Social Security Amendment Bill

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this

I move, That the Social Security Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The Government introduced this bill to signal our commitment to providing the right services and support for people to retain, find, or move towards employment. We consider it to be an integral part of the Working New Zealand initiatives and a move towards aligning or removing outdated provisions in the Social Security Act. The work focus of this bill is a very positive objective. It supports the basic purpose of the Social Security Act in relation to providing social and financial support to people for whom work is not appropriate or who are, for some reason, not able to work for a time.

The bill introduces a number of significant new provisions. It introduces, first of all, new planning requirements for people who are receiving sickness or invalids benefits. This does not mean that people will be pressured into taking up or returning to work. I have been very concerned about inaccurate and irresponsible statements in this regard that have been made in the media. Those statements have also clearly concerned other members of this House, and members of the community. Taito Phillip Field, in particular, has discussed his concerns with me, and it is at his request that I stress, a further time, that no undue pressure of any kind will be put on non work-tested beneficiaries, as a result of this legislation, to take up work or return to work.

I have also introduced further steps in respect of staff training, and implementation will be taken to ensure that this is so. Extra monitoring regimes will also be implemented to ensure that my expectations in that respect are met. Planning, though, is about enabling people to reach their full potential. Through sitting down and talking to people, we can better understand their needs and aspirations. Working more actively with people will mean that we can better provide them with the services and support they need. Planning takes account also of individual circumstances, and can address issues such as training, housing, finance, health, transport, work aspirations, and ability. It provides the opportunity for a case manager to build a rapport with the person concerned.

To take a flexible approach to planning based on a person’s circumstances recognises that a one-size-fits-all approach does not work and is not appropriate, especially for disabled people or people with ill health. Rather than having a preconceived idea of a person’s capabilities, the focus of the planning work will be on working with individuals to set realistic goals and supporting them, of course, to achieve agreed goals. People who are clearly unable to plan will not be required to do so. There are now, and will be in the future, people receiving sickness or invalids benefits for whom planning is not appropriate. For example, if a person has a very serious illness or impairment that requires a high level of support for everyday living, it would obviously be most unreasonable to expect that person to plan for a future that could potentially involve a return to work.

Changes to the current requirement for other benefits are also introduced, including the introduction of a pre-benefit activity requirement for those on the unemployment benefit. New requirements for 16 and 17-year-olds that will encourage them to be actively involved in educational training are part of this legislation, as is a correction power so that a benefit can commence at an earlier date than the date of application, where a person has failed to complete an application because of an error on the part of the ministry. Also, the bill includes a legislative framework for the application process for benefits, to ensure that there is a robust transfer of information and that the process is clear and transparent.

So for the sake of the absence of all doubt, let me again repeat that I have asked the Ministry of Social Development to issue clear operational instructions to reinforce the procedures for the implementation of the bill. This will stress that non-work-tested beneficiaries are not to be subjected to pressure to take up or return to work.

The bill will be beneficial in a number of further ways. It reduces the maximum income stand-down period from 10 weeks to 2 weeks; it aligns the residence criteria at 2 years for all benefits except the emergency unemployment benefit; and it extends the definition of hospital care to include residential care of an equivalent kind, so that more people will be able to access the domestic purposes benefit for the care at home of the sick or infirm. The bill also removes the qualifying child criteria for domestic purposes and widows benefits, so that access to those benefits will be based on the residence of the caregiver and the dependent child.

The bill extends the exemption to the stand-down period to any person entering a refuge, not just sole parents; it extends the continuation of benefits for 8 weeks to all sole parents, not just those receiving a domestic purposes benefit when they lose the care of a child in circumstances outside their control; and it allows young people leaving the care of Child, Youth and Family to access the independent youth benefit.

