Fairbrother Russell: Social Security Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Social Security Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10115] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 It is a huge pleasure to follow on from the deputy chair of the Social Services Committee after that stunningly stunningly empty speech. When I was listening to her I thought that gosh all I could really say about that speech is that she is taking a long time to dance on the head of a pin. 
First of all she attacked the style of the bill—the wording. Nothing was said about that in the select committee. She went on to say that it would help beneficiaries who want to malinger. But then the real agenda of her party came out of her pursed lips— 
Judith Collins 
: Pursed! 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Yes they stuck out. She was trying to avoid the word “sanctions” but she deviated from the script given to her by her whips because she is like that; deviation is one of the things she specialises in especially when the whips give her an instruction. In the course of her deviation the word “sanctions” slipped out. She said there are no sanctions in the bill. 
Every beneficiary should be worried about those words. Every New Zealander should be worried about those words because very few families in New Zealand are not touched by disability mental health issues or disadvantage. Whilst we are in good form and strong of our own mind and body it is easy to categorise those who depend on the State as requiring sanctions. We heard from the National Party’s representative today that National members want more sanctions in the provision of social welfare. Perhaps that is why it is estimated that under National about 160 families would lose about $50 a week because of National’s sanction-ridden policies. 
But I want to get to this Social Security Amendment Bill in the short time that is available to me today. I will just comment on the point made by the previous speaker when she laboured over new section 1B(d) to be inserted into the Social Security Act by clause 23 of the bill. It provides: “people for whom work is not appropriate should be supported in accordance with this Act.” What National members are avoiding doing is speaking about the purpose and principles sections. They have spread the fear among the community that this is a punitive bill yet they come here and speak about it not having sanctions; they have spread the hype that they have a concern for the disadvantaged yet they speak about the bill not having sanctions; and they refuse to speak about clause 23 which introduces sections 1A and 1B to the primary Act. 
I want to take the House to the new section 1A which is the purpose section: “The purpose of this Act is—(a) to enable the provision of financial and other support as appropriate—…”. Who can object to that? This is a country that looks after its own. This is a country that encourages excellence achievement and attainment and assists those for whom those are not possible. Then paragraph (b) states: “to enable in certain circumstances the provision of financial support to people to help alleviate hardship:”. That is exactly what everyone in New Zealand wishes we were like and under this Government that is what we are like. Section 1A(c) states: “to ensure that the financial support referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) is provided to people …” taking into account two basic steps. 
Of course those are directions not to beneficiaries as has been promoted by the opponents of the bill but to the Ministry of Social Development which administers the legislation. It is the ministry that must enable the provision of financial and other support. It is the ministry that is to enable in certain circumstances the provision of financial support. It is the ministry that must ensure that the financial support is provided. All that is asked in return is some administrative and where appropriate work-related requirements on people seeking or receiving financial support under the Act. 
Even that is qualified in the principles clause. First of all the basic principle in section 1B(a) is one that every Kiwi aspires to: “work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being:”. I repeat: work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being. What could be more clear than that? What could we contest about that? I wait to hear a speaker from the other side of the House say what is wrong with that as a basic principle in the bill. 
The second principle is: “(b) the priority for people of working age should be to find and retain work:”. This is the key to the programme that this bill reflects. It is not just about making work out of nothing; it is about finding work that is sustainable because this Government aims for full employment and worthwhile employment. So we will help people who have been unemployed to find work but it is to be work that is sustainable. This is the key to the bill: sustainability. 
Of course there are some people for whom work much as they want it is inappropriate. Most beneficiaries to my knowledge would like to have work but there are some people who currently cannot work. But they are not sidelined because of that because there is an onus on the ministry to assist such people to plan for work in the future and to develop employment-focused skills. So those who can work will be assisted into sustainable work and those who may be able to work in the future will be prepared for the day when they can enter into the workforce and undertake sustainable work. Then there is the third category which contains the people who probably most want to work and they are the people for whom work is not appropriate. This legislation provides that they should be supported by having financial assistance to relieve their hardship. This third category of people genuinely want to work but because of circumstances beyond their control cannot. They will welcome the passing of this Social Security Amendment Bill into law. 
This bill is a very good change to our social security policy. This change highlights the difference between Labour members and the National members opposite.