Lole-Taylor Asenati: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lole-Taylor Asenati: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 June 2012. Volume:680;Page:2875. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First— 
Mike Sabin 
: Nice blue scarf. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: —yes a very nice blue—just to remind people on the other side who the real traditional national party is. I rise on behalf of the New Zealand First Party the party that takes pride in its common sense and its realistic approach to social services policies. In fact the Minister for Social Development would do well to seek quality advice from New Zealand First and we are happy to offer that advice.  
I am somehow stunned by the previous speaker Melissa Lee’s poor contribution on this debate. Screaming through the microphone does not necessarily represent quality I must say.  
Let us be real here. The aim of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill is to transform the benefit system into one that is modern active work-focused for adults and education-focused for young people. And yes Mr Lotu-Iiga New Zealand First continues to ask the question of where the jobs are. Where are the jobs at the end of the day? Has the Government received funding from the Australian Federal Government for these proposed training programmes? Because we can be sure that it will be benefiting from them. Our tertiary students at present are already on one-way tickets across the Ditch and to other parts of Europe and Asia while the Government shows no intention at all of holding on to them. Instead the Minister proposes to boost a growing exodus.  
In fact New Zealand is becoming an excellent employment agency or shall we say training institution for Australia. Perhaps we should ask Australia to thank the New Zealand National Government for doing this. I recall— 
Mike Sabin 
: They’re upskilling their mining to come home to Northland. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: —let me remind Mr Mike Sabin—a former Prime Minister of a National Government who once said that New Zealanders who emigrate to Australia raise the IQ of both countries. Sadly nowadays they raise the IQ of Australia and other countries but not New Zealand.  
Pushing this bill forward suggests speedy implementation of legislation that hopefully does not come under close scrutiny. Yes we believe that reducing long-term welfare dependency is something that this Government needs to address. We acknowledge that but where within these schemes does it provide the solutions? “Where?” is the question. I can tell everyone in this House and those who are listening to this debate now what this bill is a solution to. This bill is merely a concealment. It is this Government’s disguise of a job creation scheme for bureaucracy—in other words sugar coating. It is sugar coating which is probably the more relevant term. 
Tim Macindoe 
: For what? 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: That is right Mr Tim Macindoe. New Zealand First is concerned about a number of changes proposed in this bill. These include the use of the private sector in finding jobs information-sharing provisions within the bill the wider welfare reform package and of course the cost to the taxpayer. Furthermore we see the bill as a distraction from the Government’s poor economic management and its failure to provide the right setting for job creation. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: She’s right there. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: That is right. Thank you. I agree with you and I thank you for agreeing with me. Looking at the current benefits that people have access to—namely the independent youth benefit—I see the same expectations laid out for 16 to 17-year-olds. There are the same obligations to be met regarding secondary schooling full-time training and activeness in looking for work. I see exactly the same frameworks surrounding a youth benefit but with a difference in its title and its opening yet again for political cronyism.  
If we look at this bill from its intent on stating the obvious it exceeds all levels. You can laugh about it Mr Lotu-Iiga but we discussed this at the Social Services Committee and we made our view pretty clear. Yes it has outlined that better parenting education programmes and budgeting programmes are needed for young parents. But where are your figures to say how much this will cost New Zealand taxpayers? Where are the figures? What we do not want is the transfer of beneficial funds— 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I can help this new inexperienced member with the figures. I am quite happy— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No you are interrupting the member’s speech. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: I can sympathise with that member because he perhaps needs a little bit more education about when to stand up and call a point of order. The benefit system should actively help and promote paid work and independence not create barriers to finding paid work. As my colleague Barbara Stewart once said— 
Tim Macindoe 
: How does this bill do that? 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: Are you listening Tim Macindoe? Are you listening? I am trying to remind you of what was discussed in the select committee just in case you have a memory problem there. As my colleague Barbara Stewart stated in her speech Treasury has “provided a job forecast of 1.6 percent per annum over the next 3 years.” She made that very clear. The question though is what sort of jobs we are talking about here—what sort of jobs. Since the Government has deceived its voters into believing that jobs would be available there are now more job losses. I can infer only that this forecast is based on optimism which is far different from reality.  
The information-sharing section proposed section 125D in clause 19 screams of a nanny State which the National Government has actually accused Labour of doing. This bill permits certain agencies to disclose information about young persons in certain circumstances. Who then decides which relevant agencies have access? I definitely cannot imagine Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga to be someone who can give that. Who are these intended agencies—or can I say buddies—and what are the certain circumstances? Under proposed new section 125D there is no explanation given as to which organisation will have accessibility rights and which individuals will have their information shared. We find no problem with the Ministry of Education providing information to the Ministry of Social Development—that is absolutely fine. This is with reference to the provision relating to the use of the National Student Number—we recognise that. In respect of the provision relating to the use of the National Student Number though we will support the inclusion of a specific provision concerning information sharing between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Social Development. We agree however with the Privacy Commissioner that the changes in this bill target a group in whom trust in authority may already be in short supply. That is very important to note.  
Modern society norms are what this Government wants to align its models with. Really? Is it normal to ask widows and women living alone to take on board work without taking into consideration their circumstances? Is the Minister saying that the norm of this Government is to be insensitive to these women and widows? 
Kris Faafoi 
: Yes. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: Yes I believe so. Women for as long as we can remember have always had an important role in our community and in our families. For women alone in the 50-plus age group where does the Government propose these women find jobs? It is hard enough for youth to find jobs. And what do you say about the older generation’s prospects in this competitive job market?  
New Zealand First opposes this bill and the reason we oppose it is that it does not make sense. New Zealand First said from its very beginning that we will support good legislation and oppose bad legislation. If the intent of this bill actually served a purpose in reducing welfare dependency and gave a real solution to this problem we may have had a different stance. However for these legitimate reasons New Zealand First will not support the amendment bill in its second reading. Thank you.