I am pleased to compliment the Social Services Committee, and I would like to thank it for the result of its deliberations, which resulted in a number of amendments to the bill. These amendments have improved the clarity of the bill and put the policy intent beyond doubt, especially in relation to the application process and “activity in the community”. The select committee identified an issue that the Government has also followed up on immediately. As a result of submissions to the select committee, and the representations of my colleague Lynne Pillay in particular, the Government agreed to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to the bill. Supplementary Order Paper 114 inserted a further amendment into the bill that extends the provision currently available for the blind to travel overseas for vocational training for up to 2 years without loss of entitlement to benefit to any person on an invalids benefit as a result of disability, ill health, or injury. This change has been welcomed by the community. It is a very positive change, I am sure members will agree, that will assist people with disabilities to undertake vocational training where that training is, for whatever reason, not available in this country.

I also acknowledge the members of the Social Services Committee who supported and improved this bill. I acknowledge Sue Mackwell and her team from the Ministry of Social Development for their hard work and commitment in making improvements to legislation for which they should be justifiably proud. In closing, let me also pass my appreciation to those members of the House who have dealt with this legislation as a matter of principle, in particular New Zealand First, United Future, Gordon Copeland, and Taito Phillip Field. I am delighted to have the honour of commending the Social Security Amendment Bill to the House.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this

This Social Security Amendment Bill is a very interesting bill, which came before the Social Services Committee. As was commented on the other day by Sue Bradford in the House, this is yet another amendment to the Social Security Act. One of the points that Mrs Bradford made—and, I thought, made very well—is that this is just another part of the huge matrix that is social security legislation. We have a bill that although we who are on the select committee know what it is about to do, and we know what it is all about, most New Zealanders, if they are trying to search for some change, or amendment, or for what this bill does, will very soon have real difficulty in finding out what the rules are. That is because the bill refers to sections in other Acts and does not just deal with what is in front of it. I think it is incredibly important—and this is a point that Mrs Bradford made that I think was absolutely right—that we should always try to create legislation that is not only in plain English, as much as possible, but that is able to be accessed readily by the people who are meant to be able to access it. This bill simply does not meet that requirement. It is just another piece of legislation in this area that could, in fact, have been put together in one big piece of legislation to have this whole area looked at.

This is a bill that could really have been called the “Single Core Benefit (Phase One) Bill”. That is because this is phase one of the single core benefit that the Government has been promising in its various forms really since 2000, and even before that in 1989 when Michael Cullen was the Minister of Social Welfare—before “welfare” was turned into “development” under this Government. So this is a bill that is just a little step along the way. It does not really put a lot in the way of sanctions for people who simply do not want to cooperate. It does have sanctions for people who do not want to have personal development plans, it does have sanctions for people who do not want to carry out the personal development plans, but for those who simply want to put together a plan that they will agree to, where they do not plan to do very much, it does not do a lot about them. I suggest to this House that the people who will be sanctioned are those who are genuinely trying to improve their lot and to contribute to the community, the people who really do put together a plan and then find that it has been a bit ambitious for them and they cannot comply with it.

I think it is a shame when we have to ask sickness and invalid beneficiaries to plan to work whether or not they really can be expected to. I think that is a shame. If only we had a system that said that those who really cannot work because of sickness or a disability do not have to be classed in with those who can work but wish not to. It is a real shame that we have this current situation. We have it, of course, because there are now over 125,000 working-age New Zealanders who, according to this Government, are too sick to work. That is a 50 percent increase since Labour came into power, despite the now $4 billion extra spent on health every year. So we are trying to deal with a situation here where a lot of people have been shifted off the unemployment benefit and put into a sickness or an invalids benefit category and now we will be asking them whether they would like to work. Well, the answer, in some cases, will pretty much be no.

The other thing is the question of why we are doing this for people who are genuinely too sick to work and should not have to be asked to work.I think that is a real shame. One of the things that the Minister has never really been very good at is being gracious. He needs to understand that some of the sensible amendments in the bill came about because of the good work done by National Party members on the select committee and also, I should say, by members from the ACT party, the Greens, and United Future—those people who were actually there. All the Minister wants to do is take credit for those who support him on everything he does, which, frankly, is a bit difficult. I understand he has one or two votes in this one. In a major piece of legislation, that is all he can scrape together. To hear him today praising Taito Phillip Field after all the other things he and his party have said about him is pretty interesting, to say the least.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) Link to this

It is a huge pleasure to follow on from the deputy chair of the Social Services Committee after that stunningly, stunningly empty speech. When I was listening to her, I thought that, gosh, all I could really say about that speech is that she is taking a long time to dance on the head of a pin.

