Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8898. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Substantive amendments 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson for the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. We have made it very clear from the outset that Labour does not support this bill but it was indeed our focus and our intention through the select committee stage to make the best of a bad lot as it were. Even though we were not in agreement with what the Government’s drivers were in respect of particular aspects—like for instance the punitive sanction-based nature of these changes—we did want to ensure that we could reduce the negative impacts as much as we were able. I want to speak to some of those changes today. 
Before I begin I want to thank all of those who made submissions on this bill. It is fair to say that probably the most significant viewpoint that we heard—just in terms of the size the scale of submissions—was from those parents in particular who wanted the ability to home school their children. That is something we will probably each individually canvass when we talk about this bill. But I think it is fair to say that the point the Social Services Committee reached was to add within the bill—it is technically covered by section 1A amended by clause 5 which sets out the social obligations but it is also referenced later on in the bill—the provision that basically if you are able to get an exemption from the Ministry of Education to home school your children that will then allow you to be exempt from being sanctioned by the Ministry of Social Development if they are not enrolled in school. Or—my understanding is—if that parent is using the correspondence curriculum for early childhood education then that will also have some application. 
We may need some clarification from the Minister for Social Development on that because although that is certainly my understanding—that an exemption allows that distance learning curriculum to be used—some of our submitters believed that that has not been the final outcome. It probably would be very useful for us to clarify that here and now for those submitters because I know that this is an area they feel very very passionate about. So that is my understanding—that for anyone who has that exemption be it across early childhood education and the specific curriculum there for distance learning or an exemption for any other form of schooling it will apply for the purposes of Work and Income. That is a really important point to make because I know that for all members of the select committee I think that was a good outcome on that particular issue and we want to make it very clear to submitters what the resolution was there. 
Coming back though to some of the wider context of the bill it is important for me from Labour’s perspective to again reiterate that it has always been our belief that the social security system in New Zealand should be dignified it should be active and of course it should be work focused for those who are in a position to be able to work. We hold some differences of opinion from the Government as to whether or not that is actually what this bill achieves. When you look at those criteria within the context of the environment we are in at the moment—the 170000 unemployed people seeking work—obviously it is a tough environment in which to be seeking work. In our view that means that we should be looking to ensure that our active social security system is focused on upskilling and is less focused on being overly punitive for people who are trying to find work but are not having success in that search in this particular environment. 
In that regard I would like to touch on some of Part 1 specifically new sections 11E and 11H in clause 9 which set out the new pre-benefit activity requirements. It is unfortunate that in this country there is probably an assumption that if you lose your job you just walk into Work and Income and from day one you are granted a benefit. That is not how it works. Of course depending on the way that you lose your job there may be a stand-down period you will go through an extensive process with a Work and Income case manager and you may be required to undertake pre-benefit activity. If you are in hardship you can access emergency assistance directly—I should highlight that—but ultimately the majority of people will undergo some kind of pre-benefit activity. This bill further clarifies the range of pre-benefit activities that can be required of those on jobseeker support sole parent support or an emergency benefit. 
Some of our concerns exist around the fact that we have never really analysed to much of a degree how useful and how tailored some of this pre-benefit activity is. Let us be specific. Subsection 3 of new section 11E states that it could include “attending and participating in an employment related seminar”. That could be a CV-writing course for a graduate. I have had graduates who have come into my office and said: “I was required to go on a long CV-writing course—I already had a CV. I knew how to write a CV. I’ve been required to go on computing courses—I’ve just finished an honours degree.” We must be more tailored in our approach to working alongside those job seekers to make sure that we are actually being useful in our engagement with them. None of that really was discussed at the select committee. 
The pre-benefit activity I have to say is a broad-brush approach and is being misused currently. A young person who wants to go on a benefit at the moment is being told by Work and Income brokers that they have to go on a Limited Service Volunteer course. Technically you could call that a pre-benefit activity but it is not meant to be a compulsory course. Yet I know of young people who have been told that if they do not do the course they will not access a benefit. That is not right. 
It may also require them to undergo any other course that Work and Income feels is necessary. I know that some of our job seekers for instance cannot read or write yet Work and Income’s contracting now with service providers means that some of those courses which used to be quite lengthy courses as you would expect for that degree of education are now being chopped back sometimes to 6 to 12 weeks. You cannot make a real difference in someone’s life with such short sharp shocks yet that is some of the pre-benefit activity we are talking about. 
Our point is that of course we want an active system but make sure it is tailored to the individual and not the benefit category. Make sure it is not a course for a course’s sake so you can fill in some kind of number and make everyone feel jolly that you are doing the right thing by someone. We have to make sure that these are useful interventions particularly when there are sanctions attached to the back of them. 
There are also a number of changes around the benefit categories via this bill which I am sure a number of my colleagues will traverse today. They include the fact that anyone who is currently on an unemployment benefit anyone who is currently on a sickness benefit and anyone who is currently on a domestic purposes benefit with a child over the age of 14 will now go on to a job-seeker benefit. I can understand that this is a system that at the moment is overly complicated is difficult to administer and could have used some simplification but by creating broad benefit categories and then overlaying on top of them some crude rules about what you can and cannot do when on those benefits we again risk treating individuals as categories rather than tailoring our response to them—or to use the Minister’s language taking the truly individualised investment approach that she continually tells us about. 
One of our biggest concerns is the limitations that now exist for people on jobseeker support to train educate themselves and get into a position of long-term sustainable employment. I have raised in the House before concerns that for instance someone who wants to do a longer-term course say nursing is now being told that they cannot engage in even part-time study because they must be available and ready for work and not necessarily full-time work. I have had cases of individuals who have been told to stop studying so that they can become available for part-time work which would still render them reliant on the social security system. If our goal ultimately as a Parliament is to see people in sustainable dignified non-precarious work then surely we should be setting people out on trajectories that allow them to get off the welfare system in the longer term rather than the short-term approach that this bill I am sad to say further entrenches because of the oversimplification—the way we have lumped everyone in together in benefit categories. 
The same could be said now for the lack of a true investment approach around particularly those who are seeking wellness to work. I mean specifically those who are currently on a sickness benefit or those who might be on an invalids benefit but are soon to move on to supported living payments. There will be a subset of people within the current invalids benefit who will be job seekers absolutely who are looking for work. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I am talking to Part 1 of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill which really contains the nub of the Government’s arguments and the bulk of the provisions that this side of the Chamber has major difficulties with. When one considers those sanctions in particular and what Part 1 does one has to start asking some very very deliberate questions about the morality and the ethics of this approach to the most vulnerable in our society. This Minister for Social Development and this Government have taken a particularly punitive approach in the provisions in Part 1 of this bill. They are trying to couch that in the language of caring and the language of backing our most vulnerable. But in fact that does not wash with us at all. Underneath that what this Minister and this bill produce is a far more complex system and far more hoops for our vulnerable to go through in order for them just to get enough resources to live by until their situation improves. I think that that is the centre of our criticism of this particular approach—the ethics and the morality that are contained in these particular provisions. 
The Government had other ways of doing this. These are the people who are excluded in our society by and large. What the Government is doing with its social sanctions is precluding them even more from participating in our society preparing for work in our society and preparing to lead their lives. That is objectionable. It is objectionable to us. Again ethically and morally it has got holes in it. But what is also worrying is how we got to this point. How did this Minister make the argument—how did this Government make the argument—that this is what society needed? There certainly are no big savings from the bottom line of the Government’s budget in these provisions. I think it makes about a $20 million difference in the initial period in its budget. So it does not save a lot of money. 
There is this promise that the Minister has talked about that indeed in time it will produce great wealth for our society. But it will not. Again how much are we prepared to put our vulnerable through in order for them to receive the kind of assistance that our decent society ought to be giving our most vulnerable? The Government started by overstating the case for dependency. The Government has a view against those who rely on benefits for a period of time. So by overstating the case designing its task forces to look at the dependency regime it actually overstates it. It overstates welfare dependency to such an extent that it has created in our society this huge problem which the provisions of Part 1 are now designed to help us get over. So the case for dependency has not been made. Yes there are cases. Yes there are a small number of cases of those who have gamed the system. But as many people in this Chamber know there are many many more cases of people accessing the resources and the services provided under our benefit system that have given them the opportunity to get ahead with their lives to look after their children and to become great citizens of our society. There are many many more examples of that and yet by overstating the case we develop a punitive system. 
That is again what the provisions of Part 1 are talking about. They are punitive. There will be I predict over time a whole army of people in Work and Income who will design a whole series of steps to monitor the small group of people who will learn even harder ways even more entrenched ways of gaming the system. That is where the game will be played out and the most vulnerable will be caught in that. If the Government wanted to be sincere about addressing the needs of our most vulnerable then it would actually develop a far more productive approach to what it considers to be the need to provide for our most vulnerable a pathway out of welfare and into work and preparing for life independent of assistance from the State. 
The other thing that the provisions of this bill do is underplay the complexities of our modern world and the complexities of what our vulnerable have to go through. Life is not easy for many of these mums in particular bringing up children. On top of that what some of the sanctions do is make that life for them that much harder. Once children arrive in families once children are there there is not much point in being moralistic about how they got there. There are mums and dads who have to bring up these children and provide the best example possible. Yet what we find for those who rely on assistance from the State in doing that job which is a service to our society—I mean these are our children. There are many leaders of our society who started life dependent on the State as children of sole parents. We ought to be supporting them better but the provisions of Part 1 of this bill will actually make it more difficult for them. Even if the parents were the best people in the world to provide care for their children between 3 and 5 this bill says: “You’re not allowed to do that. You’ve got to be work-ready. You can’t do it on a full-time basis. You’ve got to go out and find at least a certain number of hours of work because that is good for you.” If you happen to be living as a couple where you are not dependent on the State you have all the rights in the world to bring up your children in that way but the provisions of Part 1 of this bill when it comes to those sanctions around the compulsory use of childcare actually are a travesty of that right that parents ought to have. We do not give up our rights to bring up our children in the way we want to provided it meets certain basic standards because the State tells us to do something else. So there is an absolute nanny State type of flavour to the provisions in this particular bill and I personally object to this. 
I know many of the people who have relied on the State to bring up children and I object to this notion of tarring them all with the same brush because there are some cases of those who might not have used the resources particularly well. Life is complex enough for these families yet these provisions will make it even more difficult for them. 
So what are the provisions of Part 1 actually addressing? They are addressing some kind of bigotry that does exist in our society towards this group and you hear talkback shows and talkback hosts particularly in Auckland pumping this up all the time—that here we are these are the people who are taking away from us as taxpayers our wealth so to speak and therefore must be punished. We know enough from history that the pattern will repeat itself because this is a punitive approach. This enables us to be negative towards our neighbours because they draw their income from some other place. To then impose that on the most vulnerable I think is what is most objectionable in this particular bill and the provisions in this particular part because we do know that if we did give them a decent opportunity to get started in life things would be better. 
I am convinced myself that there are enough provisions in the social security system at the moment to use a different approach—an approach that encourages people to prepare for work to meet their childcare responsibilities and to be guided to the extent that they need to be guided to provide the best environment. Yet here we are; we are maligning a whole group of people. We firstly malign them then we subject them to denigration we then call them bludgers and then we put in place a punitive system. Later on in the calls I will take I will talk more about those whom we respect in our society who have come to the select committee and very very unequivocally said that this is not the way to do things because by doing it in this particular way we will create an even worse environment down the road. If Governments think of just a short period of time then we will come back and talk about those— 
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. 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
 I would like to focus my comments in the debate on Part 1 of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill in the Committee of the whole House stage on clause 25 new section 60RA which concerns the social obligations of certain beneficiaries with dependent children. I would like to start by reminding the Committee of some documents that were tabled in the House last week by my co-leader Metiria Turei during question time. Those documents were advice from the Ministry of Health on the sanctions imposed in this bill and their likely impact on child health and well-being. If we listened to the rhetoric of the Minister for Social Development about this bill I think we could be forgiven for thinking that that advice was very favourable. The Minister repeatedly contends that by making Well Child / Tamariki Ora checks compulsory and a sanctionable social obligation under this bill the health outcomes of children will be improved. Indeed that is her stated motivation for including meeting Well Child check obligations as one of the social obligations introduced in this bill. 
With the Minister so adamant about improved outcomes for children we might assume that she had heard from officials that the policy would actually achieve better outcomes for children. But sadly we would be very wrong to assume so. Actually the documents that were tabled in the House last week by my co-leader show that advice from Ministry of Health officials in fact showed the exact opposite of that. Health officials were so concerned about the policy to sanction parents for not getting Well Child checks for their children that they repeatedly warned the Minister that such sanctions would cause “substantial negative impacts on families and vulnerable children including risks of increased maltreatment and neglect”. It is clear from this advice that officials were concerned that the integrity and the effectiveness of the Well Child checks programme would be compromised and undermined if Well Child checks were to be seen by parents as a sanction or a punishment as they indeed would be if they were made compulsory for a section of population under clause 25 in Part 1 of this bill. 
