Fairbrother Russell: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9248] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 The reason this Government will be returned to the Treasury benches after the next election is contained in the bill before the Committee that we are addressing right now. The reason the National Party will be returned to the Opposition benches in a much depleted state is because of the bill we are talking about right now. What does the bill tell us? It tells us that this Government is committed to ensuring that all people who are on a benefit get the right services right from the start. Who can argue with that? There is not a voice from the National Party. Beneficiaries will get the right services right from the start. One cannot complain about that can one? That is what Part 2 of this bill delivers and that is why this good Government will return to the Treasury benches after the next election. 
Working New Zealand which this bill is really about is a substantial reform package that will stand the test of time for future generations and it should be read along with the Working for Families package which is the first part of this dramatic policy of putting people back into a working environment. For once our beneficiaries will be assessed because of who they are and their potential rather than by the type of benefit they receive. As soon as that happens every speech made by Judith Collins will no longer have any substance at all because she has repetitively gone on about sickness benefits and invalids benefits and she has classified people by their ailments rather than by their potential. What the National Party has failed to grasp is that this is a bill that recognises potential. This is a bill that says to people: “We will assist you to get the work that you’re capable of doing.” And those in the rare circumstance of being totally unable to work will be given assistance to make them feel and become valid members of the community albeit not in the workforce. 
Mr Clarkson should listen to this because his companies will be direct beneficiaries of this bill. He knows as I know that he would have many more workers if they were encouraged back to the workforce which this bill does. His private business interests would profit from that and he must know that. He should get up and explain that and explain why he will be crossing the floor to support the bill. 
In Napier there is a teen parent centre. If one chooses to visit the teen parent centre none of the teenage parents there—the young women who gave birth at a relatively early age—say they want to go ahead and study to become doctors of philosophy or learn about Greek literature or Greek history. Each one of them says that they are delighted for the chance to have another go at education so that they can enter the workforce. Their sole aim of returning to the teen parent centre is to get the training to return to the workforce and that is what this delivers. Who can argue with that? There is not a murmur or a voice from the Opposition because this bill delivers that very thing. 
I am fortunate enough to be married to the lovely Mrs Fairbrother who has a very busy family law practice. She has noticed already among her clients the change in expression and the change in attitude to life of those people who are benefiting from Working for Families. She knows very well that when this bill becomes law and people are judged on their potential not on their benefit label the people who attend her family law practice will do so with an attitude of hope and a belief that they have a valid place in society. 
It is against that background that we should read the principles in clause 23 of Part 2. Clause 23 brings in new section 1B “Principles”. Paragraph (a) states: “work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being:”. Who can argue with that? Dr Hutchison could not argue with that. The National Party does not argue with that. There is stunning silence on that one because everybody in this Chamber understands that to be valued one needs some work that reflects one’s ability and one’s skills. People who had been out of the workforce because of the previous economically ruinous policies of the National Government during the 1990s when they had no hope of getting employment and who were then categorised because they were in receipt of a State benefit were permanently on the heap of disappointment. If people are now encouraged back into work then the principle of paid employment as being the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being will be seen as a fundamental tapping into the vein of hope and prosperity to which this country is heading. 
This is a very good bill for those very reasons. It is a good bill because the philosophy of the bill is one of encouragement hope and support. The philosophy of the bill is not the philosophy of the National Party of damning people by labels and sticking them away so they cannot be seen and not talking about them again except to be critical of those fellow human beings. Anybody who falls upon hard times will be delighted that the Social Security Amendment Bill went through this House this year. They will be delighted because when they approach the Work and Income office or the Ministry of Social Development they will immediately receive assistance. No longer will there be a bureaucratic stand-down while the paperwork is done because as soon as a person who needs assistance fronts up to the counter he or she will be directed into the appropriate avenue to take on successful employment. 
We can offer that because the economic boom times that this Labour Government has brought about over the last 6 or 7 years mean that there is work for everybody out there. What we really need now is to have everybody working so that in a positive environment the benefit system is now there as a fall-back provision and as a step-up to employment. There is work there even for those who are not keen to get it and those who are not keen to get it will be identified by the very good staff in the department. They will be given assistance to work through the expectation bred into them in the 1990s by the National Government which was that we had to have a permanent pool of unemployed and they will come to realise that that is one of the mean terrible myths of the neo-liberals who are sitting opposite and listening spellbound to this dissertation on the future well-being of this country. 
So I commend the bill to the Committee and I am delighted that the National Party has not come up with one serious riposte or response to the many aspects of the bill. I take for example Dr Hutchison’s speech of just a few minutes ago. He was long on rhetoric but gave no analysis whatsoever. He accepted that the principles clause was a sound ideal. He accepted that. He then made some vague criticism that the bill fell short of something without giving any analysis whatsoever—and this is a man who has had the benefit of a high degree of sophisticated analytical training in his academic life. This is a man whom we expect should be easily employable if he went to a Work and Income office because he would get the assistance to refine those skills of analysis and to refine the ability to apply his mind to the task in hand and hopefully he would be ushered once again into gainful employment after his last 9 years of resting on his previous academic laurels. 
So I commend this bill to the Committee. It is a bill of hope opportunity and aspiration and it is a statement to our fellow New Zealanders that we care for them that we want to work with them and that there is a place for them in our society. This bill is one of the reasons why we are becoming a knowledge-based economy and why we are punching above our weight on the world economic stage. I say to members opposite that they should wait until Thursday afternoon which is when they will get their comeuppance.