Sio William: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sio William: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 June 2012. Volume:680;Page:2870. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I think that last presentation by the member Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga reflects the heartless attitude of this Government. I can say to that member that he is not going to return to Parliament in 2014. This Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill introduces a significant shift in the direction of welfare reform and will have an immediate impact on the well-being and welfare of many low-income individuals and families. The Government’s reform will have an immediate impact on the financial and emotional future of those being targeted by this Government—namely young people and sole parents.  
The greatest concern for me is that it will have the most severe effect on the lives of children who belong to families living in poverty or living below the poverty line. As the Children’s Commissioner submitted at the submission stage this bill makes no requirement to take up the best interests of the child or children affected by these reforms. It does not take into consideration the best interests of the children.  
Labour opposes the reform contained in this bill. These reforms are poorly designed they are confusing they lack safeguards and they destroy trust in our young people. As the Salvation Army submitted the bill is fundamentally inconsistent with the intention of the Social Security Act. I agree with the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom which submitted that this bill discriminates on human rights in terms of age gender and employment status. I believe it when Women’s Health Action said that it gave a comprehensive submission based on evidence opposing this bill because it said it undermines women’s sexual and reproductive human rights.  
We know from the evidence which is so readily available that child poverty exists now in New Zealand. We also know from the evidence that child poverty increases when there is rising unemployment and rising underemployment. That has happened throughout the 4 years that this Government has been in power the consistent trending of rising unemployment and rising underemployment. We also know that when more people are working part-time or casual jobs there is more poverty. When families have low incomes relative to living costs there is a larger gender wage gap and women who choose to become mothers are often penalised in the workforce as they are now under the current environment created by this Government. There is increasing child poverty.  
We also know from evidence that when Governments cut benefits or limit eligibility for benefits or have lower income taxes and introduce higher goods and services taxes these policies also increase child poverty. This is the current economic environment upon which this Government is introducing these significant changes to New Zealand’s social security system.  
Every group or individual that I heard submit was quite scathing of the collapsed process with which this Government drove the introduction of this bill. It gave very little time to individuals and organisations to prepare submissions. According to the Law Society there were groups that could not submit because of the Government’s collapsed approach to public submissions. The Council of Trade Unions probably best summed up the feelings of submitters when it said that the Government makes a mockery of democracy when it rams through significant changes in such a short time frame which limits public contribution.  
The Government reforms target young people and sole parents. We were advised that it is the expectation of this Government that when these young people reach the age of 18 years they will be in employment and will no longer require a benefit. I find that very difficult to believe given that the approach is more of a big stick than a carrot. But even if the carrot was accepted what jobs are available to people? Many submitters questioned the Government about where the jobs are. They questioned what this Government was doing to enable the creation of genuine meaningful and high-value jobs that pay well for workers and their families. Dr Robin Gwynn submitted that having people work instead of just accepting money is an excellent idea but it will not succeed unless there are jobs for people. He also asked the same question every other submitter asked about where the jobs are and said that if the Government believes it has the right to bully people into work it should also ensure that jobs exist for people.  
Under the Government’s bill sole parents will be required to find part-time work when their youngest child is 5 years old. They will be expected to find full-time work when their youngest child is 14 years or older. These changes will apply to women receiving the widows benefit domestic purposes benefit and the domestic purposes benefit for women alone. It is expected that 56300 people with children under 5 will be forced to find work. We were advised that 45000 people with children aged 5 to 14 years will be pushed towards finding full-time or part-time work. We were advised that 21300 people with children aged 14 years or who do not have children will be pushed to have full-time work. Sanctions will apply if people fail to meet these expectations.  
The Government wants to introduce this bill in July. The CCS Disability Action submitted that this bill does not address barriers of single parents with disabled children forced to enter the workforce. The Wellington People’s Centre pointed out to Government MPs that job matching was a huge issue and that many solo mums or widows were on casualised part-time work receiving wages that ensured that they struggled continually to make ends meet. Kay Brereton was lost for words to describe the absurdity of the Government’s bill dictating that if you have a child you will not get a benefit. The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom said that paid work is not more important than the “unpaid work of child rearing and caring for those in need”. Graham Howell submitted and said that this bill “smacks of social engineering of the worst kind” and is flawed from a conceptual and practical basis. He further said—this was Mr Howell—that the changes will “increase the number of jobseekers all … bidding for low-waged jobs” thus driving down wages.  
Dr Anita Lacey of Auckland Action Against Poverty said the bill “does nothing to address the real causes of poverty in New Zealand which include a poorly performing economy low wages a shortage of decent jobs benefits that are too low for many people to live on and … job insecurity”. The Auckland Women’s Centre showed evidence that showed that women affected by this bill are already under-resourced. They live in poverty have bad health and need to be supported rather than be bullied by this Government. The Auckland Women’s Centre opposes the bill and describes it as mean-spirited and punitive. It said women should be supported and given real choice not compelled or bullied by this Government.  
Labour believes that by and large New Zealanders want to work. This is supported by the evidence that we have seen in the household labour force survey. Not only the thousands of people who line up whenever there are jobs available in supermarkets but also the thousands of New Zealanders who are leaving our shores every week for Australia are clear evidence that this Government is taking this country in the wrong direction. We believe that those currently in need of Government support deserve a set of measures grounded in evidence and the reality of the current economic environment.  
People require a set of measures that address the barriers that exist in moving from the welfare system and into work. They deserve to be treated with dignity as human beings deserving of the means to support and sustain themselves and their families. People need jobs. People want to work. People want to earn an income that gives them dignity as a human being to support their children. The reforms introduced by this Government treat people with disrespect or treat them as nothing less than what people are demanding.  
I now want to conclude. The behaviour of the chair and some members of the Social Services Committee during the public submissions stage was appalling—appalling. Aided and abetted by that chair they consistently challenged submitters. They consistently undermined submitters given the collapsed framework that the public had. I would say that this Government is taking us in the wrong direction.