporting this bill and we encourage everybody across the House to vote this bill down.