 Ministry officials were also concerned that there was no strong evidence that health-related social obligations are needed. They gave clear advice to the Minister that the best way to reach families who are not receiving Well Child checks at the moment is by improving the delivery mechanisms for Well Child checks not by imposing financial sanctions on beneficiary parents which is likely to simply lead to further harm to the child. They repeatedly gave this advice to the Minister as part of interdepartmental consultation on the development of this legislation but they did not get anywhere so they also wrote to the Minister of Health. They pleaded with the Minister of Health to ask this Minister to investigate alternatives to sanctions for non-compliance with Well Child checks because of their concerns about the potential negative health and well-being impact that this could have on children. But to no avail—sadly sanctions remain in this bill for parents who do not meet the requirements of Well Child checks as well as other social obligations listed in clause 25 in Part 1. Those sanctions could and in some cases will mean that parents see a loss of their benefit of up to 50 percent. I think that these sanctions represent a punitive ideological approach by this Minister who is unwilling to listen to advice or indeed evidence about the likely impact of the policies but has committed to them none the less. 
What the Ministry of Health advice that was tabled by my co-leader in the House last week highlights I think is the potentially harmful impact of the sanctions in this bill on children because children will be even less likely to access the health care that they need and to get the benefit of the Well Child checks programme if they are made compulsory for beneficiaries as proposed in this bill. 
But the other obvious way in which sanctions will harm children is the impact that the loss of income will have on children whose parents—who for whatever reason are failing to meet their social obligations—are sanctioned under this bill. The base-level payment of the DPB depending on the circumstances of the person receiving it is $293 per week. So if you were to lose 50 percent of that payment of $293 per week it is $146.50 per week. I defy any parent to be able to provide the necessities of life for their children on $146.50 per week. It is very important that we think about what we are actually condemning children to live on—children whose parents are sanctioned under this legislation—and what that means for their well-being in their daily lives and the ability of their parents to meet their children’s needs. 
Children have the same needs whatever the circumstances that their parents are in. Whether their parents are in paid work whether their parents are in receipt of a benefit and whether or not their parents are compliant with the social obligations introduced by this legislation children have the same needs. Those are needs like a warm safe secure home adequate food and nutrition clothing—shoes raincoats and warm clothes—and the ability to participate in their education and to take part in school trips school camps and so on all of which parents will find very difficult to provide if they have their income cut by 50 percent for non-compliance with the social obligations introduced in Part 1 of this bill. Children have these needs and they do not control their parents’ circumstances yet their parents need income to be able to provide them with these necessities of life. We in the Green Party are very concerned that many children will be deprived of these necessities if their parents are sanctioned under this bill. 
That is why I have proposed an amendment which is set out on Supplementary Order Paper 197. It states: “A beneficiary’s failure to comply with a social obligation cannot be the subject of a sanction under section 117 if—(a) the beneficiary has 1 or more dependent children; and (b) the chief executive is satisfied that the sanction may deprive the child of food or shelter or would otherwise be detrimental to the wellbeing of the child.” It would be my contention that prioritising children which is something that the Minister often says she wants to do means that we must give consideration to a dependent child who is supported by a parent against whom sanctions may be enforced under this bill. The impact on this child on his or her basic rights to food shelter and safety must be considered. To allow for this which we allow for in this Supplementary Order Paper discretion should be provided to the chief executive that when imposing sanctions they may take into account the interests of dependent children. It is our contention that this actually would bring us much more into line with our international obligations under articles 26 and 27 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which talk about the rights of children and citizens to social security to support themselves. 
We hear a lot about prioritising children from this Minister and indeed from parties all across this Chamber. This Supplementary Order Paper gives the Committee the opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to prioritising children in our social security legislation by allowing that discretion to the chief executive to actually consider the impact on dependent children before imposing a sanction. We have heard from officials from the Ministry of Health who advised the Minister—and even begged their own Minister to intervene—that the specific sanction around Well Child checks is likely to actually lead to detrimental health outcomes for children. Beyond that the simple fact of the loss of income represented by a 50 percent sanction for non-compliance with any of the social obligations introduced in Part 1 of this bill—the children who live in the households where parents will lose that income through no fault of their own and who have no control over their parents’ circumstances will find it very difficult to have their basic needs for food clothing and shelter met. We think at the very minimum that the chief executive should have the discretion to take that into account when deciding whether to impose a sanction and that is why we have moved this Supplementary Order Paper 197. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Talofa lava Mr Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity. I want to make some remarks about the objectives of the bill the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill before I get on to Part 1 which is the substantive part of this particular bill. 
I am reminded of the building of a fale in Samoa. When you begin the building of the fale you have got to make sure that the posts of that fale are on a solid foundation and that they stand firm and straight. If they do not stand firm and straight what happens is the rest of the house is all over the place. I make reference to that because this bill here significantly changes the Social Security Act which we have had for quite a long time. The Government presented to the Social Services Committee the objectives of this bill which I will read out. It: “reduces benefit dependency: is work focused and [encourages] independence: supports an investment approach that focuses resources where they will be most effective:”—in reducing benefit dependency—“is able to work with a greater number of beneficiaries to support them into work: reinforces social norms and improves social outcomes through the introduction of social obligations for parents and encouraging beneficiaries with warrants to arrest to clear them.” 
On the surface of that those objectives seem—on the surface—to be OK. But when you really dig deep into them why is it that we are condemning those who are reliant and dependent on support? Why is that? Why is it that we are condemning mothers beneficiaries and those who are in unemployment through no fault of their own? When we consider this why should we not be considering that a child dependent on their mother is just as important? Why is it that we consider that the dependency of employers on our education system to provide a skilled workforce is OK yet we cannot accept the dependency of a solo mother who requires our collective support? Why is it OK for us to accept that businesses can depend on tax-funded roads for the distribution of their goods and services? Why is it that we cannot accept the fact that there is a group of people in our community who through no fault of their own end up being dependent on the collective support of the country because either they are unemployed they are sick their husband has left them or they are on their own because of death in the family? Why is it? Because of the flawed foundation of this bill—the flawed purpose—everything else is flawed as far as I am concerned. 
One cannot help—and this was raised by one of the submitters—but think that this second round of welfare reform is based in part on flawed United Kingdom laws. That raises more questions because not only does it look like New Zealand is about to repeat the mistakes of another country but the select committee considering the bill the Social Services Committee has been left in the dark over how the new rules for those currently on a sickness or invalids benefit will work. 
I want to draw your attention to the regulatory impact statement particularly with reference to children because at the end of the day many many submitters said that the group of people who will be detrimentally affected by this bill is children. At the end of the day when you sanction mothers when you sanction solo parents when you force them to work test who suffers? The submitters who came to the select committee said that it would be children. Here is what the regulatory impact statement said: “the home environment remains by far the most important domain for child development …”—by far the most important domain for child development. And here we have got clauses in this bill that say that a mother must find full-time work or part-time work. Therefore a mother is compelled to place a young child into long-term childcare facilities. And yet in the regulatory impact statement which was given to this Government it says that “by far the most important domain for child”—[ 
Bell rung 
] Mr Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call Su’a William Sio. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: Thank you very very much Mr Chair. What a wonderful Chair you are. It says that by far the home environment is the most important domain for child development. The regulatory impact statement then says that long-duration childcare from birth is harmful—long-duration childcare from birth is harmful. But this is what this bill is going to place a lot of children into because mums—solo parents—are going to be forced to place their children into long-duration childcare because of the work testing and the sanctions that are going to be imposed upon them. Long-duration childcare is required when a mother is required to work full-time or substantial part-time as is in the bill. 
Furthermore the regulatory impact statement says that the OECD found regarding child developmentthat “a return to work of the mother before the child is 6 months old may have more negative than positive effects.” on the development of that child. There is so much evidence—there is a huge body of evidence—that says that the most critical period in the child’s development is from birth to 7 years and I think that has not been given consideration by the Government in implementing this bill. 
I want to say that the submission from the public that stood out for me the most was from a solo mother by the name of Charlotte Murray who gave her own experience as a single mother with two children aged 2 years and 5 years. Her submission was that mothers with young children who are forced into work are going to be under extreme stress and they are going to pass that stress on and she submitted that in turn that is going to be harmful to the children. I do not know how the Minister and the members of her Government cannot really recognise that there is an issue here that has not yet been addressed. 
I want to also point to the fact that there were many submissions from the disability community. I want to quote what they said because it is more powerful in their words. Darren Kemp says that it is costly being disabled. It is costly living on a benefit. It is costlier living on a benefit when one is disabled and no one should be worse off than they already are. Darren Kemp says that his solution is job creation and job creation on a large scale not forcing sick people to look for jobs. He said that the Government bill should really be called the “Forcing the Sick and Solo Parents to Look for Work with No Support Bill.” 
I want to go on because I think it is important. Darren Kemp says there is a lot of anxiety for beneficiaries with neurological illnesses who get taken off the benefit and then put on again. He opposes these reforms because this is the practical implication he sees for people with neurological illnesses. The submission was that Work and Income case managers including receptionists require a major attitudinal change in order to support people with dual disorders and to stop the ignorance. The point he was making was that this was going to create havoc for people with disabilities and particularly so when even the managers and those who are dealing with them from Work and Income themselves have difficulty understanding the disabilities. So welfare changes will result in endless medical certificates and loads of paperwork by doctors with no knowledge of the impact it will have on people particularly on people with dual disorders. Many with dual disorders are denied Work and Income support to enable them to attend interviews and they said: “No interview no job.” This is another submission by Robin Williams. He said that more than 70 percent of patients with attention deficit disorder will have dual disorders. These disabilities are permanent; they remain for ever. Their point is that there is a high rate of unemployment for those with disorders. There is a high rate of unemployment for blind people. Blind people want to work but unemployment for blind people is at 60 percent.  
The point I am making is that people whether they are a solo parent whether they are unemployed or whether they have disabilities want to work but the foundation of this bill— 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
Talofa lava and thank you for the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of this Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Mr Prasad got it right. He asked in his earlier statement what the policy intent is for this bill. It is quite clear—it is quite clear—what this Government is trying to do with this welfare bill: to change the mind-set of our country towards encouraging independence towards encouraging people into work and towards encouraging people to have self-reliance in order for them to look after their families. This bill is transformative for our country. It will encourage those who can work to work and it will encourage people off benefits and into work. Despite the scaremongering from members opposite this bill actually protects the vulnerable it protects those who are unable to work it protects those who have disabilities and it gives them benefits. 
All we on this side of the Chamber are saying is that those who can work should work. It is an investment approach because there will be more funding upfront in terms of case management. There will be more funding upfront in terms of work testing to get people prepared and into jobs. Members opposite have asked where the jobs are. 
Carol Beaumont 
: Where are those jobs? 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: Oh Miss Beaumont will ask where the jobs are having been unemployed from this institution for the last 15½ months. I will tell her where the jobs are. If that member had looked on the website SEEK this afternoon at 3 p.m. 12500 full-time jobs were on SEEK 1000 part-time jobs were on SEEK 2000 contract jobs were on SEEK and 150 casual jobs—that is 16000 jobs that are on SEEK this afternoon waiting for people to work. Members opposite continue to ask where the jobs are. We know that as the Prime Minister stated quite clearly this afternoon the manufacturing sector is growing and that most sectors across this economy grew in the December quarter of 2012—1.5 percentage growth in our GDP. This economy is growing. We know that jobs are being created. Some have been lost but some have been created and we know that the jobs are out there. 
But what does the bill do? What is the problem that we are trying to solve? We know that around $8 billion per annum is spent on welfare. We know that. The Opposition members know that but they do not want to hear how we can progress people out of work and into jobs. It is a lifetime cost of paying benefits to our population. It is estimated at $78 billion dollars. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: It’s all about dollars. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: That is more than the Government spends every year Mr Prasad. You know that; I know that. So that is a lifetime cost and that is why it is not just the fiscal implications that this bill brings about; it is also the social implications. Mr Prasad did not know where welfare dependency was. Well I can tell you Mr Prasad. I have welfare dependency in my family and in my electorate. I have seen it—from mother to daughter to granddaughter. It happens and that is sad. It is a sad indictment. We all know in this Committee that some members of our society need help when required but we also know that work is really important to get people off welfare and into jobs. When you have welfare dependency you set boundaries around having very low or no expectations and you have very low or no aspiration. The worst thing that we can give them is having very low or no hope in life and that is why it is important that our kids are incentivised and promoted into getting jobs. 
We know that the changes are around introducing benefit categories. We know that work-test obligations are critical. We heard Mr Sio saying that they must find work. No they are being work tested into work and if they are able to work and a job presents itself then they should work because the money that they get from working is actually quite beneficial to their families. It is good for— 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 This is truly a sad day having this debate. This is truly a very flawed bill the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. It is an ideological bill. It is not a bill that is built on common sense. It is extremely unfortunate that we are having to debate it in this manner. We object absolutely to the underlying assumption in this bill and in all of the provisions in this bill that those on Government support do not want to work. I do not know where the Government gets this assumption from. I do not know in particular whether that member who spoke previously Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga actually meets with constituents who are suffering from not being able to find jobs from not being able to get the support that they need to get to find jobs. 
In my electorate I have countless examples every single day of people who are having more and more barriers put in their way in order for them to find work. I particularly want to mention and reiterate what my colleague Su’a William Sio said earlier about people with disabilities. I recently had 10 people sitting round a table in my office—people with disabilities—telling me about the barriers that are being put in their way to being able to find jobs. They cannot even get to the point where they get an interview because of the barriers that are there and because this Government has taken away the mainstream funding that was providing support for them. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: That’s not true. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: Yes it has gone. These people implored me to do something about this and to try to work out how it is that they could even get an interview and get to employers who were willing to interview them when there were so many other people standing in line for each of these jobs. 
