Sio William: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sio William: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 18 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3664. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Su’a 
 WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 There are several clauses in Part 3. I now come to section 60P(c) in clause 35 which says the purpose of this section is “to improve social and economic outcomes for them and their dependent children.” I think we all agree in this Chamber that to improve social and economic outcomes you have to provide an income to families so that they can support themselves first and foremost. Secondly to improve social outcomes for sole parents with children you have got to have a parent who is available to young children full stop. That is the argument that some of my colleagues have been putting forward. This Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill by this Government does not recognise when it should recognise that the role or the job of parenting of looking after children is critical. This Government does not recognise that. So that is the first point. It comes back to the argument we have advanced that for this Government to achieve an improvement in social and economic outcomes it has got to provide jobs. It is as simple as that. But not just any job; it has to be jobs that provide incomes for families to sustain themselves. That is the point that has to be made. 
If you look at section 60Q(3) in clause 35 it lays out the list of activities that will be required of people on benefits—sole parents in particular—and what the bill enables the chief executive to do to sole parents. The first point is “(a) to undertake planning for employment:”. Well that is fine—planning for employment. But the big question is whether planning for employment will guarantee that a sole parent or a person on a benefit arrives at a job that will support their families. That is the question. 
The second point—paragraph (b)—is that the chief executive will determine what activities the beneficiary should participate in and the first activity listed is work assessment. All right; you assess the person for the kinds of skills they have then try to match that person with a job. I submit that if it is true what the other side is saying about supposedly 60000 vacancies being available online then how come if there are those opportunities we still have got 160000 people unemployed? How come women’s unemployment rate is 7.1 percent? I am referring to that particular activity of assessing people for work; it does not guarantee the person a job. 
Paragraph (b) also suggests “a programme or seminar to increase particular skills or enhance motivation:”. That suggests to me that this Government does not think that sole parents or the unemployed are motivated enough to go and find work. Well I do not accept that and I think the Government is wrong. Another activity is “(iii) a work-experience or work-exploration activity:”. What does that mean—work experience or work exploration activity? Subparagraph (vi) allows “any other activity (including rehabilitation) …”. Why is that? Then subparagraph (v) provides for “an education programme:” and (iv) provides for “employment-related training:”. The question I would ask is whether the Government and the department will ensure that any sole parent who is wanting to progress themselves through an education programme that will lead to the achievement of a degree— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: A bit like the Minister. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: Yes. Well that is right. Once upon a time she was the beneficiary of support by the Government by the State of the education degree that she received. For any other sole parent wanting an education programme as stated in subsection (3)(b)(v) will the Government pay for it? Will the Government support a sole mother who wants a degree? Because if it will then good—