Woods Megan: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woods Megan: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 18 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3660. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call in this Committee stage on Part 3 of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Specifically I want to talk to clause 35 of this bill and I want to talk about what it is that Work and Income is going to require sole parents on the domestic purposes benefit to do. What we have is a bill that introduces tougher obligations for sole parents to be in work on the basis of there being outdated views of what people can and should do. We are being told that this is just a change to the system. We are seeing very much in this legislation the Welfare Working Group’s premise that sole parents have low rates of employment compared with the norms in other countries. That is reflected in this legislation. Well what we do have—let us have a look at the reality of it—is more than 65 percent of those people who are on the domestic purposes benefit staying on that benefit for less than 4 years. Most people do not want to be on this benefit and most people do not choose to stay on this benefit. Most people contrary to what some members opposite think do not see this as a lifestyle in which to revel in.  
So let us actually have a look at what the reality of the problem is here and what it is that this legislation seeks to do. We in Labour are opposing this legislation because we maintain that if employment opportunities are to be promoted for single parents there are major issues that we need to confront and that we need to have a really real and realistic conversation about. Those issues are around the quality of the part-time work that is being offered whether or not the flexible work options really do exist in reality affordable access to early childhood education—and quality early childhood education—and importantly access to education and training opportunities for people who find themselves on this benefit.  
 We were told by the person who had looked up the interweb and found all these thousands of jobs out there that there are all these jobs out there but the only fish-hook is that you might need some skills and training because some of them required you to have some qualifications. What do we see about these jobs being offered out there on the internet on Seek.com and Trademe.co.nz the now official site for New Zealand employment statistics according to the member opposite? What we have is a piece of legislation that does not have the commitment—the real commitment—to the training required and the opportunities required to get people into quality work and into the quality work that will put them on the path of being able to provide a good income for their families into the future.  
We have a whole lot of rhetoric around this from members opposite. But what we see when push comes to shove is what we saw yesterday when I put up a very reasonable amendment to Part 1 of this legislation that simply asked to include as one of the options that Work and Income could direct young New Zealanders to some of the courses being offered under the Skills for Canterbury package. But no what we have are members opposite who stand there and say: “We’re committed to getting young people to National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2.” Well actually what do you mean in reality?  
We put up an amendment that was going to offer people some real choice some real opportunity and the real option to get ahead and what we are seeing under clause 35 in Part 3 of this legislation is a whole lot of rhetoric around people on the domestic purposes benefit being compelled and there being obligations on these people within this clause to go out and seek work and training opportunities. But what we are seeing when it is put to the test with members opposite is that there is not a commitment to real and meaningful—real and meaningful—training and work opportunities that will get these people back into work. It just does not stack up and the rhetoric does not meet it.  
We also have within this clause “a general obligation [for people on the domestic purposes benefit] to take all steps that are reasonably practicable in his or her particular circumstances to prepare for employment …”. Part of taking those practical steps when you are a sole parent is having adequate access to early childhood education. This is adequate—