This is a bill that we cannot support because it does nothing to address those barriers to work the availability of work the childcare costs and whether the individual has the necessary skills required. It is pushing the buttons of negativity. That is what it is doing—pushing the buttons of negativity and blame. It is targeting and demonising good people in our community who want to work and who cannot find work. The Government is punishing the most vulnerable members of our society for its own lack of ability to improve the economy. As I said my office is overwhelmed by increasing numbers of needy constituents who seek help to simply access their entitlements under our current social security regime and those barriers are just making it harder for them to move out of the poverty cycle. There is no carrot in this bill. It is like using the stick when a person is already cornered. 
Recently my office has had four cases of people approaching me when their benefits have been cut for non-compliance with job-seeking including a family with a very young baby. These are people who find it difficult to regularly report their situation to their case manager to state for instance the jobs that they applied for or that they have moved and they are getting into difficulty with these things. These are the ones who have already been let down by our education system and who are having difficulties with the regime that is providing more barriers for them. These are the people whom social welfare was designed to support into a better situation not to penalise them for their lack of skills. I do not think that members on any side of this Chamber will try to convince you Mr Chair that we do not need to decrease the number of people who are reliant on State support but what we do disagree on is how we go about achieving this. This Government is playing into the stereotypes of bludging of putting everybody into the same basket of— 
MOJO MATHERS (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party opposes this bill the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. We have many concerns with the whole fundamental approach and we are particularly concerned about the impact that it may have on disabled people. I am constantly amazed when I hear people say: “Oh this bill is all about encouraging people to get off the benefit and into work.” and yet I cannot see how this bill will do that for people with disabilities. 
Everywhere I have gone across the country one of the No. 1 issues that people with disabilities raise with me is their concern around not being able to get work. They share with me their stories about how they cannot get work. The barriers to employment are not because of their own lack of willingness to get work; the barriers to employment are out there in society. It may be the attitude of employers. 
One example I would like to give is of a woman called Judith who is deaf. When she saw a job in the paper that she thought she could apply for she rang the number that was available for an application form. Because she was deaf she used the relay service and she was told that the job was already filled. When her friend rang—her friend with hearing—the employer said: “No problem. We will send you the application form.” So she could not even get an application form sent to her because she was ruled out right from the start on the basis of being deaf. 
There are endless stories like this of the kinds of day-to-day challenges of trying to even get a foot in the door for people with disabilities. This is why there is so much concern around the focus on the work assessment model. We know that in the UK the work assessment model has not worked and that it is causing constant litigation huge suffering for people in the UK and indeed a spike in suicides as a result. People with mental health issues are particularly vulnerable to the kinds of assessment models that might focus on whether they can lift something—it does not look at what the real barriers to employment are and what they can really do. It should not be part of this bill. Assessment models can work if the sole focus of assessment is to help the person identify what they can do best identify their strengths and abilities and find work that matches these strengths and abilities. It will not work if it is focused on what they cannot do and tries to boil that down to a series of mechanistic tests. 
The other major concern that we have about the bill is around the social obligations for parents. I have already spoken in the second reading about how many parents have simply decided their children are simply not ready to attend an early childhood learning education centre. But a huge proportion of solo parents in particular with a child on a benefit—about 26 percent of them—have a child with a disability and certain disabilities are actively discriminated against in access to early childhood education. 
I have just been contacted by a mother of two young children with very severe disabilities. The early childhood education centre said they cannot take both of them together at the same time. It cannot provide for that and the most that it can do is to provide for one of them for 9 hours a week. These are the kinds of real challenges that parents of children with disabilities are facing. Some early childhood education centres have been petitioned by other parents to remove children with disabilities from their centres because the other parents do not like having these children there. 
There is more discrimination at the early childhood education centres than there is at secondary or primary school level where there is an obligation— 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 I just want to address some of the concerns that have come through from Opposition members. First of all I would like to thank all of those who submitted. I would like to thank the Social Services Committee for all of the work that it has done and for some of the changes that it has made. 
As I said I will now just go through some of the things that have been addressed. One of them was around home-schooling and it went right back to the first call that Ms Ardern made. I just want to be quite clear. In two parts she kind of said that if you are enrolled for home-schooling and you have met the criteria then you will not have social obligations put against you for early childhood education. That is not quite correct. However the second part of what she said which is that if you have enrolled for the equivalent of home-schooling which is Te Kura and which is the curriculum for early childhood education then you will not have social obligations put against you. So you cannot just say: “I’m going to home school my child when they turn 5 and as such I do not have to reach that social obligation.” However if you have enrolled with home-schooling and you are doing the curriculum then you will be fine. So that will address that for them. 
Look there was a lot that was talked about as far as individuals and targeting to individuals is concerned. I know that the bill itself—as it is in the legislation—is relatively broad and the proof will be in the pudding which will come about when it is put into place. But the whole theory behind this the whole motivation for it is that we are looking at individuals and what they can do and then getting them support to get them up to speed. It certainly plays on what Ms Mathers was talking about as far as people with disabilities are concerned and certainly on what other members have raised throughout their calls as well. 
I always think that when you look at it we have you know 320000-odd individuals who are receiving welfare. You know we can block them into courses as the investment approach does or you can look at it from the macro-perspective and from the micro-perspective but really it is once you get down to the individual. What that will do and certainly through the work assessments that were raised by the previous member and through other assessments that we do—and I am just going to detour slightly now and just talk about those assessments because for many of them they are a self-assessment. 
We have actually worked incredibly closely intensively and over a long period of time with the health and disability sector itself. We have purposely gone out and held open forums and we have gone through paperwork. We have not just given them the theory but we have literally sat down with them and talked about the wording that we use and about how we actually make it accessible for people with literacy problems or with disabilities that mean that they are unable to have physical access let alone those who might have other incapacities that mean that they are unable to understand the information that is in front of them. We have then really been keenly interested in how they can do those assessments that really address what they can do and then if there are gaps that mean there are barriers there we can put more money in up front and get them that level of support. The disability sector has said to me: “We are optimistic but nervous.” and I think that is entirely fair. I can say as I have said it 100 times and I will continue to say it that I am also equally aware that the proof will be when they get into place with what we are doing. 
What I would say to members is yes we have been making changes to welfare over the last 4 years. At each point it has been said that this is the end of welfare as we know it that people will be thrown out and that we will be treating people appallingly. The only times I hear the word “bludgers” and other horrible words are quite frankly from people who are trying to scaremonger. It is never from us and actually for all the changes we have made the world has not fallen apart. People have not been able to not get access to what they need and what they deserve and what their are entitlements are. In fact I get criticised for the number being too high and for me letting too many people be on welfare. Well I just ask you to look at past performance. I think it stacks up for itself and so does New Zealand. 
I hope you see these changes for what they are truly intended to be which is getting the right support for the right individuals with the right assessments and making sure that actually at the end of the day we will be paying more. You will see that through the Budget process just as you saw it through the youth services that this is about investing in people up front and earlier. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. This is as I understand it the second part of a move to reform our social security system and to fundamentally shift the focus of the benefit system towards encouraging and supporting beneficiaries to move into paid work. Well that is all very good if there is some paid work for them to move into. I know that some members opposite seem to think that growth in our economy has meant more jobs. Well actually this is jobless growth—the growth that there has been recently. We still have exceptionally high unemployment in this country. Many many New Zealanders are absolutely desperate to get work and as somebody who has been out in the community full-time for the last 12 months or so I can assure you that I have talked to many people who are really desperate about their work situation. People want to work but that would not be the message you would get from looking at legislation like this. 
As I understand it this legislation is going to do some things like extend work-test and work preparation obligations replace seven current benefit categories with three new main categories and have all sorts of provisions around social obligations and of course sitting alongside all of that are some very nice sanctions. And what are the underlying assumptions with that? Well I think it absolutely says loud and clear that the Government believes that most people who are on benefits do not want to work and that parents who are on benefits are not good parents. That is why we supposedly need this legislation. I think that that is particularly and utterly galling in this situation with the current levels of unemployment. 
What are the facts? How many people on benefits do not actually want to work? How many of the parents who are receiving benefits are not good parents? My colleague Dr Prasad talked about very small numbers of people who are probably in those kinds of categories. The facts are that people want to work. They want decent jobs. They want to be able to manage bringing up their children if they have got them to have a job that pays them fairly and to be able to look after themselves. The fact of the matter is there ain’t those jobs there for them. That is the fact. 
What this is about is beneficiary bashing headline grabbing and the Government’s typical spin. This is a Government of spin. It is short on real actions and solutions but big on spinning. I think it is pretty rich for the Minister for Social Development to say that this is not about beneficiary bashing. As I heard the Hon Phil Goff say this is dog whistle politics this is knowing that there is a constituency out there who thinks that everybody receiving a benefit is a bludger. I believe honestly that most people in this Chamber know that not to be true. But despite that there is this sort of legislation which actually is not the most important thing that the Government should be addressing by a long way. The most important thing or one of the most important things is actually our economy and ensuring that the economy grows and provides decent jobs for people to work in. If those decent jobs were there then people would be working. 
I thought it was absolutely disgusting in question time today when the Prime Minister joked about unemployment. I cannot believe that the Prime Minister of New Zealand thinks that unemployment is a joke. There are 163000 New Zealanders who are registered as unemployed. There are 111000 other New Zealanders who want more work who are underemployed. They want more hours. They cannot live with a decent standard of living on the hours that they have got. These are real people: real people who are hurting and real people who want work. Our unemployment rate is staying very very high and the Government is sitting on its hands in the face of wave after wave of massive job losses. We have got the Telecom ones coming up we have had Solid Energy and there are the Department of Conservation job losses today. Those are just three out of a massive great list of wave after wave of job losses. Again these are real people. Two hundred people waited for seven jobs in a Carter Holt Harvey workplace in Mangere. There were 200 people for seven jobs. In my own circumstances—in my own family—my niece who is a graduate is desperately seeking work. She rang me the other night and she said— 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
: 
 If the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill is as the Minister for Social Development would have us believe about dealing with welfare dependency let us look for a moment at the record. The record is that since she became Minister unemployment is up 82 percent. Those on the DPB are up 13 percent. The first question we should ask you Minister is whether this is because 82 percent more people suddenly do not want to work. Is this because the nation has suddenly lost its morals and a lot more people are on a domestic purposes benefit because of that? The Minister knows that that is arrant nonsense. She knows that the reason why there are more people unemployed has very little to do with lacking the will to work and a hell of a lot to do with the jobs being lost under her Government’s management and the jobs not being available. 
I want to ask the Minister why it was that when I opened a New World supermarket for the jobs that were available there—I think there were 200—there were over 3000 people seeking those jobs. More recently I opened The Warehouse store in Stoddard Road. There were 80 jobs and there were 1500 people seeking out relatively low-paid employment. Most recently I opened a Countdown supermarket. There were 150 jobs there; there were 2600 people queuing up for those jobs. 
It is not about people lacking the will to work Minister and it is not about people wanting to be welfare dependent; it is about the fact that in the last quarter under this Government something like 20000 to 30000 jobs have disappeared and not been replaced. It is about the fact that this Government has not focused on the need of those out of work to be upskilled in order to get employment—things like the training incentive allowance. You Minister know about that. You took advantage of it. So why is it Minister that you have taken it away from people today who want to upskill in order to get into the workforce to get a job? 
If you want to reduce welfare dependency make sure the jobs are there make sure that people are skilled to take up those jobs and make sure that people have affordable early education assistance so that their kids can be looked after. Because for most parents out there their first obligation is to their children. They must look after their children. They must ensure their children have a stable background and every assistance those kids can get. That comes even before finding a job if you are a solo mum or dad. So let us make sure that the prerequisites to getting people off welfare and into jobs are there: jobs skills and affordable early childhood education. This bill is very strong on rhetoric; it is very weak on making any real difference in practice. 
I want you to tell the Committee Minister how it will work if you cut the benefit by 50 percent. Who do you think Minister is going to be the first victim of that? Is this another case of visiting the sins of the parents on the kids? The kids are already ill-clothed ill-fed ill-housed and disadvantaged and will never have the same opportunities as your kids or mine. Are you going to cut the benefit to punish the parent? Yeah come on. 
What is our social security system about? It is about a social contract. People do have an obligation if they are able to work to go out there and find the work. But you can do that with strong case management. You know that Minister. You know that to be the truth. If somebody is not working who should be you look at their drug or alcohol problem for example. Do not increase the pokies at Skycity. That will not help. Do not be gutless about your alcohol legislation and reducing dependency. That will not help. It is about addressing the problems. If they are unskilled do not cut $53 million out of the skills budget as you did 2 years ago. Do not cut the training incentive allowance because you will only make the problem worse. 
I believe that people have obligations to their community that there is a social contract and that our community has the responsibility to make sure that those in need and those who are most vulnerable get support and each of us has the obligation back to our community to contribute as much as we can to get out there and work when we can. Most people want to do this. This bill— 
TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chair. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will not be supporting the bill but that is not because we do not believe that the Minister for Social Development truly has the intention described inside this bill. It is merely because we have grave fears that some of the measures inside the bill will have a negative downstream impact that has not been appropriately addressed at this time. 
New Zealand First believes that the welfare system of our country is a safety net not a hammock. I remember the first time I met the Hon Paula Bennett. We were both speaking at a political engagement in 2008 at Te Atatu. It was one of the most volatile political engagements I have had during any campaign that I have been part of partly because the Hon Tau Henare was in the crowd rarking it up. But where we made a point of contact I say to Minister Bennett was when I spoke of my great-grandmother the loss of my great-grandfather and their small child through the influenza epidemic here in New Zealand and the fact that my great-grandmother then had to put her two small daughters in with the nuns down in Wellington while she went to find herself a husband. There was no support. There was no way she could look after her two small daughters—aged 5 and 3 if I recall correctly—while she sorted her finances. 
