Lole-Taylor Asenati: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lole-Taylor Asenati: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 19 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3772. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
: 
 Talofa lava. Malo le soifua ma le lagi e mama Mr Speaker.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Malo le soifua.  
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: Fa‘afetai mo le avanoa. Thank you for the opportunity. Kia ora tatou katoa. I rise on behalf of the New Zealand First Party to provide a realistic viewpoint to this debate in the third reading of this so-called Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. I am somewhat stunned by the contributions from John Banks and the former speaker and I suggest perhaps Melissa Lee needs to stick to motorway debates. That is where she can do better.  
Let me be real here. There is no question surrounding the argument that New Zealand needs to address the key issue of welfare reform or welfare dependency. However the bill does not guarantee this. In fact the only thing it can guarantee is that our children our youth are being used as guinea pigs in a reform system. This Government is also too keen to rush in a Trojan Horse you might call it which allows this Government to implement other legislation. Perhaps the next one would be a youth rate. The youth rate will be coming up next at $10.50 or even less. 
There is nothing wrong with dreaming a fantastic dream and those who dream do recognise the importance of dreams that bring about positive aspirations. We all agree on that. In my previous role as a facilitator for professional development and of course with the Department of Corrections I often talked to the participants about dreams and their relevance to life. I believe that this bill was meant to be the link between our youths’ dreams and achieving positive goals in life. After all the future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams. However as we all know although we acknowledge those who dream of a better future it is also fair to say that where there is a dream there needs to be a vision—because the dreamer can dream the most fantastic dream but only a visionary can make that dream come true. That is what New Zealand First believes in.  
I do not know about the members on that side of the House especially the only ACT MP John Banks. From where I sit this bill is much more suitably called the “Missing in Action Benefit Bill” or let me say the “Missing the Point Benefit Bill”.  
Mark Mitchell 
: That’s silly. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: Of course it is not silly. You should know that. People up in your electorate Mr Mark Mitchell are also in that area. A lot of them are actually in this category. The Government has failed to put in place a strategic plan on job creation for those who would be affected by the introduction of this bill. If I could ask this: are the Minister for Social Development and the National Government actually concerned about our youth or are they happy to sit back and use the estimated $520 million funding not for our youth but to fund the information technology package to run the reforms? And that is not to mention the additional cost to keep it operating. If paper shuffling were a job the Nats would be darn good at it. I ask how we can guarantee what this Government believes and I emphasise the word “believes” because it means we will rely on the right interpretation for youth.  
Yes job training programmes are essential. By the way can the Government confirm whether it is receiving funding from the Australian Federal Government for this Government’s proposed training programmes because the Australians are certainly going to be the beneficiary of this bill? Our tertiary students are actually already on a one-way ticket to Australia. Instead this Minister is proposing to boost the growing exodus. The National Government is doing very well as an employment agency for Australia. We can all recall a former National Government Prime Minister who once said that New Zealanders who emigrate to Australia raise the IQ of both countries. It is sad that the Government is pushing this bill forward. It is a speedy implementation of legislation in order to avoid close scrutiny and it deprives ordinary New Zealanders of a fair opportunity to have their say. The chairman of the Social Services Committee and the National members of the committee put forward an unrealistic time frame when calling for submissions.  
Although reducing long-term welfare dependency is something that this Government needs to address so must be the schemes to provide realistic solutions for jobs. I can tell everyone in this House and those who are listening to this debate right now what this bill is a solution to. It is merely a sugar-coating. That is what this is all about and New Zealand First is concerned about a number of changes proposed in this bill. These include the use of the private sector to find jobs information-sharing provisions within the bill the wider welfare reform package and of course the tax to the taxpayers. Why is that? There is no saving to the taxpayers. At the end of the day when you look at this bill there is absolutely no saving to the taxpayers. The most appropriate title for this bill then should be the “Political Cronyism Benefit Bill”.  
Under this bill the cost to the taxpayers is not only not reduced but the paying out in administration of the benefit just shifts from Work and Income to the Inland Revenue Department. The bill does not give the opportunity to our youth to learn how to be independent and that is the crux of this debate.  
Then there is the second phase of this bill which really gets me. The bottom line is whether this Government will provide jobs to widowers to those on the DPB and women living alone receiving the benefit. Some of those people did not have the choice of becoming solo parents. For some of them their partners died for whatever reason and so they were put in that position not because of their choice but because of the facts of life.  
 In respect of the provision relating to the use of the National Student Number we support that totally. We understand the need for that to happen. We also agree with the Privacy Commissioner that the changes in this bill target a group for whom trust in authority may already be in short supply. 
New Zealand First has some serious reservations about increases in the use of the private sector for finding jobs. The goal is to pay private companies or organisations for every person that comes off the welfare. The underlying principle is fine; we all agree with the underlying principle. The approach and the implementation of the bill are what we need the Minister and the Government to perhaps hear in terms of what we are trying to say they need to fix. Women for as long as we can remember have always had an important role in our community. Having a child or becoming a housewife is not a matter of choice; it is actually a duty. It is a duty for some of our women. It is a duty that is willingly accepted by many and is in some circumstances compulsory. Extending work availability expectations and pre-benefit activities to this category is simply government formed on an impetuous nature. By nature the Government is again putting into action privately run bureaucracy firms. This should not be a shortcut to creating jobs. This is about getting people off the benefit and into jobs. My challenge to the Government is to put in place a strategic plan that will realistically and genuinely provide jobs for our community. Thank you. New Zealand First does not support this bill.