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:3672. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I do not think the Minister for Social Development will find anyone on this side of the Chamber who would disagree when she says that work is important and work is valued. I think by and large all New Zealanders value work. We live in a society where work becomes important but it is also about the wages that those jobs provide. For the Minister to argue that the accommodation supplement and the childcare supplement will enable sole mothers to receive an income where they can work defeats I think Minister the whole purpose of your bill because you are using the accommodation supplement and the childcare supplement to subsidise the employers and to subsidise the landlord whereas the whole purpose of this bill is the focus on work—focus on work where solo mums and solo dads or young people are going to be pushed into work are able to support themselves. But your argument of using the accommodation supplement and the childcare supplement seems to me to concede the fact that there are jobs out there that are not going to be able to sustain a solo parent or sustain a beneficiary who wants to get into a job.  
The title of the bill is the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. It is an amendment bill to the Social Security Act 1964 but as submitters have said before the purpose of this amendment bill and the original purpose of the original Act just do not connect. They are miles apart. The suggestion by many submitters is that really this bill should not be there. It is the wrong bill to introduce if the Minister is genuine about her concern in addressing these particular issues. In fact it should really be the “Repeal of the Social Security Act Bill” rather than an amendment bill as it shows. If the focus of the bill is about jobs then this bill is really doing everything other than the provision of a job yet it provides sanctions which in my mind are a threat that if people do not get a job then they are going to lose out on something. 
 There is another significant shift that this bill introduces. It introduces a youth package that permits the use of third parties or private organisations. That is a significant shift from what currently occurs where a third party—whether it be a business or a community trust or whatever organisation—is going to be the representative of the Government department in the delivery of benefits in the delivery of any sanctions and in the provision of any of the pre-benefit activities that the bill suggests the chief executive has because the chief executive is not going to be the one sitting down with every beneficiary who comes through the doors of Work and Income. When the bill allows for third parties to be involved in the relationship between the beneficiary and the Government I think that debate still needs to be had because there are significant risks associated with the third parties involved in the relationship there.  
The bill also although it says in the title “Youth Support and Work Focus” does not highlight the fact that there is significant change for the beneficiary which falls on solo parents on widows and on sole parents. When a bill suggests one thing but does something else you really have to ask yourself whether we are being honest with the public out there. The fact that the entire bill introduces work testing—again the work focus gives a different suggestion to the public who will read the bill and think “OK this will enable me to get a job.” but it does not. Despite what the backbenchers say about the vacancy opportunities online we still have today 160000 people unemployed—6.7 percent. Women who predominantly make up the sole parent category are 7.1 percent unemployed which is higher than the national average. So again I do not think that the bill is being honest by allowing the general public to be fully aware of what will happen.  
The bill also introduces sanctions. I—and most people—take sanctions as a threat and there has been significant power now being placed upon the shoulders of the chief executive. It will be the chief executive who will determine whether a person is eligible for a benefit and what benefit. It will be the chief executive who will determine which pre-benefit activities for the applicant will apply. It will be the chief executive who will determine what educational activity the applicant can apply for. Again this is a significant shift from the original legislation which I do not think that we have had enough time to debate.  
The other points I make are on childcare because when this bill introduces the provision that sole parents will be work-tested when a child is 5 years old—it used to be 6 the bill now reduces it to 5—for part-time work I still have genuine concerns. If they are working in a job that does not pay sufficient to provide care for the child at home or at an educational facility then the Minister has suggested that we will continue to provide the childcare subsidy. I think that is wrong because that means that the focus really is about subsidising employers and subsidising landlords to the detriment of taxpayers and to the detriment of sole parents or beneficiaries who will have to continue to work for low-paid jobs. How can you live and provide a decent quality standard of living if this is the rate of affairs that this Government seems to be content on proposing? 
Again the jobs. If I really wanted to be mean to the backbenchers I would say that this bill ought to be called the “Kick in the Guts for Beneficiaries Bill”. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: Well that is what this is all about. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: They think it’s funny. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: That is right and they do not take this seriously. The Minister above all members on that side should know that the children of beneficiaries should be our primary concern. The children of sole parents should be our primary concern. If the Minister was in attendance when the public made submissions she would have heard from a range of significant organisations and significant individuals who responded and gave evidence that their paramount concern is that this bill does nothing—does nothing whatsoever—to protect the most vulnerable in our society: the children of sole parents. To leave a 14-year-old child at home really this perpetuates what we are doing. When a 14-year-old child is at home because mum is forced to go to work or they will be sanctioned and have nothing on the table—nothing to pay the rent with—what will that do to that young person? So I think if the Minister is genuine—and I accept that she is genuine about this—then really what she is doing with this amendment bill is not simply tinkering with the main Act; she is providing a significant shift to the whole Social Security Act. Both the purpose of this bill and the purpose of the Social Security Act— 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Social engineering. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: Absolutely. If we were in Government they would say this is nanny State. That is what they would have called it. We are not saying that one iota whatsoever. I simply say that she fails in this bill to address what will happen to children left alone and to mothers who because they will be sanctioned if they do not try to find work may not be able to afford childcare. The subsidy provided for childcare is $6 per child. Compare that with the cost of sending a child to school. You cannot send a child to school for $6. So I think she fails to address children.