You and I both agree that that is not a place we want to go back to. That is nowhere near where this bill the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill is trying to go; that is not the point. However when I read the parts of this bill that deal with and merge the widow’s benefit for example with the work-ready benefit or the work-focus benefit I have concerns about women such as my great-grandmother who lose their husbands and about small children who lose their fathers. 
Then there is a subjective process about when they are ready to come back. It concerns me and it concerns New Zealand First in terms of some of the subjectivity that can be inside what is outside your control Minister. This is going to be at the front line. So that is something as you say where the proof will be in the pudding but New Zealand First is concerned that it has not been addressed appropriately or the safety net has not been addressed appropriately here. 
We also agree that there is a social contract in this country. Nobody gets something for nothing. We all work hard and we should all work hard for the benefit of our country. But that is different from the term “social obligation”. The social obligations that have been placed inside this bill start to direct and impact on a parent’s ability to make choices and decisions for their children. It is of concern to New Zealand First that the social obligations start to push people who have found themselves in a place of requiring support from their country to start to lose the ability to make those choices for their own children. 
Some of that concern is around the Well Child / Tamariki Ora checks. New Zealand First has always been a proponent for Well Child / Tamariki Ora checks. If I remember correctly I think it was our policy that started it. But we were not asking for people to be forced into a situation of immunising their children. Yet again there is a requirement a subjective requirement that they make a fully informed decision that somebody on the front line can decide they have not made it fully informed and therefore they can penalise them. That is a concern to us. 
David Bennett 
: Who cares? 
TRACEY MARTIN 
: Mr Bennett I think everybody here cares. There are reasons why a social obligation as opposed to a social contract is so important. New Zealand First has a policy that again is based on that concept—that if your country supports you you should be doing something to support your country—and it is our community wage policy. There is a constant call: “Where is the work?”. I do not think that the Government although we have all this political rhetoric denies that we are in a time—let us say it is the global recession—where it is a very tight job market and a very tight labour market. 
But we want people to continue to have that work ethic. We want our young people to continue to get up in the morning and believe that you have to go out and do for country and do for your community. That is why New Zealand First would have liked to see some sort of positive social contract engagement inside this bill something built around our policy of the community wage. There are many many organisations that require voluntary labour and for 20 hours a week to gain your community wage or your work focus benefit of whatever the title is you should have to— 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is not a pleasure to stand and speak in the Committee stage of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill because actually this is a bill that shows—particularly in Part 1 with all of its punitive effects that it brings on people on mothers in particular—that the Government has just given up. It really has given up on this idea of a brighter future. No longer is it prepared to make sure that there are jobs created and that we have a society where people actually feel like they can contribute in a positive way to their society. Instead it is using Part 1 of this bill to bring in a whole range of punitive measures—a whole range of punitive measures—to get people lining up for jobs. That is the demeaning situation that we actually face here in New Zealand today under the National Government. It is that demeaning prospect of people having to line up for jobs. 
There were a couple of stories in the  
Waikato Times 
 just in the last week that really paint this dismal picture that the National Government has got us into that will not be rectified and that will in fact be worsened by this bill and Part 1 in particular. The first story was the front page of the  
Waikato Times 
 on the 18th of this month. It had a big banner headline that read: “Jobless fight for work”. The jobless are having to fight for work in a city like Hamilton. That is the sort of brighter future that this Government has delivered to us. What the story detailed was situations like 1013 people applying for 120 jobs at the Hamilton office of the Earthquake Commission—1013. The burger chain Wendy’s had 100 applications for six management positions. And they were expecting more than 500 people to apply for 50 minimum wage crew jobs. The Mexico Group is also looking to recruit people but these are not flash jobs; these are minimum wage jobs. Again about 200 people had applied for 25 jobs at that restaurant. So this is the prospect: people lining up in queues to actually try to secure the dignity of work. The demeaning lining up and queuing for jobs for the dignity of work—that is what it has been reduced to. 
The other story that I think is relevant to Part 1 of this bill which was in the  
Waikato Times 
 just a few days later was a story where—it was quite demeaning actually—this was the employers starting up. The employers were starting up to say: “We have these jobs. They are minimum rate jobs and when people line up to apply for them they are really not worthy of these minimum wage jobs.” It was disgraceful but tucked in there was a sentence where those employers were complaining that this piece of legislation was going to make matters worse. That was the employers complaining that it was going to make life worse for them. Never mind the people forced to line up because there are no jobs in this country forced to line up in those queues and go through that demeaning exercise with a punitive approach that this Government is about to take through Part 1 of this bill. In that queue after this legislation passes will be the mother who has been forced to look for employment against her will and against the needs of her children. They will be the people who have been forced to put their children into early childhood education against their will. They will be the people forming these queues. 
The employers in that story were already complaining about people lining up to be applicants who they said did not really want the job. I do not know how they have come to that conclusion that people— 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to rise in support of and talk in the first part of this legislation the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. I would just like to address a couple of things that Opposition members have actually raised. I think Ms Moroney actually talked about what a shame it was that people are lining up for jobs. I say good on them. They are encouraged. They are actually out there looking for work. What does that member suggest those people do? Sit at home and do nothing? I do not think so. 
It was Phil Goff who actually wanted to talk about the records of unemployment numbers. Can I actually quote numbers from 2000 to 2008 when the Labour Party was in Government? Sickness benefit numbers rose 51.6 percent invalid’s benefit numbers rose 47.2 percent and domestic purposes benefit numbers rose by 8.5 percent. 
 Guess what? The Minister of Social Development and Employment at the time said that the rise for the two quarters in unemployment numbers was “Not bad actually”. I am sorry but that was the best of New Zealand’s economic times not during a recession or when we are recovering from the recession that globally the world is struggling with. In New Zealand with the leadership of our Prime Minister John Key and the Ministers we are actually growing. It is a very small number compared with Australia maybe. I think the recent number I saw was 3.1 percent growth in Australia. I think we lag just behind on 3 percent. But Australia has mining. My goodness! 
The Opposition asks: “Where are the jobs?”. Whenever this Government puts forward agendas for job growth and economic growth and policies to get people more jobs the Opposition is completely against it. Opposition members stand in this House—the hypocrites stand in this House—asking: “Where are the jobs?”. Actually my learned colleague Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga looked at 3 o’clock today on—what was it— 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: SEEK. 
MELISSA LEE 
: On seek.co.nz there were 16000 jobs available at 3 o’clock this afternoon. There are jobs if people want to go and get them. 
Actually I was walking around the businesses on Rosebank Road on Monday and I was talking to employers in manufacturing. They told me they struggle to find good workers with the right attitude who are willing to get up in the morning and actually work. Sometimes they have to get rid of some employees because they fail their drug tests. I wonder why they did that. They did that because their workers are dealing with laser cutters and heavy machinery. Of course these people have to be off drugs. I understand that there are times when people have to lose jobs but we are creating more jobs our manufacturers are creating more jobs our employers are creating more jobs and our farmers are creating more jobs. I looked at a website just before when Opposition members were speaking. There are plenty of farming jobs available. I think one member opposite talked about the right kinds of jobs. What is “right”? There are 220000 children growing up in benefit-dependent homes. I would have thought that when you provide for your child the best example for your child is for the parents to be not at home on the benefit but out working. 
One other thing that really upset me during the debate on the whole social welfare reform issue was when people said women like me who leave children in early childhood education centres and work full time are bad mothers. I beg to differ actually. I think I am providing good role modelling for my child. I think parents who work and are responsible for their children and for themselves and who are growing their businesses growing the economy and setting a good example for their children cannot be bad parents. So let me say this: please do not scare New Zealanders into thinking that getting a job is a bad thing. 
Le’aufa’amulia 
 Asenati Lole-Taylor 
: They’re already scared. 
MELISSA LEE 
: I am sorry but this bill is encouraging people. It says it is OK; social support is there from Government social welfare has always been there and we support it but get a job. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I will not say it is a pleasure to follow that member Melissa Lee because her formula her solution to the lack of jobs in New Zealand seems to be to send them all down to the farm or perhaps even up the chimney. Perhaps that is what that member thinks we should be doing with this bill the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. But this bill is not about you Melissa Lee. This bill is about the people I talk to—that we all talk to—on a regular basis. 
I want to talk about one woman in particular and what she goes through. She lost her job last March. She spends 3 or 4 days a week working at looking for work: filling in forms surfing the internet—and she is lucky that she has got a computer at home because so many people do not have computers at home; they cannot afford it—and going through pointless Work and Income seminars and training. They are pointless when as we have already heard many of the people applying for jobs looking for work are already trained and already have skills. She waits on the phone to talk to her work broker. Can you imagine anything less dignified than that? She is waiting on the phone to talk to someone a job broker who is apparently brokering a job for her and you would have to say has failed completely so far. 
Occasionally very occasionally she gets to go to a job interview. This woman has applied for something like 75 jobs and I think she has had three job interviews. She is absolutely devastated every time she applies for a job and gets a rejection slip. She is devastated every time she applies for a job and has to go back with her tail between her legs to Work and Income and say she did not get the job. She has to start over and over and over again. So I think that the members of the National Government have no idea about the realities of people looking for work in this country. They have no idea how absolutely undignified it is for people like this woman who is really committed to finding a job and would do anything to get a job and how humiliating it is for her. 
Then we heard from the Minister the other day that what happens in Work and Income now is that they have got this new tradition: they ring the bell every time someone gets a job. I know that this woman would be delighted if the bell were rung for her but it has not been since last March—March 2012. She is still looking for work and now there is this bill that threatens sanctions and other punitive measures as if life is not already difficult enough. 
 We know that there are no jobs. We know how difficult it is. We have heard the stories today about people lining up for minimum wage jobs. Sam Lotu-Iiga says there are 16000 jobs on SEEK. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: There are. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Has he had a look at any of them? 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Yes. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Have you looked them up? 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: I have yes. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Ninety-day trial periods? Minimum wage jobs? Good jobs like that? 
The other thing that worries me about this bill is that the Government is looking to contract out work testing. This is a UK idea and we have seen the failure it has been. Just this week there was a story about a job centre that has been pinged for setting targets for benefit sanctions. So what we have in that job centre in the UK is league tables for staff not to prove that people are getting jobs so that they can ring the bell but to prove that they are sanctioning people. What the Government in the UK has had to do is launch an inquiry into this after it was forced to admit that job centres are setting targets and league tables to sanction benefit claimants. 
That is the path we go down with this bill with the contracting out of work testing. It is based on a false premise that there are jobs out there that unemployed people do not want to work and that there are enough jobs around if you really try. It is an ugly piece of legislation I have to say. It is an ugly piece of legislation. It is based on blaming those who have been unable to find work. It is putting pressure on those who are struggling. It is ignoring the problem that we have in this country of children growing up in poverty. Their parents want to work and want to do the right thing but are unable to. It says that— 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am glad that I have an opportunity to speak on this bill the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill because I have listened to a number of the comments that have been made on the other side of the Chamber and I have to say that I am very disappointed that there seems to be a complete misrepresentation really of the argument that we are making on this side of the Chamber. There is no question that every single person in this House is appalled when there are people who want to work and who cannot find a job—absolutely appalled that that is the case—because it must be a priority in any economy to ensure that those jobs are there. But I have listened to some very peculiar arguments particularly the one about how important it was to get your child into early childhood education so that you could go back to work as quickly as possible and that that was not an issue one way or the other. 
Well I just want to ask someone this question. In fact the Minister in the chair could perhaps answer it the best. If one knows through having read extensive literature on the impact on child development around certain features that a child’s educational outcomes are best predicted by mum’s educational outcomes—by her qualifications; not dad’s but mum’s—if that is the biggest predictor of how well a child will do at school and what qualifications that child will leave with what would you do with somebody on a DPB faced with the choice and with that knowledge? Would you send that woman out to work for a minimum-waged job—any job—just to get her into the workforce or would you send her back to school? Which one would you choose? 
The Government has made it absolutely crystal clear which one it would choose because a few years ago it took away the training incentive allowance for tertiary education. The Government left it there for the basics for the preliminary work that you would want to do just to get into a basic diploma course but nothing more than that. It used to be available for somebody who wanted to bring themselves up to speed with a tertiary qualification to take them into nursing to take them into teaching to take them into a profession of some sort—maybe one day to even have the ambition to be the Minister for Social Development. That is what the training incentive allowance was for. 
So I think that the Government has to seriously rethink its approach. It is starting from the wrong position. It looks at somebody on a benefit and it says that that person is dependent on the benefit. It looks and makes judgments about the individual. It starts from all the negatives from all the deficits. It is a deficit model that this Government has adopted. 
I want to talk about a strengths-based model because I believe that is the way we should go. I heard the most inspiring speech at a conference I attended recently. This woman was running a company that helps people off welfare and into paid work. That is what the company does. But it certainly does not have the ambition of getting anyone into the minimum-waged jobs that we are hearing about in this debate this afternoon. 
