Lole-Taylor Asenati: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lole-Taylor Asenati: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8902. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
: 
Fa‘afetai lava Mr Chairperson. First I would like to talk about clause 5 in Part 1 of this bill the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Paula Bennett the Minister for Social Development concedes and accepts that some parents do not need to enrol their children in early childhood education. Although the provision in the new bill places emphasis on the need for beneficiaries to take all reasonable steps to ensure that their dependent child aged 3 years or over is enrolled at and attending an early childhood education centre until they start school the Minister in the chair accepts that it may not be necessary for some—right? Thank you Minister. I am glad that you are agreeing with me. So New Zealand First wants to know whether there will be subsidies for early childhood education. We also need to know whether early childhood education providers will be able to cope with the potential growth in enrolments. 
Reports suggest that of the 220000 children whose parents receive welfare only 31500 are 3 or 4 years old. Of this number the Minister has said that the test will apply to only say around about 20000 to 25000 children each year and that “The others we expect them to but we won’t be checking up to see if they have.” So the honourable Minister has made it clear that the benefit payments may be halved if they fail to do this. Then later she said that “people who could not access early childhood education would not be sanctioned.” 
Parents also have to enrol their children with a general practitioner to avoid sanctions. Implementing such a policy is problematic when the Government does not have the means to monitor all these children. I think recently there has been a case where screenings for children’s hearing have been recalled because of the lack of checks that had gone into that and it just shows that there is a clear indication of a lack of resources being put into place to manage those kinds of situations. 
It may mean a double standard within the system where only some beneficiaries are followed up while others are not and it is obvious that if the Government does not have the resources then the changes in this bill would not be cost-effective to administer. It is also evident that the Government is a little unsure about the direction it wants to take because on the one hand it wants beneficiaries to comply with the rules and on the other there seem to be loopholes where leniency may be granted on certain grounds. 
More important the Government is attempting to dictate to parents how to parent. This is the Government’s way of policing the way parents raise their children and we do not think that that is necessary. How can the Government take away people’s freedom of choice when it comes to child rearing? 
Ms Bennett not every beneficiary is a bad parent nor are they all drug users. I am sure there are a lot of parents out there who are good parents. Some families may not have the means to put their children through early childhood education or maybe some providers do not have the space to allow more children to enrol. I know being a parent myself that when my children were young even though there was availability of early childhood education I felt more confident and very sure that my children were much better off with me than being sent to early childhood education. 
New Zealand First is not trying to downplay the importance of removing drugs from the workplace and especially from the home where young children live. I mean that is a reason why I have introduced to the House a bill to address the issues of where children are exposed to criminal activities. What we want to see are some amendments to the proposed changes that will make them more practical if enforced into law. 
This bill will contribute to draining more families across the Ditch. There is a variety of reasons as to why beneficiaries need State assistance. We believe that the State should be there in times of real need. We also expect beneficiaries to try to gain paid employment once they are capable of doing so. 
This Government’s direction with social security sends out a clear signal to the rest of the country about its perception of beneficiaries. The Minister will foster greater difficulty for beneficiaries trying to make a better life for their families. She is deliberately shrinking the dreams and hopes of families who are receiving State assistance for the right reasons. The social obligations of this bill symbolise the dictating nature of this Government. 
I now want to move on in Part 1 to clauses 9 11 14 and 15—I am going to try to see whether I can fit them all in in 5 minutes. I wonder whether anyone in the Chamber remembers these words being spoken: “That is what I want for others—the feeling of being self-reliant in work and of saying to Work and Income: ‘Thanks but I don’t need a benefit any more.’ ” I remember the Minister saying those words in her second reading speech on this social security bill. Although a dreamer can visualise the impossible at times with his or her dreams a visionary can make these dreams come true. So I say to the Minister does she know the difference between a dreamer and a visionary—does she know? On the jobs front neither dreamer nor visionary is going to have any luck in this country. 
The Government can try to fool us with the visage of good statistics and shed light on success stories that are meant to tug at our heartstrings. They are few and far between. The reality is that there is a lack of ears in the National Government to hear what we have said over the past year in regards to job creation. 
When you rely on the economic might of Australia as an employment policy you get the following results. A possible 1500 job cut for information and communications technology specialists—what is going to happen? They move to Australia. A budget freeze on our front-line police—what is going to happen? They move to Australia. We have restructures happening within Government departments forcing the expertise of many public servants to venture into overseas opportunities. They may as well take New Zealand’s wildlife with them. We have skilled workers being pushed out of their jobs especially where the Department of Corrections actually needed to fit some of their prisoners into Release to Work schemes. What is going on here? An increase in the 50000-plus annual exodus to Australia. A manufacturing sector under siege due to major Government procurement projects going to firms manufacturing overseas—I sure hope that this will not happen with our insulation industry. 
Why is this Government working with a failed monetary policy approach costing thousands of jobs in the export and manufacturing sectors? We cannot inflict these reforms under a new social policy when reality differs. Although National pays lip service to the country on its vision that the unemployment rate has gone down this country’s reality states that we have an increase in the number of people going on to the benefit—we have. 
New Zealanders have given up looking for jobs in this country. There has been no reflection on the fact that skilled workers are moving across the Ditch. They do not want to stay here and take on unskilled work. Furthermore our tertiary and higher-education graduates are not sticking around to pay off their loans. The starting-out wage will see a fluctuation in job losses for older and experienced workers while employers seek to pay less for the same productivity rate. 
Can I now also address Part 1 clause 39 amended section 88A of this bill. This is about work-test obligations and drug testing. The bill before us today will attempt to make it compulsory for beneficiaries to undertake a drug test if they are considered to be at risk. The Government can sit there and play the pointing game and blame employers for wanting to drug test beneficiaries upon their taking up a paid job—and we do support the idea of drug testing—but at the end of the day responsibility needs to lie somewhere and in this case it belongs with Paula Bennett and her bill. 
New Zealand First considers drug testing to be important. We do recognise this. It is vital that employers feel comfortable to employ people who can be trusted to do the work. However New Zealand First has concerns about how the Government intends to roll out this initiative particularly with the way it will be administered and with the number of people involved.