Shanks Katrina: Social Security Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Shanks Katrina: Social Security Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8944] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Social Security Amendment Bill. The claim that this bill is the biggest reform to the welfare system in 50 years is ridiculous. I would assume that going to work and receiving the benefits that one receives from working such as high self-esteem confidence and a feeling of belonging outweighs the benefits of sitting at home. A “work first” focus is imperative if we want to allow all the people in New Zealand to have a high standard of living and a high quality of life. The main aim of this bill is to move towards a work-focused system instead of the benefit-first system that exists currently. Unfortunately the aims of the bill—which I will outline—are just not inspirational enough to free people from the welfare trap. 
The first aim is the new pre-benefit activity requirement on applicants for the unemployment benefit and the change in the requirements put on people who are work tested. At present the work-test requirements do not apply to a person applying for the unemployment benefit until after the benefit commences. 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 will mean that Work and Income will be able to direct a person to a work-related activity immediately. 
The ability to work with people and to direct them to a specific activity right from the first contact with them could result in them finding work quickly—maybe—and would remove the need for them to go on to a benefit. However because this pre-benefit requirement will happen only when requested it means that applicants will not actually have to seek work first. They will still go to Work and Income first to find employment and will still have the mentality that they are not personally responsible for finding appropriate work for themselves. 
The second aim is that there will be the introduction of planning and activity requirements for sickness benefits and invalids benefits. People who are work tested will continue to make themselves available for will actively seek and will take up offers of suitable employment and they may be required to develop a job seeker agreement and to undertake activities in the plan by agreement. In addition to this they may in the future be required to undertake planning for employment; undertake if required a specific activity or programme included in the job seeker agreement; and undertake if required activities including rehabilitation—but not medical treatment—to improve their work readiness and prospects of obtaining employment. 
The new activity requirements address limitations in the current provisions. Work and Income may be able to require people to undertake a specific job seeker development activity in their job seeker agreement that could address a barrier to employment—for example poor literacy skills or poor numeracy skills. This is great but the question must be asked: how did these people fail in the education system originally to the extent that their literacy and numeracy skills were so bad that they could not meet even the basic work requirements to begin with? Is it really the role of Work and Income to re-educate the people who are failing in our education system so badly? 
The new requirement will also allow people to be assisted to find work in cases where a person does not have an agreement in place introducing a planning and activity requirement for sickness and invalids beneficiaries. Those beneficiaries who are not work tested will still go through the process of planning and activity requirements even though there is no expectation for them to enter the workforce. 
The Minister the Hon David Benson-Pope has admitted that 1 in 5 potential sickness or invalids beneficiaries who have been signed up by a doctor are actually fit for work. Is it not a contradiction that beneficiaries who are fit for work fall into the sickness and invalids category? As Barbara Stewart mentioned during the first reading debate on this bill one must wonder whether the number of sickness beneficiaries increased and the number of unemployed dropped in part as a result of decreased personal expectations the stress that is caused from not being employed and the lack of social interaction. Therefore being unemployed is actually making them sick. 
The third aim of this legislation is the introduction of an activity requirement education training or employment for young people receiving an independent youth benefit instead of the work test. Recipients will be required to participate in agreed and approved activities for 30 to 40 hours per week be available for and be seeking full-time employment or be unable to do the two mentioned as a result of sickness injury disability or pregnancy. Recipients may be required to participate in at least one developmental training or educational activity for a minimum of 3 hours per week. 
Young people who fail to met their requirements will have the work test sanctions applied unless the activity in the work programme is a community group – based activity in which case these sanctions cannot be imposed. A community group activity cannot be enforced in their programme. This is a major flaw in the aim as community activities have not been made mandatory. 
Let me give members an example. In a small rural town a beneficiary may wish to pursue social work as a career path and the only provider in that town is a church. The applicant in his or her job-seeking agreement writes this down as the aspiration and the career he or she chooses. This is the only activity on the agreement as this is the only provider. That person does not actually have to perform this activity as it is provided by a community group. Therefore there are no implications at all for not fulfilling the activities on the plans. So why would people go and do that work if they actually do not have to and it cannot be enforced? 
The level of benefits and provisions is complicated and complex. Once again the single core benefit has been delayed. It is now almost 20 years since the idea was first mooted. Why cannot the Government come clean and just admit that it is not going to happen instead of wasting time and more taxpayers’ money on searching for and developing a redundant model that still just does not work?