She described the company’s approach with a story. Here is the story. Two women go into the London office of this particular organisation. One has been living rough for 5 years. She has not showered. Her clothes are dirty. She is in her late 50s. She has become estranged from her family. She has had an anxiety disorder. She has faced some pretty tough times. She has a difficult condition. She wets herself while she is sitting in the waiting room. It is a difficult situation. The other woman who comes into the office has been out of work for a number of years but she used to work for a major corporation as the personal assistant to the general manager. So she has got great skills but she has a skill that nobody learns these days. She knows shorthand. Shorthand is the most fantastic skill you could possibly have and I know that many people value it. So this is a great opportunity for this woman to get herself back into work. She loves animals. That is her passion. She loves her grandchildren. So she has got a lot going for her; that is the way they see her. Of course the woman then said that these two women are the same woman. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The question is that the question be now put. Those who are of that opinion will say Aye— 
Jacinda Ardern 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Labour has tabled during the course of the Committee stage several amendments that I as the person who has put these amendments forward have not had a chance to speak to. I request the opportunity of the Committee to speak to those amendments. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Look I have listened very carefully to the debate. The member who raises the point of order has had two calls. We have had nearly 2 hours on this. I am going to put the closure motion. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Just further clarification. Those amendments—we were in the throes of ensuring that they were correct. At the time that I spoke they were not able to be tabled. We have since withdrawn and resubmitted one of those amendments. I would like the opportunity to be able to speak to them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: And that refers to clause 2 which is further on in the debate. I am putting the question which is with regard to the closure. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Motion agreed to. 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. During that vote I had the authority to cast a proxy vote for Brendan Horan but the vote was not called by the Clerk. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is a fair point. So the member is now casting that vote and— 
Holly Walker 
: One opposed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: —it is one opposed so that vote is now amended to Ayes 64 Noes 57. The result is the same. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 199 in the name of the Hon Paula Bennett to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 197 in the name of Holly Walker to clause 25 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to Part 1 be agreed to: 
insert: 
9ANew section 12AA (Membership of Work and Income Board) 
After section 12 insert: 
12AAMembership of Work and Income Board 
The membership of the Work and Income Board must include a person with a background in issues relating to child well-being. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to clause 25 be agreed to: 
in new section 60RC(3) after “any social obligation of the beneficiary” insert: “; and that access to primary health care providers and early childhood education is readily available based on a quarterly report produced by the department outlining the regional accessibility and availability of primary health care providers and early childhood education.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Consequential amendments and transitional and savings provisions 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak to Part 2 of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill although I think perhaps a lengthier debate on Part 1 might have been in order. But given there are some subsequent amendments within Part 2 I am sure that we can cross-reference some of the implications of Part 2 against Part 1. But before we do I am frustrated by the misinformation that continues to be pursued by Government members not least by the Minister for Social Development herself who has continually tried to portray the Labour Party as being against people accessing a benefit. Never a more ridiculous statement have I heard. 
As I have said before Labour was the architect of our Social Security Act in New Zealand. We will defend to the death people’s right of access to social security but what we have been frustrated by is this Minister’s continual attempt to portray her welfare reforms as successful based on one criterion. What is that criterion? A decrease in the number of people accessing benefits. All we have done on this side of the Chamber is simply point out the fact that that is not in fact true. If you use the Ministry of Social Development’s statistical assessment—which is released annually and uses June data and goes right back to the 1940s—you will find that based on that annualised data we have seen some of the highest numbers under this Minister. They are higher than we have ever seen before based on that ministry statistical assessment which is based on annualised figures from June. 
So what Melissa Lee said before about us having high numbers of sickness beneficiaries under Labour—actually it is not true when you look at the record of this Minister. So yes we will point that out because on that Minister’s criterion she has failed. But on the criteria of morality on the criterion of a dignified system and on the criterion of doing right by job seekers who are actively seeking employment this bill also fails. This bill fails on those sets of criteria that we set ourselves as members of the Labour Party. On those counts this bill fails and I think it is only fair that we continue to raise those issues in this Committee. 
I want to refer to clause 65 in Part 2 of this bill which has not been touched on. It amends section 60GAE which refers to beneficiaries having an additional dependent child whilst on the benefit. The Minister raised last week that this is the very reason for the existence of these changes in these welfare reforms. The Minister’s belief that there are too many people having babies on the domestic purposes benefit is her sole driving force in presenting this bill to Parliament. 
First point: if you go back to the 1940s and in fact if you look at welfare numbers for the last 10 years DPB figures have tended to sit around the same figure. We have not seen this dramatic jump or ebbing away; they have tended to sit at the same number for some time. Neither Labour nor National have made dramatic shifts in those figures. For the Minister to now claim that actually what she is doing is backing New Zealanders and believing in beneficiaries and then at the same time say that all that sole parents are is people who go out and breed so that they can get money—which is what this clause says; that is what this clause says—and try to pretend that it is about something else I find it completely disingenuous. 
Secondly show me the family who aspires for nothing more for their child than a life on welfare. Show me that family. Show me that mother because again that is what this clause is implying. It implies that that is the only aspiration that a family or a mother has for their child and that is absolutely wrong. 
Thirdly show me the woman who has a baby on her own and who is the only one responsible for bringing that child into this world. I might have missed the memo but at no point have I heard the Minister or anyone on that side of the Chamber talk about the responsibility of dads in this equation yet every time we are in here discussing sole parents we are talking about mums in the most derogatory of terms. Was there a memo on immaculate conception because if there was I missed it. It is time that we got real and section 60GAE is an absolute denial of reality. 
It takes more than the denying of access to a benefit to fix what can sometimes be generations of families living at the bottom of the heap and if this Minister thinks that she can fix that issue by simply denying a parent and therefore a child access to social security then that is the most naive of suggestions. On this side of the Chamber we will not deny that there are families who have been at the bottom of the heap for generations and that the issues they face are complex. But to simply say that cutting off their benefit is the answer is not only naive but it is just going to cause us other issues in other areas of our social security system or with our social services. 
I have seen those issues. I will take any one of those members out on to the streets with me with Lifewise or the Auckland City Mission and we can see what happens at the end point of some of these policies. Evidence tells us that the only way to deal with some of those harder end cases—the minority—is with intensive case management. Show me how you do that when a Work and Income case manager sometimes has on their books more than 300 clients. This bill does not address that. This bill is not realistic in addressing some of these genuine issues where they exist. Instead it is making political rhetoric and playing political games with some of these individuals’ lives. Let us get real. 
I also want to speak to the amendments that have been made around medical assessments. When you come to Part 1A of schedule 2 which I believe is part of this debate it talks about appeals to the medical board. Many of those appeals will be based on the medical assessment process. I would love to tell the Committee what that entails but we simply do not know. It is one of the most important parts of this bill and we are completely in the dark as to how it will work. 
In fact as CCS Disability Action said—and I think it said it really well so I want to share its submission—“We support their use of appropriate tests designed to find out what assistance and supports the person needs to obtain employment. However we have grave concerns about United Kingdom style assessments especially when these are carried out by contracted providers. Despite the rhetoric about focusing on people’s abilities these tests have proven to be medical model based checklists often administrated by people with little real knowledge of disability.” Why is CCS Disability Action worried about a UK model? Because in 2012 the Minister herself said that that was what she was looking to replicate. 
We sought clarity at the Social Services Committee from officials about what was going to be included in these assessments. We got back a short note that basically said that the bill contains provisions to enable assessments but that it does not include how assessments will operate in practice. We asked about the tender process. They said that no decisions had been made on which external contractors would be used for these assessments or whether there would be one contractor or multiple contractors. We simply do not know. 
Labour has tabled an amendment that says that we should not be passing any policy or regulation-based changes on medical assessments until they come back before this House and are debated and that is only fair. Any Government that denies our ability to do that is a Government that has something to hide. I suspect I am afraid based on the approach of Dr David Bratt who is the chief medical adviser that we have every right to be worried. I saw recently a presentation by Dr Bratt regarding people who are undertaking assessments for sickness and invalids disability. It is called  
Ready Steady Crook: Are we killing our patients with kindness? 
. He openly—openly—spreads the notion that access to social security is bad for people’s health. 
Actually do you know what is bad for people’s health? An undignified system that does not focus on people’s strengths and abilities to get back into work a system that does not focus on their wellness and a system that instead allows them to squander in poverty without the means necessary to even ensure that they are again one day employable. That is what is dangerous to people accessing our system and this bill does nothing to address that. 
Part 2 of this bill contains in it provisions that as I have said seem to take on this notion that we need to be cruel to be kind. Well we trialled that. It was in 1991 and Ruth Richardson cut benefits by 25 percent. Did we see a decrease in access? Well what we saw was an increase in harm. We went from 30 percent of kids living in poverty being in the homes of those on benefits to today when that rate is more like 70 percent. Mr Speaker this bill will do much more harm than it will do good. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Could I just remind members—speaking to the previous speaker—that when we are in Committee the presiding officer is the Chairman not the Speaker. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: I’m sorry. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is fine. I would not pull you up on that matter. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 Part 2 of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill is all about consequential amendments to deal with the main harm I guess which has just been voted on in the Chamber this afternoon. I want to talk about those consequential amendments because they are based on the very basic but false premise that people who are on benefits today are there because they do not want to work and they are people who do not want the best for their children. All of these amendments are based on that very false premise. 
We know that it is a false premise—well actually on this side of the Chamber we know that it is a false premise—because when Labour was in Government we had very low unemployment in this country. In fact we had the lowest unemployment in the OECD for many of those quarters and when we were not the country with the lowest unemployment in the OECD countries we were the country with the second-lowest unemployment in the OECD. So what Labour has proven is that if given the chance if given a vibrant economy where there are jobs to be applied for then of course people will apply for those jobs and of course people will ensure that they have the skills to go and make sure that they are at the front of the queue for those jobs. 
What this Government has delivered those people is actually no hope—not a brighter future like it promised but no hope because they are standing in those job queues now. I should say “those jobless queues” because there is a small number of jobs and hundreds of people lining up for them. That is the brighter future that the Government has delivered. 
But with these consequential amendments one amendment that appears to me to be so vitally missing is the one that would make some sense if the Government really was using this legislation to improve participation in early childhood education. I do believe there is evidence that shows us that in the right circumstances for children who are aged 3 and 4 years old getting quality early childhood education for around about 20 hours a week does make a good and positive difference to their life outcomes and it makes a particularly good impact for children from low-income households. So that is perfect for many of these families whom we are addressing. 
But those families do not withhold their children from that quality early childhood education experience because they do not want the best for their children. There is a range of reasons why sometimes their children do not make it into that situation. Here is just one which was in the newspaper a couple of weeks ago. Actually the very good 20 hours’ free early education policy which Labour brought in was designed in fact exactly to improve access for these very families—but not in a punitive way; in an encouraging supportive and “let’s take the barriers away” kind of way. What is happening these days with the 20 hours’ free early childhood education policy is that a lot of the providers—in fact this newspaper found that 45 percent of those early childhood education providers—are saying to parents: “Well you can have the 20 hours only if you enrol your child for another 10 hours at a much higher fee”—at a much higher fee. 
So I want to see the consequential amendment in this legislation that stops that practice from actually happening. While that practice continues to happen what we are going to see is benefits being halved as a punishment for beneficiaries who do not have their children in early childhood education while they are being told by the early childhood education providers that they are going to have to pay a lot of money to even enrol their child. These are the very practical issues that this Government is turning a blind eye to. When the Minister of Education was asked about that situation she said: “Ah nothing to do with me—nothing to do with me. They’re going to shop around.” So here is the Government with this legislation forcing beneficiaries to put their children into early childhood education and punishing them if they cannot do that but then its own Minister is saying “Shop around.” That is her answer to those beneficiary families: “Shop around and see if you can get the worst quality.” 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on Part 2 of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. I repeat that all of the consequential changes that are being made under Part 2 are because of what has been approved under Part 1 so there is a link between what Part 2 is doing and our discussion about the provisions of Part 1. I want to talk in particular about clauses 64 and 65. That is what I will be referring to. 
It is interesting that one of the things that happens in this bill—and it is something we have not talked about a lot in the debate on Part 1—is that sole parents will no longer qualify for the sole parent benefit when their youngest child turns 14. So for the first time we now have this new rule that when children are aged 14 their parents are no longer really that responsible for bringing them up. Something is being said here about bringing up teenagers. You could have a 16 a 15 and a 14-year-old and the moment the youngest one turns 14 you are unable to qualify for the sole parent benefit. What is that saying about how we bring up our children? And why is it that this Minister for Social Development and this Government place so little emphasis on the care of 14-year-olds? 
That redefinition of the sole parent benefit actually has this impact. I believe that quite often for many many parents that is a much more demanding time particularly when you have more than one teenager. It is a time when young people are testing all the boundaries and it is a time when parents—in this case a sole parent—would want to be home but now they have to be available for work. They can no longer access this particular benefit. That is a change that has been made and there has not been a lot of debate about it but it is one that concerns me because it leads me to ask the question of what the consequential changes that are being made under Part 2 say about the optimum environment or the best environment for bringing up children. 
It is very hard to find anything in this entire bill including the consequential changes under Part 2 that is about creating a better environment in which parents or a sole parent can bring up a child. I wonder whether this Government has any focus on that. That is a worry because we do know the set of conditions under which children do much better. It has to do with what happens in the home. It has to do with what happens in the community in the provisions of social policy and the way in which society sees parents bringing up children. But this Government for this group of parents who are bringing up their children has now put so many obstacles in their way that I wonder what it says about the optimum environment for bringing up children. 
I rather suspect that the Minister has tried to muzzle some of her own speakers. It is a surprise that a couple of them did sneak in a call but when they did speak to the consequential changes that are being made in Part 2 because of the decisions in Part 1 they did indeed expose the Government’s own thinking. I wondered what Sam Lotu-Iiga was saying when he said that the purpose of this bill is really to reduce the cost of benefits. I think the chairman of the Social Services Committee is actually honest about that because that is the underlying belief. It is not about creating a better environment for our children and it is not about parents in difficult circumstances—vulnerable parents—bringing up their children; it is about saving money. That is all that that member is talking about. 