First of all, she attacked the style of the bill—the wording. Nothing was said about that in the select committee. She went on to say that it would help beneficiaries who want to malinger. But then the real agenda of her party came out of her pursed lips—

ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) Link to this

National is opposing the Social Security Amendment Bill at its third reading in the House today, and people may ask why. Well, we think this bill is another piece of political puffery from a Government that has run out of ideas, and from a Minister for Social Development and Employment who has few ideas about how to manage a significant portfolio that has a profound effect on the lives of many of the most vulnerable New Zealanders—those who are reliant on the State for financial support.

People may ask what this bill will do. It does what most New Zealanders thought the Government was already doing: getting New Zealanders into the workforce, giving them a step up for themselves and their families, giving them a step up towards self-esteem, self-sufficiency, and satisfaction. More important, it gives them a step towards active participation in their communities. We all thought that was what Work and Income was doing, anyway, so why do we need this bill? Why do we need this bill, and all the puffery that preceded its passage through this House? The Minister announced it was the biggest reform to the welfare system in 50 years. Yes, the Minister actually said that, when all it does is tidy up a few loose ends and essentially changes very little.

The bill talks about sickness and invalids benefits, whose numbers have risen 50 percent under this Minister and this Government. There are now over 125,000 New Zealanders getting either a sickness or invalids benefit. That is a quarter of a million working-age people, out of a country of 4 million in total. Come on, Minister! That just cannot be right. Who would believe that so many working-age New Zealanders are too sick to work?

Every time we raise this with the Minister, and my colleague Judith Collins does this regularly at question time, the Minister babbles on about what is happening in other countries, under other Governments, and under other Ministers—as if that makes it OK. Well, it is not OK, and I know, from the people in my own electorate who have sat in my office and told me, that some Work and Income staff are encouraging, and have encouraged, people from the unemployment register to move on to a sickness benefit in order to make the figures look better.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) Link to this

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the third reading of the Social Security Amendment Bill. In New Zealand First we believe that the employment of New Zealanders is a priority and that we cannot afford to limit the labour-market capacity in any way if the economy is to grow. We all want the economy to grow, and we hear about that daily in this House. People who are able to work should be given the right services and support so that they can retain, find, or move towards employment.

The focus on work is a very positive feature of this bill, and it is one we would expect any Government to have, particularly a National Government. When we hear from National members that they are very reluctant to support this initiative, yet daily they bring the issue of unemployment to the House—whether it be the household labour force survey figures or the unemployment figures—this is indeed surprising.

The welfare system can never be a lifestyle choice for people who are able to work. In New Zealand First we recognise too that there is a small group of people for whom work is not an appropriate choice, as they have high health needs. We also know that some people need help at times, and we believe that the welfare system should provide a helping hand, particularly when people need it most.

In New Zealand First we like the emphasis that this bill has on planning requirements for a working future for those who are able to do so. If people do not know what they want to achieve or to do with their life, then they will never ever achieve it. One of the hardest things for people who are looking for work is to work out the direction in which they wish to go. We are very pleased to see that some assistance will be given in this area and that people’s circumstances, like transport, training, education, and ability will be taken into account. We know that people often need to be helped to set realistic goals, then helped to achieve them. I remember some years ago that quite a number of the people who went to the Work and Income New Zealand office wanted to be acrobats, astronauts, or clowns. Although for some people those goals might be achievable, I would say that for most people they definitely are not. In the main, they are unrealistic career choices.

The encouragement for 16 and 17-year-olds to be actively involved in education and training is extremely positive. We applaud that. New Zealand First believes in the concept of mutual obligations. When a person is unable to get paid employment, the State will pay that person on the understanding that he or she is involved in making some contribution back to the community. Of course, that contribution can be training or some pre-employment programme. We believe that that type of programme helps people to understand what is required in a job.

