Sepuloni Carmel: Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Sepuloni Carmel: Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:665;Page:13130] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 It is very difficult to have to endure the one-liners that come out of the mouth of the Minister for Social Development and Employment when we hear them over and over again with regard to the need for sole parents to step up. I think that we on this side of the Chamber see single mothers on a daily basis who are out there stepping up and doing everything that they need to be doing—and all that they can do—for their children. But unfortunately members on the Government side of the Chamber and the Minister for Social Development and Employment would rather drag those sole parents through the mud and further stigmatise them as well as put out a signal to society that those people are somehow ripping off the system. We on this side of the Chamber would not say all the people out there who have at any point in time accessed welfare have been above board. There have been a few occasions when they have not been. But we cannot assume that these women who are barely able to survive on the amount of money that they receive from welfare are in some way ripping off the system. Instead we would hope that as a Parliament we would be supportive of them. 
We listened to the Minister for Social Development and Employment talk about a few things including the exemptions that can be applied in different circumstances to women who are accessing the domestic purposes benefit. I will talk about a couple of those exemptions because some concerns were raised during the deliberation on this legislation in the Social Services Committee. We discussed them there and I think it is important that we discuss them in this Committee. One of the exemptions is in respect of study. The concern that we on this side of the Chamber have is that the exemption is only for level 4 study and higher levels. Many of the people who access the domestic purposes benefit did not necessarily achieve secondary school qualifications so to assume that they can go either straight out into the workforce or straight into level 4 study is a little negligent. Rather we need to ensure that if they decide to study they can have a pathway through the necessary stages rather than just being thrown into the deep end at level 4. That is one of the concerns that have arisen. 
It is strange to look back on the training incentive allowance and at the changes made there—the very heavy-handed cuts made there—because in the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill the exemption is only for study at levels 4 or above but the training incentive allowance these days can be accessed only by those studying at levels 1 2 or 3. It is absolutely pointless to have the training incentive allowance at all. It makes no sense for it even to be in place because I do not understand who will actually be eligible to access it given what this bill proposes with regard to the study exemption. 
The other exemption that has been given to us—which we have been advised on by the officials and which we have discussed in detail—is around the circumstances of women who are exiting violent relationships. When we discussed that we talked about whether case managers would necessarily be equipped to deal with the individual circumstances of these women—I will say women because they predominately are women—when they come into their offices. I asked a couple of women’s groups when they came to the select committee about how many women would actually walk in to see a case manager whom they did not know—and we should keep in mind that the whole case management load has changed as well so they will not necessary have the same case manager as before—and feel comfortable enough to tell the case manager that they have come in to get the domestic purposes benefit because they are exiting a violent relationship. The case manager will not necessarily ask them that and we can understand why he or she would not. But we also have to understand that many of those women would not feel comfortable necessarily about divulging that information straight away nor would they even know that it will be a criterion for an exemption from work testing in the first place. It is not as though there is a sign up that instructs them about the exemptions. 
So there are serious flaws in this bill including those in the exemptions—the exemptions that the Minister for Social Development and Employment was talking about earlier. These things need to be looked at further but unfortunately we have come out of a select committee process in which they were not paid enough attention at all so we will have exemptions that will not achieve what they are meant to achieve. 
I have talked about study and I have talked about violence but the No. 1 concern that arose from this bill was about the fact that it discriminates based on gender marital status and family status. It is not we on this side of the Chamber who are making that claim; the Attorney-General came out from the get-go and wrote a report that said that in respect of this legislation. It is a sad sad day when we allow through legislation that discriminates on the basis of those three things as if there is nothing wrong with it. As my colleague from the Green Party Metiria Turei said earlier she has come from a background where she accessed the domestic purposes benefit as a single mother. So has the Minister for Social Development and Employment; so have I. All of us know that a lot of challenges come with attempting to raise children by ourselves when we are single parents. To boot single parents while they are down by allowing legislation to go through that discriminates against them and stigmatises them further in society is completely unjust. We wonder what kind of Parliament we are part of when legislation like this is allowed to go through. 
In the last few days two single parents from west Auckland have come through my office. One of them in fact had an article written about her in the  
New Zealand Herald  
this morning. The woman is studying at an Auckland tertiary institution; she is trying to raise her 12-year-old daughter by herself. The article discussed the fact that the woman has gone down from size 10 to size 6 because she has to sacrifice eating in order the pay the bills and raise her daughter. Hekia Parata is laughing about that but I met that woman and this is a true story. I have seen her for myself and heard her story first-hand. Perhaps Hekia Parata should read that article in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 because it is sad— 
Hekia Parata 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not know what the relevant Standing Order is but as I was not laughing at what the member was speaking about I object to having that attributed to me. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will explain to the member that that is not the way in which one addresses that matter. If the member has been misrepresented or misquoted the member can stand up at the end of the call and ask for leave to make a personal statement. But I think that is unnecessary now as the point has been made. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: One thing that this single mother who has gone down from a size 10 to a size 6 because she has been sacrificing food so that she can pay the bills and raise her daughter said was that if the Government had just left well enough alone and had left the training incentive allowance in place then she would have been able to survive quite adequately. She would have had access to about $3800 a year. 
Here is a woman who is— 
Hon Annette King 
: A science degree. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: That is exactly right; she is getting a science degree. It is mentioned in the article as well that her husband the father of her daughter was violent. The woman came out of a violent relationship. She is trying to better herself. She is trying to get ahead so that when she goes into the workforce she can get a job that will provide an adequate income for her and her daughter. She is also trying to be a role model for her daughter and show her that this is what it is about. It is all about getting a good education. She is showing her daughter that mum can do it so the daughter of course will be able to do it as well. Yet this Government would deny people like that woman things like the training incentive allowance and would make life even harder for them down the track in terms of the welfare reforms that it is looking to push through. 
I sat on the select committee and listened to the submissions and I say that the vast majority of the submissions that came through on this legislation were opposed to it. The vast majority of the submissions that came from our social services and our church organisations were opposed to this legislation. They were from respected organisations and individuals and the reason they were opposed to it was that they saw it as being unjust. They saw it as being discriminatory. We had our church organisations stand up and talk about their concerns with regard to this Government and the fact that it continues to devolve increasing loads of responsibility on to those voluntary organisations which just do not have the capacity to deal with the workload that is going through. Their concern is that the Government should be working alongside them to look after the vulnerable and the weak but instead the Government is devolving more and more responsibility to them.