Every time Melissa Lee speaks on bills like this she does make a fool of herself because here she was saying— 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: —again again I know—that she did it and therefore it is OK for every sole parent to use childcare and to do what this bill is saying because she was able to do it. What Melissa Lee does not tell us is that she was middle class she had the financial resources she was a businesswoman and she had a mum living at home as well. There were a whole bunch of other circumstances. What Melissa Lee is saying is that it was good for her and therefore it is good for the sole parents who themselves are vulnerable. 
I think there is a good reason why the Minister has muzzled her side from talking about this. The consequential changes themselves in Part 2 of this particular bill really carry on the negative impact. Thank you. 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a short call on the second part of the bill the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. There have been a lot of politicised comments coming across the Chamber today. We have seen that over the years I think with law and order bills as well. The reality is that what we are dealing with here is New Zealanders who are not in work and finding better ways to support them to be in it. At its very heart that has been the core focus in this bill. One of the key ways that this transition will occur is through the seven benefit categories becoming three and simplification of and clarifying the important messages that really underpin what this bill seeks to achieve. 
There have been some comments around the numbers. We hear various numbers being batted around and defended and challenged and so forth but the reality is that between 2000 and 2008—if we really want to dig into those numbers—there was a 51.6 percent increase in those on the sickness benefit a 47.2 percent increase in those on the invalids benefit and an 8.5 percent increase in those on a domestic purposes benefit. As a police officer working in Whangarei and Kaitaia and essentially throughout Northland I saw throughout the course of that time an immense change in the welfare system in the approach to welfare and in the belief in what welfare was about. Those figures absolutely spell that out—crystal clear in my view.  
This bill is really challenging I guess one end of the spectrum that I do not think too many members in this House are keen to discuss. That is the end of the spectrum where there are vulnerable children being abused and being beaten and where there are young people who are hardly adequate in my view to be making decisions about being a parent when they are children themselves— 
Sue Moroney 
: It’s all coming out now. 
MIKE SABIN 
: —who actually through intergenerational welfare—and we will hear opposition from the other side of the Chamber on this but the reality is that there is a group of people whom this House is not willing to challenge and not willing to acknowledge exists and this is where the vast majority of vulnerable children are and where the carnage that we see out there is happening. We are trying to address that. This side of the House is trying to address it in many ways but the reality is that there is an end of the spectrum where unfortunately mothers are trapped in welfare and they are making poor decisions.  
The Children’s Commissioner absolutely alluded to this point in his submission. The Children’s Commissioner made it very clear and I will quote him from his submission to the Social Services Committee. He said that work is the best route out of poverty. There is no one in this House who can deny that fact. [ 
Interruption 
] We will hear objection from the other side of the Chamber as we always do from parties that will sit there and rail against every effort that this Government is making to introduce growth into the economy through legislation and through giving the business community the tools that they need. They can stand on that moral high ground they seem to have occupied and quote ad infinitum that there are no jobs but they cannot come into this Chamber and not support bills that are about job creation.  
The Children’s Commissioner went on to point out also that social obligations are a normal part of society—social obligations are a normal part of society—in a family in a business and in a church. Social obligations are a normal part of what we have as a society. The Children’s Commissioner absolutely backs that up. He also went on to say—and this is the important thing to note—that he believes that the area of greatest harm where vulnerable children are most affected is in the area of the people who will require the most amount of sanctions in this bill. This is about challenging that particular group to ensure that they have the support they need and to ensure that the safety and vulnerability of those children are actually being addressed.  
The Children’s Commissioner says that work is the way out of poverty. It is not a punitive thing—it is not a punitive thing. Social obligations are a normal part of society and the most vulnerable children are at this end of the spectrum. We must address them and this bill does that.  
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call in the Committee stage of this bill the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. The last member who spoke Mike Sabin really exposed himself and what this Government is about when he talked about this Government looking to give the business community the tools it needs. That is what this bill is about. It has nothing to do with looking after the destitute and the poor and those whose life chances have evaporated or have been taken from them. This has nothing to do with those who are the victims of the vicissitudes of a difficult labour market and a difficult economy. This is about punishing people. 
It is all very well to say that work is the best route out of poverty. You will find no disagreement with that on this side of the Chamber I say to Mr Sabin and to any other member of the Government. We agree with that. So the question that then remains is what you are doing about the work side of that component. What are you doing about the work side of that equation? Nothing is being done because job numbers are going down. Another 140 jobs have gone out of the Department of Conservation today 1500 jobs went out of Telecom last week—I am beginning to sound like an auctioneer now. How many more hundreds and thousands of jobs are going to go before this Government takes the job creation part of the equation seriously? It has got nothing to say and even less to do about that. 
So the only recourse now is to beat up on the most vulnerable and the poorest of our people: those who look to the State for help at a time of need those for whom life has not delivered very good chances and those who may have done well once but whose life’s fortunes have taken a turn for the worse. They quite rightly look to the State for support and assistance during that difficult time. 
Yes Mr Sabin we understand social obligation. Yes Ms Bennett we know about reciprocal obligations—everybody does. But sometimes people have a difficult time in their lives. Sometimes people lose the job that they have been committed to and have worked in for 5 years for 10 years or for 25 years. They do not exercise a choice over that—it happens to them. When they go through that difficult experience because they have paid their taxes they have raised their children and they have done the best they can they are entitled to look to the State for that bridging assistance for that bridging support. They are not to be punished for it. They are not to have labels bandied about. 
 What of the woman who loses her husband or her spouse or her partner to a health and safety accident at work to a road traffic accident or to a disease or some other misfortune? She is no longer to be regarded as a widow for the purposes of our social security system. She now has a work-tested benefit. What dignity does she have left under this Government with that system? None at all. 
This is heartless legislation. It is nasty pettifogging mean-spirited legislation from a nasty pettifogging mean-spirited Government. No one will come out of this with any dignity. It is about changing labels and it is about putting the emphasis on punishing people rather than on addressing the real problems that we have which are a sluggish slowing economy and a so-called recovery—a so far so-called jobless recovery—where people are still struggling to get work. Over 1000 people are lining up for 50 jobs in Hamilton. There have been a number of occasions now when we have had 10 or 20 or 30 people per person lining up for a vacancy. That is the state we are in and it is not a good state. 
Those people who do not get work at the end of their long time in the queue who get through the interview but are still turned down and who are probably turned down dozens of times every couple of weeks are to be recast now as victims of a social security system rather than those who have looked to it for support. They are to be relabelled and renamed. The sense of failure they will have which is no fault of theirs will be compounded and emphasised. That is how heartless this legislation is. So we reject this. 
There is no need for this sort of legislation. We do not need to rename the widows in this country who face stress enough and pressure enough. We do not need to re-victimise those who are already victims of circumstance and misfortune. So the transitional provisions of this legislation provide nothing. They provide no hope and even less benefit to those people who look to our social security system for a lot more. They deserve better. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 The previous contribution to this debate—not the previous speaker Andrew Little who just sat down; that was a very good contribution indeed from Andrew Little—from Mike Sabin on the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill needs I think some revisiting. He talked about this side of the House not supporting bills that apparently his Government has brought into this Chamber that create jobs. Well Mr Sabin I cannot think of one bill that this Government has brought into this House in the time of a recession that has created any jobs. It does need to be put on the record that the National Government actually thinks that a bill that is attacking workers’ rights and attacking beneficiaries creates jobs. It is simply a nonsense but it is not the only nonsense that Mike Sabin spoke about—well actually this was not a nonsense. Something that he said that I agreed with was that one of the best ways out of poverty is work—paid employment I am guessing he meant because of course all people work; some of us get paid and some of us do not. 
But here is the difference: Labour actually delivered that vision to this country—actually delivered increased employment opportunities when in Government. Labour did not just bang on about how useless New Zealanders are put people down and take these sorts of punitive measures. Labour actually provided the stimulation in the economy because it is a stimulated economy that creates work and it is work that creates jobs. That is the scenario Mr Sabin not pieces of legislation like this bill which puts punitive measures on and actually threatens to cut the income going into low-income families. That is not the way for the brighter future. That is not the path to an improved economy and it simply will not do what he said. It will not provide the work that helps those families out of poverty. In fact it might do quite the opposite. 
Such is the impact of bad pieces of legislation like this that I just want to tell the Committee about a meeting that I went to in Hamilton just prior to the last election. It was a meeting of women on the domestic purposes benefit. They invited candidates for the election to come and meet them face to face hear their actual stories and put a face on people whom that side of the Chamber likes to bash continually: beneficiaries. 
David Bennett 
: Oh rubbish. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I think David Bennett was there. I know for certain— 
David Bennett 
: Yes I was and they lapped it up. 
SUE MORONEY 
: He says he was and he says that they lapped it up. I am about to tell you what he meant by that comment. Tim Macindoe was also there. I know that at the end of that discussion they said to these women: “Thank you for telling us your stories. Thank you for telling us your stories. We really appreciate much better the circumstances that you’re in.” Did they once come clean and tell those women that this is what they intended to do to beneficiaries that these are the punitive measures that they were going to land on DPB recipients? No they did not. They knew that coming back into Government this is exactly the nonsense that would be visited on those women but they did not dare tell them. 
The other sad part about that meeting was that when one of the women spoke said to us she said: “I’m not like those other DPB recipients. My husband left me with young children. This is the struggle of my life.” I went up to her afterwards and I said: “Actually you’re just like those other DPB recipients. Please do not fall into the trap of listening to what the National Party says because it would have us believe that every single one of those DPB recipients is a 16-year-old who deliberately goes out to make her life miserable by getting pregnant at the age of 16.” And this woman who was a recipient of the DPB herself had actually thought that that is what every other DPB recipient was like. She thought she was unusual. My message to her was that she was being a great mother and a wonderful role model to her children in difficult circumstances. She was like all of those other recipients. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Thank you very much Mr Chair for letting me speak to Part 2 of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. This is the kind of bill that you bring into Parliament when you have got the worst economic record in 50 years—when you have got the worst economic record in 50 years. This is the kind of bill that you bring in if you are trying to lay the blame somewhere else. Instead of dealing with the highest unemployment rate since Bill English was last the finance Minister dealing with the 50000 Kiwis who have gone to Australia since this National Party has come to Government or dealing with the 50000 more people who have become unemployed since this National Government has come into power this is the kind of bill you bring in to try to blame somebody else. 
Mike Sabin the last Government speaker on this bill talked about this side of the Chamber not supporting any pieces of legislation that have come in to enthuse job creation— 
Andrew Little 
: It would be nice to see some. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: —since this Government has come into power. Well exactly. As Mr Andrew Little said it would be nice to see something—it would be nice to see something. It is very rare to see a piece of legislation come into this House from that Government that increases job creation. Evidence of that is that the unemployment rate since this party has come into Government has stayed high. It has not gone down in a huge way. The Government said it would create a brighter future for Kiwis but unemployment has stayed high under this John Key - led Government. The only jobs that have been created around this bill are the jobs of people who perhaps were in charge of the focus groups that made sure that this piece of legislation came to this House. 
Another thing that Mr Sabin said was that this is a bill that helps create the business conditions to help create jobs. A question that I would like to ask maybe the Minister in the chair the Minister of Immigration is where in the vast volume of this bill it says that it helps create the business conditions to help create jobs because I do not see anywhere in this bill that says it helps create jobs. I know that it cracks down on a lot of Kiwis who would prefer to be working who are slugging their guts out at the moment to try to get work but who are being supported by social security. It says a lot about smacking them down. But it does not say anywhere in here anything to support Mr Sabin’s assertion that this bill helps create the business conditions to create jobs in New Zealand. It is a serious question which I would like to put to the Minister in the chair. Can he point to the relevant parts of this legislation especially in Part 2 as we are debating that where it does create some jobs? Because I do not see that anywhere in this bill. 
My colleague Dr Rajen Prasad spoke about creating an environment where we can create jobs. We will not disagree with the other side of the Chamber. We want to create an environment where jobs are created but this bill in no way goes anywhere near that. I want to talk again about the fact that the bill is completely lacking any job creation initiatives. It does not talk about creating any jobs. 
Another—and I think miserly and ugly—part of this bill is that it is going to crack down or place sanctions on beneficiaries if they do not put their children into early childhood education. We on this side of the Chamber want as many kids who are under the age of 5 in early childhood education as possible—absolutely no debate about that. We want 100 percent qualified teachers; they have a different opinion over on that side of the Chamber. But on this side of the Chamber we want to see as many children in early childhood education as possible. That will free up those parents to be able to go and find some work but this Government has not created the amount of places subsequently needed in early childhood education for us to be able to do that. So in that respect the sanctions in Part 2 that are carried out against those parents who cannot find a place for their children in early childhood education really expose the smoke and mirrors of this bill. 
Also around job creation I want to speak in a Wellington context because in the last household labour force survey unemployment in Wellington went up by 1 percent. When this Government is talking about this bill as another piece of legislation it is putting through to stimulate job creation well in a Wellington context and the electorate that I represent the electorate of Mana that just is not happening. It just is not happening so anything that this Government tries to tell you about the legislation that is brought through this House in terms of creating jobs is not being felt in the communities here in Wellington because the unemployment rate has gone back up. 