Work experience is a valuable training ground for employment. We believe that work experience should be for only a limited time as young people need to be actively engaged in the workforce and to receive the right payment for what they are doing. We do not want to see unfair advantage taken of any beneficiary. We can only commend the very many employers in the retail sector and the fast-food industry who put so much effort into hiring and training young people. All of the aspects of the world of work that we take for granted have to be taught to most young people, such as getting to work on time; focusing on one task for 8 hours or so; working the required length of time in the day; keeping their uniform tidy; working as part of a team; and working safely—the list just goes on.

Ensuring that young people have these skills is not easy. As a parent, I know that it is a challenge. My son had some challenges initially when he went to work as a trolley assistant at a supermarket. It was quite a challenge to have to focus on that job for 8 hours, but I am pleased to say that he has achieved it and he is very happy to be there. It is essential that young people learn these skills and learn for themselves that they can achieve greater heights on money they have actually earned than if they are dependent on a benefit and basically having the State dictate the level of their living. Everyone needs to feel that he or she matters and makes a contribution in some way. The focus on work is one of the ways we can do this.

In New Zealand First we are very pleased that the number of young people on a benefit is steadily reducing. The negative outcomes that result from unemployment—the mental health issues, the substance abuse issues, and criminal activities—are all aspects of life that we do not want young people involved in or with. Success in employment, training, and education are definitely the most important ways out of poverty, and all the research shows this. Dr Muriel Newman, a former ACT MP, always emphasised that families and people cannot succeed when they are living on a benefit.

We are pleased to see too that the work focus has been extended to people on other benefits, as well, particularly the sickness benefit and the invalids benefit. We have been concerned at the growing trend of those on the unemployment benefit being moved on to the sickness benefit, but the reality for some people is that being out of work and on the unemployment benefit makes them ill and basically unable to work. The hardest thing in life is often to take the first step, and it is a good initiative to provide support and services for people so that this step can be successful and so that they can have a future they are looking forward to.

We were interested and pleased to see that the stand-down period for benefits has been reduced from 10 weeks to 2 weeks. I always wondered how people affected by unemployment could look after themselves and their families for 10 weeks without any form of assistance. A large percentage of these people would not have been highly paid, and, like most people, would have been waiting for pay day, and to survive for a long period of time without money must be extremely challenging. I know that Sue Bradford would agree with me on this particular issue—she is nodding. This change to the stand-down period is a positive change. We want to encourage people to be involved. We do not want to encourage people to be involved with loan sharks or with any questionable activities in order to get the money they need to survive.

The select committee’s change to extend the provision for the blind to travel overseas for vocational training is positive and must be commended. It is paramount that people with disabilities can undertake training overseas when that training is not available here in New Zealand.

In New Zealand First we know that working adults are the basis of a successful society, and we are very pleased to see the constructive measures that are outlined in this bill. People today face a far more complex and challenging environment than ever before, and gaining full-time employment can be extremely difficult, partially as a result of economic conditions. So assistance such as that outlined in this bill is a very positive change. We want people to participate in the workforce, and we want them to be able to do so. The benefits of working outweigh the benefits of not working. The reality is that all jobs matter. They are all essential; otherwise they would not be created.

The direction in this bill is sound, and it is sound for any Government to take. We would be very critical of this bill if such measures were not being followed. We like the philosophy that is fundamental to this bill. Everyone should be encouraged to work if they possibly can do so. New Zealand First supports this bill.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) Link to this

Once again we have a social security amendment bill going through its third reading debate in the House, and marking yet another attempt to patch up the incredibly fragmented jumble that constitutes the Social Security Act 1964 as amended many dozens of times. On 29 May this year in the Supreme Court, Justice Blanchard made a statement in the Owens case. He said that Ministry of Social Development staff present in court should register his concern about the serious patchwork mess that the Social Security Act had grown into, and he said that something needed to be done. He went on to say that the court had given similar advice to the Government previously around the Immigration Act and now the Social Security Act warranted the same sort of advice—that is, that it needed to be totally reorganised. He expressed the hope that day that those Ministry of Social Development officials in court might relay that message onwards.

