Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. We are about to effect major change for social support in New Zealand. The bill before the House today will modernise the welfare system with changes that are long overdue and will serve this country well for years to come. I would like to thank the Social Services Committee and officials from the Ministry of Social Development, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Justice, who have all contributed to this bill. I would really like to thank my office and all the people who work inside of it who put in extra hours, all of those people within ministries who spent an immense amount of time on this. There are people who gave up time over their holidays, quite frankly, to write this. I said to the ministry the other day that I would like to do a morning tea for them, and they said that there are more than 200 people who at some stage have actually worked on the reforms in the last 3 years. That is a lot of people to thank, and I really recognise their work, their intelligence, and their hearts, which they put into this.

I want to thank the select committee, especially the chairman for his stewardship through this. It made some sensible changes, I thought, and I was really happy to take those recommendations. We took submissions in writing, and people came and told their stories. I hear those stories, and they are pretty heartfelt. There are people who are in really unfortunate situations, and I think that if there is anything that I should say—and I know that we hear a lot of rhetoric—it is that I have an immense amount of respect for people who need the system. I have an immense amount of respect for what we are doing here. I know that we hear a lot of rhetoric that I do not care and that I make changes just for the sake of it, without consideration for those whom they affect, but I do not think I am calling talkback, and I do not think this is a letter to the editor. I recognise that these are people’s lives, that they are living them in reality in their homes, and that this Parliament needs to give that the level of respect that it deserves, particularly for those who are dependent on the State and who are at a level of vulnerability.

Where we disagree—I get that and I understand it—is in terms of what changes need to be made and how to do that. I obviously feel strongly, and I have seen the evidence and I back that it is these changes that are needed and will make a difference. I hear about how heartless I believe some think I am, but if we go back—and this is really the third stage of changes that this Government has made to the welfare system—over each of the changes, we see that last year, when we made those significant changes for youth in particular, we were told how awful it would be, and we certainly did not get the support from Labour and other Opposition members. The reality was that we put an extra $287 million into supporting people up front. What happened is that we now have teen mums who are able to get childcare for their children, so they are able to stay in school, get into teen parent units, or get some form of educational training themselves, which they did not have the opportunity to get before this side of the House, this Government, made changes for them.

It is this Government that has stood up and wrapped more support round those young people as they left school and as they did not know where to go and where to get support. That is what this next stage of reforms is also about. It is about recognising where people need more help, and where we can get alongside of them. It recognises that at the moment we spend the most money on those who are on the unemployment benefit, when what we really have is a whole lot of people who either have illnesses or disabilities or have issues around education and training and confidence, and, actually, if we got alongside of them—the community also—and funded them, we would see really, really different outcomes for them. I am already seeing them.

This bill does make changes to drug testing. I see too many young people with wasted lives—in both contexts, quite frankly—and if only we gave them that kind of support, where they were able to get into work where they have got people who are mentors in jobs and who actually back them. And I meet employers who are pretty outstanding and who actually get alongside of them. This bill asks more for people, and asks more people to look for work, but I want to reiterate, as I have many, many, many times, that if you cannot find a job, you will not be penalised and you will not be sanctioned. We merely ask you to look. And I do say to people out there that, beneficiaries, you will not actually find a job unless you are actively looking. I think that that is fair, and I think that it makes sense.

We are asking those who have an outstanding warrant for their arrest to front up, to do the right thing; if not, your benefit will be cancelled. Quite frankly, I am relatively appalled that 600-odd people after 20 days still have an outstanding warrant out for their arrest and have not fronted up and done what is the right thing. We certainly should not, as taxpayers, be paying them to live that kind of life.