I think it was Grant Robertson who showed the front page of the  
Nelson Mail 
 today where 300 people I believe it was in Nelson went for just one job. Mr Sabin said this debate has been political. Well it will get political because this Government has done diddly-squat to create any jobs in this country. Nick Smith should be ashamed of the front page of the  
Nelson Mail  
today. What has he done as Mr Sabin says to create the business conditions to create jobs when 300 people can line up for one job in Nelson? We have heard of other examples where we have got 20 or 30 people lining up for one job. So although this Government says that the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill is creating the business conditions to create jobs in New Zealand the bill is not worth the paper that it is printed on. This Government has not delivered on any of those promises that it made at the last election and the previous election. It has not delivered on any of those promises that it gave in the last election and in 2008. 
So this Government brings in this piece of legislation trying to say that it is creating jobs for Kiwis but it is not. What it is doing is smacking down Kiwis on benefits who are looking for jobs and who have not been given the environment as Dr Prasad has said so that they can be in work. I do concur with what Mr Sabin said. If the Children’s Commissioner said the best thing that we can do for these people is find them a job yes that is exactly what we should do for them but this Government has not delivered on that at all. 
When you look at the track record from this Government back to I think the last time Bill English was Minister of Finance in 1999 you see that the party on that side of the Chamber has a track record of high unemployment. It talks the talk on creating jobs but for this Government and for the previous National Government in which Bill English was the finance Minister it has not walked the walk at all. On this side of the Chamber when we talk about the opportunities available for people on benefits under Part 2 this party has walked the walk. As Sue Moroney said before the last Labour Government had the lowest level of unemployment in the OECD. 
This bill will do nothing and Part 2 and the sanctions placed in it will do nothing to create jobs for those people on benefits who really want jobs. This bill will do nothing and the fact— 
David Bennett 
: What a wasted speech. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: What a waste of a speech and what a terrible speech? Well what a waste of an MP in Hamilton or wherever he is from. What is this Government doing to create the jobs for the people here in New Zealand? You know 300 people apply for one job and this bill is what the Government puts through this Parliament. This Government is not about helping to create the conditions or the business conditions to create jobs. The sanctions placed in this bill in Part 2 will do nothing to help create jobs. This Government has talked a lot about creating jobs. This bill does not deliver. It has failed and that is why the Government has the worst economic record in 50 years. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
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. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Motion agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 64 Noes 57. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 199 in the name of the Hon Paula Bennett to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 199 in the name of the Hon Paula Bennett to schedule 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; United Future 1; ACT New Zealand 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 2 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 199 in the name of the Hon Paula Bennett to schedule 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 3 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 199 in the name of the Hon Paula Bennett to schedule 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 4 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 199 in the name of the Hon Paula Bennett to schedule 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Schedule 4 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 5 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 5 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Schedule 5 agreed to. 
Schedule 6 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 199 in the name of the Hon Paula Bennett to schedule 6 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The question is that schedule 6 as amended stand part. Those of that opinion will say Aye; to the contrary No. The Ayes have it? [ 
Interruption 
] Party vote—you must ask for a party vote. It just does not automatically happen. A party vote is called for. I ask the Clerk for a party vote. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 6 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Schedule 6 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 7 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 199 in the name of the Hon Paula Bennett to schedule 7 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 7 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Schedule 7 as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 to 3 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take another call on this bill. I believe this is the final stage of debate for the Committee stage— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Already? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: —so I will take this opportunity to—yes I agree with the member Ruth Dyson that it seems like it has been a rather swift debate. There was certainly eagerness on this side of the Chamber to continue discussing not least some of the excellent amendments put forward by the Labour Party. We might have a chance to at least just reference them again because not all of them were spoken to and there is some relevancy to them around commencement dates in particular. 
But at this stage of the debate tradition has it that we often use this opportunity to talk about how we might alternatively refer to this piece of legislation. For those watching they will see the little ticker tape at the bottom of the screen. They will know that this is formally known as the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. But some of our contention on this side of the Chamber has been that the historical architects of the Social Security Act probably meant for the system to be something quite different than it is today. It is almost ironic that we are debating this bill in the 75th year or anniversary of the Social Security Act in New Zealand. It was brought in at a time when not unlike today there were hard economic times. The Labour Government at that time wanted to move away from this notion of the deserving and the undeserving poor. It wanted to create an egalitarian society where no matter what circumstances you encountered you were able to find some kind of support; you were able to live with a certain degree of dignity until such time as you were able to support yourself once more. 
Although the Minister for Social Development has entrenched in here these things called social obligations—which by their very nature imply that people who are on social security are not fulfilling some of these obligations which speak to the basic needs of their own children—in many ways social security has always had a sense of obligation attached to it because it is a social contract. It says that as a citizen of New Zealand you have a certain expectation that you can be supported—that there is no such notion as the deserving and undeserving poor—but in return as soon as you are able you too contribute back into the common good as it were into the net the pool that contributes to the social security system. 
Are we still fulfilling that notion and that ideal in this bill today? Does it deserve to be called the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill? We would contend no. We would contend also that the notion of putting “Work Focus” into the title implies that work has not always been the focus of our social security system. Indeed it has. In fact if the Government was truly dedicated to the notion of a dignified system that enabled people to transition back into the workplace its first port of call would be that workplace. It would be ensuring that those jobs are available as we have always contended it should. It would be ensuring for instance that for those who find themselves with a disability our employers are better placed to employ some of those individuals who do have some barriers to work. As CCS Disability Action and IHC pointed out so many of the groups they work with desperately want to get into the workforce but the work focus from the employers’ end from their perspective is what needs to be addressed. So we would contend that this is a mistitled bill. 
However “Benefit Categories” probably is the one notion that in its simplest form is quite correct. This bill does merge together the categories of the Social Security Act. We have already traversed the different outcomes of that. 
I would though like to refer to whether or not in its more simplistic form this bill would be better titled as the “Drug Testing Warrants for Arrest and Bad Parenting Bill”— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Again? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: —that was the “Drug Testing Warrants for Arrest and Bad Parenting Bill”—because those are the notions within this bill that probably the public are most familiar with. If you asked them whether they had heard of the Government’s welfare reforms those are the bits that would be most well known. In fact the drug testing in particular would be well known because that was actually announced on three occasions—I went back just to check—first by Bill English to be fair to the Minister. 
But if this was genuinely a bill that was about addressing issues of drug dependency perhaps we might have paid more attention to what the Drug Foundation expert in its field had to say on this bill. For the purposes of further exploring whether that would be a more accurate title for this bill let us go back to its submission. I think it really summed it up quite well. It said: “The Drug Foundation supports measures to prevent drug use or dependence from being a barrier to employment.” We absolutely agree with the foundation of course. No one in this Chamber is ever going to stand up and say that if drug dependence is a barrier to work or indeed if drug dependence exists we should ignore that. The foundation said: “Paid employment can reduce recreational alcohol and drug use and make a significant contribution to successful recovery from substance dependence.” It goes on to say though that its “concern is that if the details of the drug testing and sanctions regime are not well thought through they may ultimately do more harm than good.” It goes on to note the Ministry of Health’s strong advice that that may indeed be the outcome of the drug testing regime included in this bill. 
It goes further. It says: “Drug tests are a blunt instrument. They fail to differentiate between recreational substance use and problematic substance use. As such an occasional cannabis user could test positive despite their drug use having taken place more than one week ago outside of work hours and having no bearing on current workplace safety or productivity.” That point is an interesting one because what it was trying to point out was that a blanket regime says that if you are a recreational user then we will apply a sanction; if you are dependent though we might let you go on to a different benefit category. We will not sanction you; you can go on to some other form of benefit which does not then penalise you. Well that naturally creates the incentive to shift on to a different category. The flow-on is that you are then treated in the system for a dependency you may not in fact have and you are treated in a system that is already choked. We have up to 6 weeks’ worth of waiting lists in some of our areas around genuine drug and alcohol dependence issues. So are we creating a perverse incentive to declare dependence where dependence does not exist? I think it is a fair question and it was not one that was adequately answered through this process. 
Coming back to the other options for what this bill could be titled I heard from that side of the Chamber the line: “Jobs are the best route out of poverty.” We are not going to argue with that on this side of the Chamber but that requires there to be a couple of jobs around for someone to move into. Just on the other side of that argument jobs are in fact important for that sentence to actually be able to become a reality plus we need to acknowledge that for sole parents in particular there will be a period of time in which work is simply not the best option for them or their child—when their child is first born when they are in their infancy. Then what? Then what is the best route out of poverty? So we have got to take into account the many and varied situations that this bill will be covering. Perhaps then given the job argument we should just call it the “Ghost Jobs Bill” because we do not seem to have at any point really discussed the context in which this bill is operating other than on this side of the Chamber. 
If this bill had had a greater focus on children we may have been able to imply in the title that it had their interests at heart. But as the Children’s Commissioner pointed out in his really useful submission one simple little amendment to this bill could have got around some of the concerns we have about the way that sanctions would be used and the impact that would have on child poverty further exacerbating it. That was the suggestion where he said: “I am firmly of the view that all decisions made through the social security system that directly or indirectly impact upon a child or children should be required to formally consider their welfare and best interests as a primary consideration”. Who could be against that? And yet that suggestion was not picked up. 
I want to come to the commencement of this bill. It will come into force on 15 July 2013. One of the recommendations however from the Labour Party has been that given we do not know the details—and the Minister claims that these are being worked through with the sector and I am pleased that the sector is involved—surely we should have a little more transparency than that. One of our suggestions is that before that commencement date kicks in we as a Parliament have the opportunity to debate the final provisions of that policy. I accept that it is not a policy that requires legislative change but I think that it is only a fair suggestion given the amount of public interest there is in that element of the wider policy that we have the ability to discuss it as parliamentarians. That is a relatively simple suggestion. It does not change the substance of the bill— 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take what no doubt will be my final call in the Committee stage of this Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill on the title and commencement clauses. I thank Jacinda Ardern for that last series of comments because she appears to get to some of the more important questions about this bill that have not been answered. Certainly the title does not reflect any of the kind of thinking that Jacinda Ardern was talking about. 
We know so much in today’s world about children and families. We know so much today about the historical ways in which we have addressed their needs and which ones have failed and which ones have been successful. When we go back even to residual forms of provision for the vulnerable we know how unsuccessful they have been. We also know today how there are so many opportunities to take a developmental approach to this sector yet this bill has not taken that opportunity and that bothers us. 
We also live in a time—and even the Minister talks about this ad nauseam—when we are ensuring that our social policy and our legislation are evidence-based. Well this bill is not. It is very very clear from the submitters from the research that is around—unless you are very very selective about that research—that the evidence that is available has not been utilised. Even those of our major institutions in New Zealand that submitted to us would agree that the bill does not reflect current knowledge and it is not evidence-based. Perhaps a more appropriate title might be the “Social Security (Not Based on Evidence) Amendment Bill”. 
If we look at what the Human Rights Commission told us it said that there were less intrusive ways to achieve the goals of social obligation than through the kinds of sanctions that this bill has come up with. There are less intrusive ways. Why have we not taken those less intrusive ways? Somehow the Government wants to appear tough. It wants to appear to knock those who in their own way seem to be abusing the system and this will fix it. In that the Government and the Minister are pandering to that element of a support base that actually sees this as a troubled and troubling part of our community. But these are still our mums and dads. These are the people who are bringing up our children. They deserve the best. That is why this system has been designed. 
Caritas noted—and it is a highly respected organisation—the potentially severe impact of financial sanctions and submitted that there needed to be checks and balances. Here the kind of financial sanction—a 50 percent financial sanction—is a severe sanction on the most vulnerable. So the title could have “50 percent sanctions” in there somewhere to say that this will punish the children and revisit the sins of the parents on to the most vulnerable. I cannot see how the Minister could defend that other than simply as wanting to be punitive towards this particular vulnerable section of our community. So “punitive” and “punishment” ought to be in the title as well because that is what the bill reflects. 
The Methodist Church raised concerns that the sanctions will not be used with great discretion. It was concerned about that. Sanctions of this type in our Work and Income and social security legislation in practice take on a life of their own despite the assurances given to us by officials. That is a concern that we would want to raise again. Perhaps the title to be honest might have reflected that as well. 
The Children’s Commissioner actually gave advice to the Social Services Committee that it was much more important to use non-monetary sanctions. It said there was some good evidence around the use of financial incentives and including that in the bill somewhere around attending parenting courses and things like that. There is lots to be said about how this bill does not use either the current signs available to us today or the current knowledge available to us today. So there is something else that is driving this particular bill. I think members opposite when they took calls on Part 2 and Part 1 of the bill actually did give the lie to that type of perspective which is that this is about concern about the amount of money that is spent in this field and about those people taking advantage of the system. 
The next series of comments is really about bringing up children. This bill says nothing about how we ought to be bringing up children today. Again that could be because the underlying assumption in this bill is that bringing up children is not work. That is the underlying premise the underlying value of this particular bill. And why is it not work? Any mum or dad bringing up children particularly if you are on your own but for any mum and dad it is important work and yet we give that no value. If you happen to be not reliant on the State for an income then yes you have that choice. But why is it that our most vulnerable are not enabled to spend time with their children in those critical years from 0 to 5? In this bill there is no value placed on parenting. I think that was a point that the Children’s Commissioner was making. If parenting is what we ought to be focused on then let us build some incentives around parenting. We would have supported something like that but it is not here. We seem to separate out this need to punish and not use the knowledge available to us. I am concerned that that is a worry and the title could reflect that. 