I do not know whether the Minister is aware of Justice Blanchard’s recent comments, but I urge him to heed these words. I realise he is probably utterly sick of the Green Party calling for a new Social Security Act, but I sincerely hope that the justice’s statement, made so recently, might carry a little more weight.

The Government should not continue amending, in this ad hoc manner, the original Act, which is, after all, well over 40 years old. Instead, all the manifest expertise available at the Ministry of Social Development should be called upon to put together new legislation that is fit for the 21st century. What we need is clear new law designed to make our welfare system fair, accountable, simple, and responsive to the real needs of those dependent upon it in any way. Behind that, of course, we need a Work and Income department that is ready, willing, and able to administer the detail of the system in as equitable and respectful a way as possible.

The particular bill in front of us this afternoon is a little classic of its type, in terms of its piecemeal approach. Some of it contains beneficial changes, including things like the reduction of the maximum stand-down period to 2 weeks, the development of consistent residential qualifications across the benefit system, and some constructive changes to details of the administration of the domestic purposes benefit.

I also welcomed, during the Committee deliberation, the amendment put forward by the honourable Minister, David Benson-Pope, that gives the Ministry of Social Development the discretion to pay an invalids benefit to a person who is overseas for a period of not more than 2 years for the purpose of receiving vocational or guide-dog training, providing he or she cannot receive the same training here. I had put forward my own more limited Supplementary Order Paper to this effect, and I was delighted that the Government went further with its own amendment.

I was also pleased that the Government saw fit to make it very clear, during the process of dealing with this bill, that the Scoble principle will continue to apply, and that when someone applies for one type of benefit or is given one type of benefit when they first apply, that will be taken as a valid application for any benefit, should the department subsequently work out that another one is more appropriate. It is good, too, that during the select committee process the bill was amended to make it clear that beneficiaries on a sickness or invalids benefit will not be sanctioned if they do not take up “activity in the community” as part of their job-seeker agreements. Along with many submitters on the bill, I had a real worry that this could have been a gentle but nevertheless very real way of reintroducing a form of required work for the dole through the back door. I am relieved that the Government has chosen to make it very clear that this is not the direction in which it wishes to go.

However, despite these changes made during the course of the bill’s passage through the House, the Green Party continues to oppose this bill, overall, on several grounds. First of all, there were several matters that we tried to amend in the House, including issues around pre-benefit activity for people on the unemployment benefit and the definition of “income”. Although these are quite technical matters, they are fundamental in terms of providing a fair and reasonable administration of the benefit system. It was really disappointing that only Māori Party members saw fit to support our amendments, and I thank them very much for that support and for the understanding they bring to this Parliament of the realities that beneficiaries face in their daily lives.

Secondly, and more critically, our fundamental opposition to this bill, which I realise the Government does not quite understand, is based around the changes it makes to the purposes and principles of the Social Security Act. The Minister himself, in a presentation to the Social Services Committee last week, said the changes represented by this bill were the biggest reform to welfare since the original 1938 Act. He is absolutely right; it was just that that was the first time I had seen the Government acknowledge it. Without the kind of consultative process one might expect for such a major change of direction, and without the support of most of the submitters to the bill at the select committee, the Government has put up a new principles and purposes section that basically alters our country’s whole approach to social security.

What is being enshrined there is a “work first” approach. Work is seen as the ultimate goal for all working-age citizens and residents. This completely devalues the work of caring for children and/or the elderly, the sick, and the disabled, or the other essential contributions that so many beneficiaries make on a daily basis to their local communities. Although I welcome the fact that all beneficiaries will have access to work and training assistance from the department, should they want it, this bill goes way too far in reinforcing the attitude that those on a benefit are intrinsically worth less than those in paid work, in that the work they do—even that most essential task of caring for others—is not seen as something to be valued and respected in itself. I am also concerned that people who suffer or are recovering from mental illness, injury, sickness, and physical or intellectual disability will come under increased pressure to go out into the workforce in a way that could, at times, make their personal situation even worse and more stressful than it is already.

