Shanks Katrina: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Shanks Katrina: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9115] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Committee stage of the Social Security Amendment Bill. National supported this bill at its first reading in order to get it to the Social Services Committee. We did this because we believe in work first and we thought that this bill supported work first. The current system emphasises getting a client settled into the benefit system first and then considering whether he or she should work. This mentality of benefit first and work second only undermines those who want to work first and use the benefit as a last resort. Not only is the current system flawed in the “benefit first” mentality; it also creates a perception that only Work and Income can provide work. In effect we support the idea that work should be the first focus and that the individual is also responsible for obtaining that work. 
The welfare system in New Zealand was designed originally to be a safety net. No one disagrees that this safety net is important for those who are down on their luck and vulnerable. The system gives these people a helping hand. Our welfare system was never intended to be a lifestyle choice for those who can work. Welfare before work was never its intention. Now we have people who are able to work who are on both the unemployment benefit and the sickness benefit. The mentality of many is that they do not have to work regardless of their ability to contribute to the workforce. 
Some of the proposed changes were hotly debated in the select committee. There was concern in relation to the phrase “activity in the community”—an example is in clause 29. A new subsection (3A)(b) in section 60Q was inserted to provide that a beneficiary “cannot be required … to undertake activity in the community (whether or not it is included in his or her personal development and employment plan).” He or she cannot be sanctioned for not demonstrating commitment to the plan if the work is not done. 
During the select committee process the beneficiary advocates implied that having activity in the community is allowing the introduction of work for the dole. In effect this subsection was included so that the new amendment could not be called “work for the dole”. However the implications of the subsection are great. Let me give an example. A client lives in a rural town and wishes to pursue a career in childcare. The only childcare provider in that town is run by the local church. Therefore the client puts in his or her personal development and employment plan that he or she will undertake work experience at the church creche. It is a community organisation so the client does not need to turn up for work and there are no consequences for him or her for not fulfilling his or her personal development and employment plan. The client has breached the agreement made with Work and Income but Work and Income can do nothing to correct the situation or make the client actually fulfil the agreed terms of the personal development and employment plan. 
This in my view is poor lawmaking. We are producing legislation that one could drive a truck through. Work experience is invaluable in assisting people into employment. Whether that work experience is received in the community is irrelevant; it is still work experience and it is all valuable in getting a first job. We need inspirational change to free people from the welfare trap. This bill just does not cut it.