The next point I want to make is punishment is the theme. No matter how the Minister for Social Development and her colleagues dress this thing up it is about punishment. It is punishing those who get to a particular place in their lives. The Minister says: “I know I am expecting a lot of people.” which gives the impression she understands that. I do not think she does. If she did then the provisions here would have been different. Certainly I think that not enabling a sole parent with a 14-year-old teenager—taking that right out of the system—is something that we will regret down the line. Because bringing up 14-year-olds is still a difficult task particularly if you have got a 15-year-old or 16-year-old as well. But they are now taken right out of the system and others do not have that opportunity. 
Finally I want to say this and it is the last opportunity to do so with officials being here. I want to acknowledge the work of the officials. They worked with us for several months answering all kinds of questions we put to them and dutifully and indeed pleasantly they brought that information to us explained it and even at times when it was difficult they did that. So I want to sincerely thank the officials here and that includes the legal people as well from Parliament here. Thank you very much for that. 
There are lots of reasons why this bill ought not to be supported. I think my colleagues over the months that we have debated these provisions have not convinced this Minister one iota. There ought not to be this distance between those of us in this Chamber with some knowledge and experience in this field bringing that to bear on good policy and practice. But the Government has been blind to that. The Minister has turned her eyes away from that and has brought together a bill that I think in time will be regretted and we will need to fix. I am sure it will be left to a Labour Government to fix it as indeed it has had to do in the past to fix all of the mistakes in the social legislation of a conservative Government. With those words I thank you very much. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I would like to bring Parliament back to some key facts around the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill in regard to the commencement date and the title. The Labour Party members have enjoyed a little bit of getting out their rhetoric which we are so familiar with. I would like to bring the Committee of the whole House back to some key facts. First of all regarding the commencement date it is very important that we make it clear that there are two commencement dates here of import. The first date is a key one—15 July 2013—for most of the changes in the bill such as the transfer to the three new benefit categories and the introductions of new obligations and expectations. So that is 15 July 2013. This date gives sufficient time for transition purposes to ensure that the Ministry of Social Development’s systems—IT systems—and payment staff are ready for the changes. So that is a key date to note. 
The second commencement date of course is the day after the date on which the bill receives the Royal assent. This is for two transitional purposes: so that certain people aged 65 years or older can be transitioned to an emergency benefit and so that the disability allowance can be used to fund specified expenses and the preferred suppliers of goods or services for beneficiaries. So those people listening who are interested or who are directly affected do need to know the importance of those two dates. 
Moving to the title Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill I would like to repeat what the Minister for Social Development said today in press releases and that is just to clarify some of the rhetoric that is out on the airwaves that the Labour Party and its good friends the unions are pushing. What the Minister says—and this how you melt down this bill to the most simple form—is quite simply that all we are asking for all New Zealanders are asking for all Kiwis are asking for is that people need to be available to work. If they are genuinely in a situation where they cannot find work that is OK. We will support them. 
However the National Party and our support parties are with the majority of New Zealanders who do not believe that we should be funding people to smoke dope. We do not think that we should be funding people to run away from the police and commit crimes. We do not believe that we should be funding people to commit fraud. There is a small proportion of those on a benefit who do smoke dope and employers will tell you that they turn up for jobs and do not pass tests. There are those people who used to be funded to run away from the law after committing crimes—they would still receive a benefit. There are those people who do refuse to work and we want to hold them to account. 
The Labour Party could never have a bill that had within the title the term “Work Focus”. The Labour Party could never do that. I think New Zealanders on the whole who are listening to the debate tonight instinctively know that the Labour Party would not get under control the whole welfare system. I look at the record. Labour shifted beneficiaries between different types of benefits when it was in Government. It did not shift people into work when it was in Government; it simply shifted them on to other benefits. For example the sickness benefit numbers under the Labour Government went from 33000 in 1999 to 46000 in 2008. In the time Labour was in Government there were 33000 people on the sickness benefit and it went to 46000 people. And that was during good international economic times. So either the Labour Government was lax in getting people into work or people were sicker under Labour. You make the choice. 
The invalids benefit numbers increased from 53000 to 85000. Labour abolished compulsory budgeting advice. Labour continued paying benefits to criminals on the run from police. How do listeners feel about that? The Labour Party which has been appealing to listeners all night essentially continued paying benefits to people on the run from police. I mean really! Who at home supports that? Labour allowed recreational drug users— 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I almost do not know where to start after that. I thought that the member the Hon Phil Heatley was standing up to try to give a speech without any rhetoric but we have had dope-smoking criminals apart from any other factors and a whole lot of trying to say that the Labour Party is scaremongering about this bill. What we are actually trying to do is point out that this bill is absolutely ridiculous and that it is not what the Government’s energy should be focused on. What the Government’s energy should be focused on is job creation and supporting an economy that provides jobs for people to go to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Clauses 1 to 3. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: This legislation the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill I believe would be more rightly called the “Social Security (Beneficiary Blaming Absence of Work and Sanctions) Amendment Bill”. The component parts of this legislation are basically there with some underlying assumptions and I think the last member was right there on the old beneficiary blaming or beneficiary bashing. We have had them smoking dope and we have had all the criminals even though earlier in the member’s speech he did note that the people who were on social security who were not looking for work were actually a very small percentage. We would all agree that there are probably some people like that. 
I take absolute exception to the notion that was put up that Labour does not support people being in work. That is so absolutely contrary to the facts. Labour has always prioritised job creation and has always seen that paid employment and decent work are the best way to get people out of poverty. You will get no argument from this side of the Chamber and our track record stacks up. 
This legislation the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill or as I say the “Social Security (Beneficiary Blaming Absence of Work and Sanctions) Amendment Bill” is based on some pretty terrible underlying assumptions I think. I think the member who just spoke before me illustrated with his comments about beneficiaries the underlying assumptions that people who are receiving benefits do not want to work or that people who are parents and on benefits are not good parents. 
Let us look at the facts. There is 6.9 percent unemployment—163000 people are registered as unemployed. Those are the people who are eligible to be registered as unemployed. There are many many hundreds of thousands more who cannot register and are not counted in those figures. There are 111000 people wanting more work. We have had numerous examples all afternoon of people queuing for a limited number of jobs so let us get real here. Earlier today there were comments about 16000 jobs on the SEEK website. Well even if those 16000 were all potentially jobs that the pool of unemployed could take it is not going to make even a dent in 163000 people being unemployed. 
I want to talk about the domestic purposes benefit because that is one of the categories in which there is real potential for these sanctions to be used. Those on the DPB are one of the groups that I think are much maligned. Sixty-three percent of those receiving the DPB at the end of last year were doing so for less than 4 years and yet the image that is constantly presented is of teenagers deliberately going out getting pregnant and then staying on the DPB for ever and a day. It just is not so. 
There are real issues and barriers for people going back into work and the main one—I will repeat it again—is the lack of jobs. There is a lack of jobs and despite all the crowing about economic growth that has been going on it is jobless growth that has happened in recent times in this country. Where are the jobs? That is the biggest barrier for those people getting back into work which is why I think the title should include this “Absence of Work” component rather than “Work Focus”. I think that would be much more accurate. 
But training education childcare or early childhood education are all issues for people who are on benefits and who have children. A 2009 Inland Revenue Department paper found that among sole parents 67 percent of those available for work had problems getting work that paid enough 66 percent could not find work for enough hours for it to be worthwhile and 64 percent did not have the skills that employers wanted. In terms of the access to work the availability of jobs that will have got significantly worse since 2009. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I want to talk to the title of this bill the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill which should really be called the “Social Sanctions Amendment Bill”. So many of my colleagues on this side of the Chamber and in other parties on this side of the Chamber have talked about this issue tonight—about how much this bill is about sanctions and what its focus is. 
I want to talk to you about Bronwyn who came into my office last month to ask for advice. She is 55 and has worked for a school for the last 12 years as a literacy tutor for 22 hours a week. Her husband was made redundant last October. He has worked all his life. Since then he has managed to pick up a little bit of casual work but he and his wife finally approached Work and Income for some assistance because he could not find full-time work. Instead of getting that assistance Bronwyn who has worked in this job as a literacy tutor for which she has trained for for which she has a lot of experience was told to leave that job and find a full-time job. She loves her current job. She is well qualified for the position and she feels that she makes a bit of a difference. But because of the necessity of accepting a helping hand from the State during an economic downturn she is likely to have to leave that position and get a full-time entry-level position that does not pay nearly as much as she is earning at the moment. Jobs in her area for her husband are scarce and these people are between a rock and a hard place. 
When a new Countdown supermarket opened in South Dunedin last year around 1400 people applied for the 115 positions that were available—1400 people. Of the 1285 people who did not get those jobs they have not just walked into other jobs. This is the fundamental issue with this bill. People want to work—people want to work. Why does this Government not understand that? Why does this Government not understand that what people want is a job and an income and to look after their families? We are not all as well off as everybody else. Some people do have disadvantages. This bill is ultimately about pushing the buttons of making those people feel as if they are second-class citizens as if they somehow do not fit the bill; therefore they have to be treated differently from everybody else. I do not understand that. I do not think anybody on this side of the Chamber understands that. So that is why we fundamentally object to the underlying assumption in this bill that those on Government support who are there because they need to be there do not want to work. 
I want to talk to you about the other group of people in society. I know some of my colleagues have touched on this. These are people with disabilities people who struggle—who struggle—to get to first base to get that interview because they either do not have the skills or do not have the ability to get chosen for an interview. These people many of whom are on the sickness benefit or the invalid’s benefit are desperate to work. They are desperate to contribute to society to be productive members of society. But for some reason that side of the Chamber is actually putting more barriers in their way by introducing bills like this. That is an absolute disgrace. As CCS Disability Action eloquently stated during the submissions on this bill this bill will not add one more single job for a disabled person. It does nothing about the attitudes of employers and workers. It does nothing about the ability to make adjustments in the workplace and nothing about access to education or work experience. If the bill wishes to provide opportunities for people with disabilities to move into the workforce it does not contribute. I mentioned earlier about the freezing of mainstream funding. I would like to know what this Government is going to do about that. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: We have had seven speeches and half a speech has been on clauses 1 to 3. I will give Darien Fenton an opportunity. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 “Dah-rien”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Darien. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to round off the debate on clauses 1 to 3 the title and commencement and so on of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. I thought what I would do is just drill down a little bit into that title starting with “Benefit Categories” and just remind listeners exactly what this bill does. What it is doing is re-badging a range of current benefits that we have. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Clauses 1 to 3. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes the title. I am talking about the title and I am certainly talking about the new benefit categories which is part of the title. What the bill does is re-badge a number of existing benefit categories and squash them into a range of three. It squashes them up. It will take away the benefit categories that we have had for many years. Jobseeker support for example is one that a lot of people have talked about. It is not only a misnomer but also quite an insulting kind of category because it suggests that job seekers can actually find a job as does the title indeed when it talks about “Work Focus”. 
Jobseeker support just to remind the listeners will cover people who currently receive the unemployment benefit the sickness benefit the DPB the women alone benefit and the widows benefit and DPB sole parents whose children are older than 14 years of age. So all of those people who currently have different conditions and different titles for their benefits are going to be squashed into this jobseeker support by this apparent work focus amendment bill to try to pretend that all of them are going to be able to get jobs that there are many many jobs out there for them to apply for. Of course we all know that what happens is that if they do not take a job that is offered under clauses 1 to 3 of this bill their benefit could be cancelled and a 13-week stand-down could apply to any beneficiary who fails to accept an offer of suitable employment and beneficiaries with children will lose up to 50 percent of their benefit. How can that be? How can the title of this bill be “Benefit Categories”—well I think “Benefit Categories” works OK. But how can it be “Work Focus” when actually you are talking about sanctions and punishment for people who cannot find jobs? As my colleagues have suggested there are much better titles for this bill particularly around the area of sanctioning and punishing people. 
Also I suppose you could call this bill the “Social Security (Punishing the Children) Bill” because what is going to happen if beneficiaries with children lose up to 50 percent of their benefit? Who is going to suffer? Who are going to be the people who pay the price for that? Children are going to pay the price for that and that is extremely concerning. The Minister for Social Development goes on and on about how she cares about children. Well I think this is most uncaring and we should all in this Chamber be deeply concerned about that particular measure. 
But apparently this is all about a focus on work which is in the title of the bill—“Work Focus” is in the title of the bill. It is also extended to those on the sickness benefit. So people on the sickness benefit will also be considered job seekers. They may well have a long-term illness but they are going to be job seekers too. We are pretending that people in those categories can also find a job. 
Then as we heard last week of course we have had a new bill before Parliament which was passed last week covering 18 and 19-year-olds on the benefit who if they turn down a job paid at the youth rate after they have been on the dole for 6 months will be punished as well. 
 So this bill definitely has nothing to do with work focus everything to do with punishment everything to do with sanctioning and everything to do with blaming the people who are unable to find the jobs because this Government has completely failed in its plan and failed to have any plan in terms of getting a job. 
So I think that the title of the bill is fitting when it comes to “Benefit Categories”. It is completely ridiculous when it comes to talking about “Work Focus” because as I have said it does nothing to address the issues of work it does nothing to address the availability of work it does nothing to address the other barriers such as childcare costs and it does nothing to address whether an individual has the necessary skills. All it does is put people through hoops. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Jacinda Ardern has a typescript amendment to clause 2. This is out of order as it relies on an indeterminate event. Members can refer to Speaker’s ruling 117/2. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.