The purposes and principles section of the new bill also promotes a rigid interpretation and administration of our welfare system. It entrenches the moves begun most significantly with the shift from the special benefit to the temporary additional support, with the whole system becoming more rigid, less discretionary, and less able to meet people’s actual needs. I continue to hear stories of beneficiaries being forced to rely on impossibly low amounts of money to survive, because the discretion of the special benefit is no longer available. The objective of our social welfare system should be to enable people to participate fully in our society and clothe, house, and feed their children and themselves with dignity and adequacy, not simply to alleviate hardship only to the extent provided by the Act.

We should go back to the 1938 Act, to the recommendations of the two royal commissions on social policy, to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act in order to find purposes and principles that would do justice to a truly fair and progressive welfare system. I also have a fundamental fear that the nature of this bill will in fact possibly lay the groundwork for much more regressive reforms to welfare legislation, should we end up with a National-led Government at some point.

I am not surprised, but I am sorry, that the Government showed no interest in amending the purposes and principles sections of this bill as per my proposed amendments during the Committee stage. This debate on the nature and purpose of the welfare system will, however, continue, and the Green Party will not shy away from continuing to put forward a very different vision than that proposed by either the Labour or the National Parties.

A final matter I would briefly like to touch on before I finish today concerns the report done by the Rotorua People’s Advocacy Centre, some conclusions of which were put forward as part of its submission on this bill. This research dealing with improved work-life balance for people on the domestic purposes benefit had been commissioned, paid for, and signed off by the Families Commission before the Rotorua People’s Advocacy Centre’s submission was made. The report was totally relevant to the bill before us. The implementation of the personal development and employment plan system, which constitutes the major focus of the report, is going to be widened out through this bill. However, 2 days after the Rotorua People’s Advocacy Centre’s submission to the select committee on 28 March, its final report was suddenly renamed by the Families Commission, retrospectively becoming a “draft final report”, and eight pages of new demands were submitted to the authors. Before 28 March everything had been on track to publication, but after the submission was made, suddenly the Families Commission withdrew its support. I find the political implications of this very disturbing.

On top of that, I have since discovered that the Ministry of Social Development had, on 20 March, made a report that said the publication of this research would make a risk to the social development portfolio. This risk was, firstly, because some of the matters contained in the report were relevant to the Child Poverty Action Group case against the in-work payment, and, secondly, because the Ministry of Social Development believed that: “The report created a misleading impression about the provisions contained in the Social Security Amendment Bill affecting sole parents.”

I find it incredible that publication of a report could be halted because of these so-called risk factors, especially in the context of its relevance to a bill currently before the House. I hope we do not see the muzzling of this type of research, commissioned by a Government body, happening again.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

The term “welfare” means many things to many people. Its origins emerged in responding to the needs of those in poverty. But over the years as material living standards have fallen, as income inequality has increased, and significant ethnic differences have arisen, we have witnessed the emergence of a disturbing new way of thinking around welfare. Ironically, at a time when compassion is most needed, we have seen the development of a new era where blaming the poor is seen in the idea of welfare dependency, and perceptions that the sick, the disabled, the poor are somehow the result of a moral turpitude, a laxity of values, and personal sloppiness. Instead of welfare being seen as the foundation of our modern State, it has become fashionable to speak disparagingly about those on income support. “Welfare” is becoming another pejorative term for describing the difference between the haves and the have-nots. “Beneficiary” has become the latest term of abuse.

The Social Security Amendment Bill is motivated by this force of public hostility towards those of our citizens who require the support of social security. It is based not on the attainment of inclusive citizenship but on the relentless drive of welfare-to-work. Let me say from the outset that the Māori Party also shares a deep concern about the dependency mindset that is associated with modern-day welfare, but our concern is levelled not at the individuals and communities requiring protection from hardship; our concern is about the system that presumes it knows best about how people should live their lives, a system that appears to revel in removing hope, then victimising those from whom the hope has been removed.