All categories will be changed. They will have a different title. But for those on the invalid’s benefit who are going to the supported living payment, the criteria are not changing; we just have different expectations. There will be, and has been, a lot of rhetoric. I cannot help but do a quote, because it is that kind of day, and the quote is: “I love argument, I love debate. I don’t expect anyone just to sit there and agree with me, that’s not their job.” That is from Margaret Thatcher, which I thought was kind of apt on a day like today. I do love debate, and I kind of like that we have differences, and, quite frankly, if we are going to argue about what is best for people and how we should do it, then bring it on for these people who perhaps need us the most. I will get lots of rhetoric today on how I pulled up the ladder and how everything was so much better, quite frankly, in my day, 25 years ago, when I was on a benefit. Actually, I do not remember it that way at all, and I do not see comparisons at all, either.

I commend this bill to the House. I want to again thank all of those people who have put in so much. I know that my colleagues want to spend some time talking about it, so I want to zip myself up, sweetie, and give them a chance to say something as well. Thank you.

This year is the 75th anniversary of social security in this country, and it is an occasion that I believe we should, under any other circumstances, be celebrating. Seventy-five years ago, as a nation, we drew a line in the sand. We determined, as any decent society should, that the measure of our country would not be marked solely by the achievements of individuals but by how we served and cared for one another, and especially our most vulnerable. As a nation we also decided that this line in the sand was not a line of judgment where we lined up, on one side, the deserving, and, on the other side, the undeserving poor. Social security was for everyone who found themselves in need.

But it is time that we all admit the obvious, and that is that politics has muddied the waters of social security. There is no better example of that than this bill, the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, which we are debating today. If you listen to the rhetoric of the National Party, as we have continually, you could be forgiven for thinking that at some point along the way the responsibilities that come with a social security system have somehow disappeared. Only a party intent on dividing a nation over welfare issues would perpetuate such a myth.

No universally available safety net could survive without an understanding and agreement from the people it serves that it is there for genuine need, and that when it is no longer needed, you must do all you can to move off it and begin to contribute back to the system that once supported you. It is that simple. This principle has not changed. It is a principle that Labour has always supported and has always defended. What is not simple is the reason why a very small proportion of New Zealanders access our system for a longer period of time. But we will never address this issue as long as some political actors, for their own gain, pretend that this is the case for the majority and vilify everyone who uses social security along the way.

The Minister for Social Development may deny that. She may stand there and claim, because she was on a benefit once, that her changes are designed to empower and to support. But I have one question for the Minister, and that is “How?”. How does labelling everyone as needing to be drug tested empower a job seeker? How does increasing the range of circumstances that sanctions can be used empower a sole parent? How does implying that beneficiaries are getting paid by the State while they have outstanding arrest warrants empower a sickness beneficiary? How does restricting their ability to study empower someone on an unemployment benefit?

This bill tells me one thing, and that is that that Minister underestimates the power of her rhetoric and the damage that can be done through it. No one is going to argue that we have the perfect social security system as it stands. I agree with the Minister on that much. Change is needed. But if we want to rebuild an active system, one that acts as a dignified transition for those who need it for a short time and a dignified support system for those who for reasons of terminal illness or significant disability will need it for a longer period in their lives, we no longer need to have the political gains that occur around welfare.

It is Labour’s vision that we rebuild the foundations of what we built 75 years ago. We first must start by remembering the social contract, and that is that the State has a responsibility too. The Minister may groan. I can hear her from that side of the House dismissing this notion. But it is one thing to tell someone that they will have extra work-testing obligations, and another to abandon the idea that the State no longer has any role in seeing whether you are able to fulfil your side of the bargain, and on that score the Government is failing.

In 2011, despite talk of 170,000 jobs miraculously being produced, there were just 20,000 produced under the Government in that time. In the face of high unemployment and massive job losses, that is the time this Government produced these punitive welfare reforms and ramped up expectations on job seekers, who were already looking for work.

