Hutchison Paul: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9247] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I rise to speak on Part 2 of the Social Security Amendment Bill. Like my colleague Judith Collins I too would like to find something nice to say about this bill. Indeed if I look at the purpose I think there are some sensible and supportive things to be said about the purpose “to help people to support themselves and their dependants while not in paid employment;”. Surely that is very much common sense. We like common sense. Unfortunately the Labour Government tends to depart from common sense very rapidly and far too often. 
Another purpose is “to help people to find or retain paid employment;” which we agree with entirely. Another is “to help people for whom work may not currently be appropriate because of sickness injury disability or caring responsibilities to support themselves and their dependants:”. That is where we depart from Sue Bradford who said I think that work is seen as the ultimate goal no matter what the circumstances of the individual are. Well that is not the case in that purpose in section 1A(a) in clause 23. It is explicit that those for whom work may not currently be appropriate because of sickness are indeed catered for and I think that is right and proper. 
I did notice though that Sue said it would be appropriate to make reference to our children being our taonga and our future. I must say that all too often we do forget that the implications of this sort of legislation absolutely fall heavily on our children. I think we have groups in this country such as the Every Child Counts group who would very much like to see child-impact reporting in this sort of legislation. It is absent from the bill; the Labour Government has not taken any notice of it. I agree with Sue that this is something that should have been thought of. 
I note that Mr Benson-Pope cited the paper from Paul Blair from Rotorua. In fact he belittled the figures from Paul Blair in Rotorua. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: It’s rubbish! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: He says it is rubbish in fact. I just wonder why he says it is rubbish. Is it because Paul Blair actually has the temerity to criticise the Labour Government? I think that might be the case. 
Paul Blair states: “The first set of key findings of this research related to the nature of work-life balance for the sole parent DPB family. The participants in this study experienced a work-life imbalance due to the particular exigencies of sole parenting most notably lack of support and an inadequate income. The nature of the imbalance was not due to insufficient paid employment”—which is quite interesting; it was not due to insufficient paid employment—“as the dominant discourse around the needs of sole parent beneficiary families would suppose but rather to the simple fact that the parent had sole responsibility for meeting all of the needs of his/her children. It was found that the sole parent faced several challenges including stigmatisation from Work and Income …”—from Work and Income after 7 years of a Labour Government. I repeat that: “It was found that the sole parent faced several challenges including stigmatisation from Work and Income and society in general…”. So why is Mr Benson-Pope smiling away there? His Government has been trying to do something about this for years and it has dismally failed. That is why he is so critical of Mr Blair from Rotorua and his submission which was given in good faith. 
Mr Blair’s paper goes on to state: “Overall the participants wanted recognition and support for the work of sole parenting and felt that any consideration of work-life balance must prioritise their children’s needs.” It goes on to state: “The second set of key findings related to the sole parent DPB recipient’s relationship with their financial provider MSD’s Work and Income service”—again this is a criticism of Mr Benson-Pope’s department which has miserably failed—“and how the statutory PDEP process”—that is the personal development employment process—“helped or hindered striking the ‘right’ work-life balance.” I think Mr Blair has very legitimate reason for criticism here in that the infamous plan is just useless. It is ignored by this Labour Government.