We think of the reforms of the 1980s, which promised much but have subsequently seen, in this decade, an increase in the incarceration rates, and plans to build more jails to incarcerate more people. Is that genuine progress? I think not. We will never shirk from the responsibility of caring for those whom the great poet James K Baxter referred to as “ngāmōkai”. In his poem “He Waiata mōtaku Tangi”, he describes those who cling to our social periphery: the young, the alienated, the ostracised, the underprivileged, the long-term unemployed, those who have done a lag inside, people with mental illness, and Māori. We must not leave ngāmōkai in our trail.

In the 16th century, the Protestant reformer John Bradford was burnt at the stake as a heretic. There is one particular incident involving Bradford that has passed down through the centuries. Whilst either seeing a beggar in his rags walking down the streets on a stormy night, or watching a criminal go to execution for his crimes, Bradford gave utterance to a humble observation that I think has bearing on this bill. He said: “There but for the grace of God go I.” Whether the person he saw was a prisoner or a pauper is irrelevant; the philosophy of compassion, of support, of humility, remains. I absolutely identify with such an utterance, for as I reflect on my own youth, and as I see what has happened, and is still happening, to my people, I, like Bradford, would also be saying: “There but for the grace of God go I.”

The Māori Party is absolutely convinced of the need to reform the social support system. We also endorse the vision of being able to reduce the number of people on a benefit, the numbers of people applying for a benefit, and the duration of the benefit received. But we must never forget that no one is immune from sickness or disability, from the trauma of divorce or death, and from the insecurity of a volatile labour market. We must never forget the effects of colonisation, of land, language, and the cultural deprivation that being in this Parliament reminds me of every day. These effects are played out on a regular basis at the Māori Affairs Committee as we listen to the experiences of our people as they attempt to get justice through the Treaty of Waitangi claims process.

When I listened to the debate on the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill, I experienced, at the same moment, both anger and grief, and I wonder how much of what we are discussing today is really about a discussion of the whakapapa of deprivation.

My co-leader, Tariana, was pilloried in some quarters for daring to mention the trauma suffered by our people as a result of colonisation—trauma identified graphically by the Waitangi Tribunal in its Taranaki reports. Yet just this week I read an article by an Australian psychologist who stated that it was time Australia acknowledged the trauma suffered by its indigenous people, the results of which are vividly seen today.

So we come to this day when we must not overlook the everyday reality of overcrowded and poor housing, longstanding difficulties in accessing health care, and the fact that people are being excluded from the full range of economic and social opportunities because of the grip of poverty. The Māori Party will safeguard the rights of New Zealanders to participate equitably in their own society—to belong, no matter what. We believe in the rights of all citizens to be able to benefit from meaningful employment. We support, therefore, the commitment in the bill that people will be assisted to plan for work in the future and develop work-related skills. But we know also that people are more likely to stay in jobs that are meaningful, adequately paid, and are not inhibited by the constraints of institutional racism.

We do not subscribe to the point of view that any work, however menial, is better than no paid work. We challenge any notion that forcing people into work in which the conditions and rates of pay leave a worker vulnerable is a good thing. We will, for example, be supporting Sue Bradford’s age-discrimination bill, where 16 and 17-year-olds will receive the adult minimum wage. The Dunedin Community Law Centre described this bill as a shuffling of beneficiaries into low-paid, insecure work, which does not benefit individuals or society but simply allows employers to continue offering low wages and poor working conditions to those who have few alternatives. Well-being must not be compromised by the pressure of work at any cost.

We also oppose any situation by which the value of the vital unpaid work that underpins our society is denigrated. This is the work that our communities depend upon—voluntary work, looking after our children, our sick, our elderly, our needy. The submission from the Child Poverty Action Group highlighted that this bill further entrenches the divide between deserving and undeserving children—a surprising key feature of the Working for Families package.

We noted also the views of Dr Susan St John and Dr Louise Humpage that this bill “punishes those who can’t find work.”, and requires a new pre-benefit activity to be completed before anyone is even eligible for the unemployment benefit.

