Shanks Katrina: Social Security Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Shanks Katrina: Social Security Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10127] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the third reading of the Social Security Amendment Bill. Yesterday when we were in the Committee stage I looked at the history of the bill which originates from the Social Security Act 1938. In 1938 they used such phrases as: “benefit designed to safeguard the people of New Zealand from disabilities” and “provide a system where medical and hospital treatment will be made available.” The intention of the 1938 Act was to provide all those New Zealanders who were unable to look after themselves with a safety net to help with disabilities such as ageing sickness widowhood and unemployment. Its intended use was for those New Zealanders who were vulnerable or down on their luck. This is still relevant in 2007. It is important that there is always a safety net available for those people who need it. 
The 2007 Social Security Amendment Bill is legislating for what most New Zealanders presumed Work and Income was already doing; that is helping their fellow New Zealanders into work. 
 The general policy statement at the beginning of the explanatory note of this bill states: “It puts into effect the Working New Zealand: Work-Focused Support package of proposals to reform the social security support system.” It has such objectives as to “increase opportunities for people to participate in the labour market where work is an appropriate outcome;”. The fact that we now use phrases like “increase opportunities” and “where work is an appropriate outcome” I think waters down what social security is actually about. Now we have an acceptance that some of the people on a benefit are there through their own choice. They choose not to work because they know that the Government will continue to pay them to stay at home and to do what they want to do with their time. 
My colleague Anne Tolley talked yesterday about a packing house in her electorate that employed people from Work and Income to do seasonal work. Many of these workers after the novelty of working wore off made the decision that they no longer needed to go to work every day—in fact for many days in a row. Did they just wake up one day and decide they did not want to go to work and wake up the next day and decide they did not want to go to work? The packing house then became short-staffed. It could not meet its deadlines and deliverables. The business was then put at risk because of the limited workforce—if there was a workforce at all—and because people decided they did not want to come to work. 
But what is the consequence for the workers of their decisions and what does this bill do in terms of consequences for those decisions? I would say it does very little. If we look at the 45 grants allowances and benefits that are available to those people we will see I am sure that their families will not be put at risk for making the decision not to work. When we look at what they could be entitled to we see that under the costs of the working category the beneficiary could be entitled to the new employment transition grant the recoverable assistance grant the work start grant temporary additional support the Pathways payment the seasonal work assistance payment a childcare subsidy and an out-of-school care and recreation subsidy. That is eight grants and subsidies—support payments—to get them to go to work. If those people leave their jobs they could be entitled to special-needs grants temporary additional support a recoverable assistance payment or advance payment of benefit. Apparently the status of people in that situation is that of an emergency and they need immediate assistance because they have decided not to go to work. All in all they can be entitled to 12 grants. I wonder what assistance such employers get given that their orders are cancelled and their produce rots. 
Is this bill really about work first as it claims to be? Is this bill about safeguarding New Zealanders from disability or has it gone too far? In many cases now we have intergenerational beneficiaries. People have made the choice not to work and the Government just keeps on supporting them. This bill through its weak objectives and expectations is taking away from some New Zealanders their independence of the State and their ability to stand on their own two feet. The legislation will no longer provide the invaluable safety net that it once did or that it once intended to. It is now a level of interference in people’s lives. It is even an excuse. Instead of just getting on and living people are now justifying to a Government agency what they are doing how they are doing it and where they are doing it. We need to let these people take responsibility for themselves. We oppose this bill because it is legislating for what most New Zealanders presumed Work and Income already did: to help get New Zealanders into work. 
Statistics show that sickness and invalids benefits have risen under Labour. There is a distinct switch from the unemployment benefit on to the sickness benefit and invalids benefit—30000 in the last 7 years. According to the Minister David Benson-Pope 20 percent of people signing up to the sickness and invalids benefits should not be there. What are we doing for that 20 percent who should be in work? They are able-bodied people who should be entering the labour force. The labour force is screaming out for workers. There is no better time than now to go and get work. 
This morning I was talking to somebody in the hospitality industry who is currently lobbying the Government to bring immigrants in to take up jobs that the industry is trying to fill such as bar and waitress jobs cleaning jobs and jobs that are not highly skilled. It is not highly paid work but it is still work. These jobs need to be filled. They could be filled by those New Zealanders who are happy to stay at home and receive a benefit when we know they are able-bodied. The Minister said that 20 percent of those who sign up to sickness and invalids benefits should not be doing so and that they can actually work. 
One of the main flaws of the subsequent changes made to the bill is to remove from the sanctions provision the requirement for a person to undertake “activity in the community”. In fact these changes will lessen the ability of the bill to remove barriers to employment. The requirement for a person in terms of a personal development and employment plan should have to be fulfilled regardless of the source of that activity. I will give a typical example of how this is flawed. A beneficiary states in the personal development plan that he or she wishes to be a social worker. The only provider of social workers in the town is a church. The beneficiary therefore puts this provider in the development plan. Because that provider is a not-for-profit organisation it falls under the definition of “activity in the community”. The beneficiary does not have to turn up or even explain why he or she does not fulfil that part of the personal development plan. There is absolutely no consequence for the beneficiary not taking those actions. 
What has the personal development plan achieved and what does the beneficiary take away from this process? There is no need to fulfil the requirement of a plan and there are no consequences for not fulfilling the plan. It is possible to beat the system because there is a flaw in this bill. People think they do not have to do what they are told to do in order to receive something. So what job satisfaction is there for Work and Income staff who are developing and implementing these personal development plans? There is none. They cannot be enforced so why do they do them? In the eyes of those staff this must be frustrating and it must reduce their job satisfaction which is fundamental to keeping qualified staff. If this legislation is to be effective in any way whatsoever it comes down to implementation of the staff. We need to ensure that the staff have good job satisfaction and have “teethy” things they can work with. 
We oppose this bill because we know that the legislation is still flawed. I will give members another example. The introduction of a pre-benefit requirement to undertake a work-related activity if directed to do so by the chief executive will apparently strengthen the job search service. It should mean that Work and Income will be able to direct a person to a work-related activity immediately. Unfortunately the flaw lies in the fact that it is not compulsory to do so. The beneficiary has to do this only if he or she is requested to. 
This legislation focuses more on work first. Most New Zealanders would assume that work first was always the mentality of Work and Income but unfortunately that is not the case. We acknowledge that this legislation is making steps in the right direction but let us get those steps right and where there are obvious flaws let us fix them now. Thank you.