Turner Judy: Social Security Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Turner Judy: Social Security Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10126] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I find it very hard to believe that the old Opposition will not be supporting a bill that introduces a strong work focus for beneficiaries who are fit and able to be engaged. If this was a blanket provision that required all beneficiaries to be work focused then objections would be fair but as I have signalled in earlier speeches this bill creates three very separate sets of expectations. 
The first is work support and it is geared towards those on the unemployment benefit; it requires them to be actively engaged in finding work. 
The second set of expectations—separate from the first—is for those who cannot work now but who are likely in the future to be able to work. Therefore this set of expectations accepts the limitations of the moment but it acknowledges that work is a possibility for the future and that consideration could be given to that now. 
The third and separate set of expectations articulated in this bill is of community support for those for whom there are no expectations of their ever being in paid employment but for whom the Government recognises that Work and Income has responsibilities. 
These three sets of expectations are able to be tailored to the clients—to the clients’ needs and to the clients’ potential—without demanding unfair or unrealistic outcomes from clients who have high and complex needs. In regard to those with high health needs or severe limitations the expectations of this bill are actually placed at the feet of the Government. This amendment requires the Government to proactively work to make sure that clients are resourced to participate as fully as possible in community activities. 
Beneficiaries like all New Zealanders should receive their income because they meet expectations. If people are unemployed then we expect them to be doing all that they can to secure employment. If people are unwell then we expect them to pursue recovery. If people are disabled then we expect them to discover their potential and to seek support so that that potential is realised. If people are receiving income as a parent in order to parent we expect that they are focused on the well-being of their children and we expect them to actively consider their future employment options so that at the appropriate time they can transition into paid employment. Work and Income can no longer leave this expectation to chance. Are these expectations unfair? Are these expectations onerous? Are these expectations achievable? And how does the political right justify to their voters their opposition to improving expectations that underpin the work ethic? 
Crucial to the success of this bill is the front-line role of Work and Income case managers. This bill places huge responsibility on them. I have particular concerns for those working in the provincial centres with more limited work training and community options to offer their clients. There are stories floating around of clients with disabilities being asked to consider employment and training options that are completely unrealistic and therefore extremely stressful. 
So the professional training and supervision of front-line staff is what this bill relies on. They are both the strength and the potential weakness of its implementation. United Future supports the third reading but we do want to signal to the Labour-led Government that we will take an active interest in the role of case managers and the ongoing training that they must receive so that expectations expressed to clients are done so in a positive rather than in a punitive tone. We believe that this bill moves in the right direction and we are happy to support its third reading.