These concerns are also raised by the ordinary New Zealanders who have contacted our offices, fearing that the distinction between the ill, the impaired, and the healthy is becoming increasingly blurred in order to categorise more people as fit for work. They have shared their anxieties that people are being forced to seek work who are not well enough to do so.

The issue of social security and participation is fundamental to the advancement of our nation. We know too well that social cohesion is being seriously undermined by the oppression of poverty. We know too well the marginalisation of ngāmōkai—New Zealanders who are prevented from being able to participate equitably in their own society. We worry also about the stories we have heard of sole parents being harassed into paid work to the detriment of their tamariki and their whānau well-being. We know that Māori are targeted in such an approach, and that sickness and invalids beneficiaries are suffering inordinate stress to comply with new requirements.

The serious challenge before this House must be to alleviate the poverty of our poorest families. We must urgently address the unacceptably low family incomes. We must also invest in quality care for the children of working parents. The problems facing our nation are not wrapped up in an exclusive package called “benefit dependency”. We in the Māori Party do not want to end in a policy cul-de-sac—a no-end street in which society has run out of options. We must address the low incomes and low wages, the pervasive racism of welfare reform demonstrated by specifically targeting Māori beneficiaries, the folly of targeting sickness and invalids beneficiaries—pushing them into work when they are not well or ready—and the failure of the certainty that meaningful, adequately paid, secure employment is available. We cannot support this bill, and we will continue to place pressure on the Government that it is essential that the whole sum of issues situated around the tribe of ngāmōkai must be seen as of the highest order.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) Link to this

I find it very hard to believe that the old Opposition will not be supporting a bill that introduces a strong work focus for beneficiaries who are fit and able to be engaged. If this was a blanket provision that required all beneficiaries to be work focused, then objections would be fair, but, as I have signalled in earlier speeches, this bill creates three very separate sets of expectations.

The first is work support, and it is geared towards those on the unemployment benefit; it requires them to be actively engaged in finding work.

The second set of expectations—separate from the first—is for those who cannot work now, but who are likely in the future to be able to work. Therefore, this set of expectations accepts the limitations of the moment, but it acknowledges that work is a possibility for the future, and that consideration could be given to that now.

The third, and separate, set of expectations articulated in this bill is of community support for those for whom there are no expectations of their ever being in paid employment, but for whom the Government recognises that Work and Income has responsibilities.

These three sets of expectations are able to be tailored to the clients—to the clients’ needs and to the clients’ potential—without demanding unfair or unrealistic outcomes from clients who have high and complex needs. In regard to those with high health needs or severe limitations, the expectations of this bill are actually placed at the feet of the Government. This amendment requires the Government to proactively work to make sure that clients are resourced to participate as fully as possible in community activities.

Beneficiaries, like all New Zealanders, should receive their income because they meet expectations. If people are unemployed, then we expect them to be doing all that they can to secure employment. If people are unwell, then we expect them to pursue recovery. If people are disabled, then we expect them to discover their potential and to seek support, so that that potential is realised. If people are receiving income as a parent in order to parent, we expect that they are focused on the well-being of their children, and we expect them to actively consider their future employment options so that at the appropriate time they can transition into paid employment. Work and Income can no longer leave this expectation to chance. Are these expectations unfair? Are these expectations onerous? Are these expectations achievable? And how does the political right justify to their voters their opposition to improving expectations that underpin the work ethic?

Crucial to the success of this bill is the front-line role of Work and Income case managers. This bill places huge responsibility on them. I have particular concerns for those working in the provincial centres with more limited work, training, and community options to offer their clients. There are stories floating around of clients with disabilities being asked to consider employment and training options that are completely unrealistic and, therefore, extremely stressful.

So the professional training and supervision of front-line staff is what this bill relies on. They are both the strength and the potential weakness of its implementation. United Future supports the third reading, but we do want to signal to the Labour-led Government that we will take an active interest in the role of case managers, and the ongoing training that they must receive, so that expectations expressed to clients are done so in a positive, rather than in a punitive, tone. We believe that this bill moves in the right direction, and we are happy to support its third reading.

KATRINA SHANKS (National) Link to this

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—30,000 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.