Let us be clear. It is not like our system has gone from expecting absolutely nothing of job seekers to suddenly one day turning round and asking them to find work. In fact, our system goes a little more like this. An individual—any one of us—might be made redundant and go to a Work and Income office to seek help. That Work and Income office will send them away and tell them that they need to demonstrate that they have looked for work before they can get help—fair enough. Then they would also be required, potentially, to come back and do a course around work readiness. They will have several appointments through this process. It may take several weeks. Some of those appointments will be fulfilled by Work and Income; some of them will not. Increasingly, appointments are becoming a guide, not a target.

Eventually, once you have fulfilled these pre-benefit activities, which can take up to several weeks, you may be granted access to support. You will then be required on an ongoing basis to demonstrate that you are continuing to seek work through applications or, in some cases, getting signatures from employers, showing that you have asked them for employment. In amongst all of that, at any point you could be asked to do a short course on anything that Work and Income may deem appropriate for you.

This might sound like you are getting some kind of individual one-on-one treatment. Let us be clear—you are not. You are one of up to at least 155 cases that a Work and Income case manager may have on their books. If you have no work-testing obligations, you—the job seeker—might be one of more than 350 cases that a Work and Income case manager has.

You may know that you need to retrain to get a job, but under this bill you cannot. You may know that you need to invest a bit to try to get well from, say, a back injury or an impairment that is getting in the way of you getting employment. Under this bill you will not get that. And let us be honest—you may have been on a benefit for some time and not have basic literacy. Under this bill you might go on to a 12-week course, and then we magically assume work readiness. And everyone—everyone—is battling it out for a handful of jobs. This is the investment approach that this Minister speaks of.

This bill tears up the idea of a social contract. The message it sends is that the job seeker’s role is to look for work, and the Government’s role is no longer to ensure that there are jobs, to train, to educate, and to help you move into work. No, the Government’s role is simply to sanction you when you fail. That is what this Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill does, and it does not have to be that way. Labour’s vision is that in the 76th year of social security—

💬 Hon Hekia Parata: Let’s hear more of the Labour Party’s approach, consigning intergenerational dependency on the State while we wring our hands and—

If that Minister wants to listen—[Interruption]

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

—I will share with this House what a proactive system would look like. [Interruption]

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

In the 76th year of social security we have the ability to turn round—[Interruption]

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! We are not going to have an incessant barrage. [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. We are not going to have an incessant barrage. Members may interject if it is rare and reasonable, but this is just ridiculous.

We will begin first with the simple notion that Work and Income case managers have a big and a tough job, and there is absolutely no denying that. They must be supported. But, equally, they are the key to returning the dignity to our system, and so is the leadership that comes at the fore.

Secondly, we must take a long-term view. Why do we treat a school-leaver who, for instance, might not have National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 or may have literacy problems so differently from someone who searched for a job but failed and is on an unemployment benefit? One might get free access to further training and education, perhaps through a Youth Guarantee, a notion that we support. The other may at best get 12 weeks of training through a course like the Salvation Army, and then we expect them to suddenly be work-ready.

It is time to invest to save, but that means genuine investment. That means decent training and education opportunities. There are some who have been on welfare for longer periods of time and whose parents may have been too. No one in this House wants that to be the sum of any child’s life, but it would be naive to say that simply imposing sanctions changes everything. It may not be glamorous or something the Minister for Social Development can stick a ribbon on and sell to the media, but these are families that need long-term intervention and not just by a work broker—

💬 Mike Sabin: That member’s never going to rise to the dizzy heights she aspires to if—

If we want to make a real difference, we need, Mr Sabin, to get a little more real. We can restore a social security system we can all be proud of. We just need to wait for the architects of that system to come back, and we will.

It is a pleasure to speak on this, the third reading of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Before I start I would also like to just add my deep sorrow that we have had the passing of Baroness Margaret Thatcher. Baroness Thatcher—who was a great woman, a great leader—said: “There can be no liberty unless there is economic liberty.” This bill promotes economic liberty in this country. As chairman of the Social Services Committee I want to thank the Hon Paula Bennett for the hard work that she and her officials have put into bringing these reforms into this Parliament. I want to wish her a happy birthday as well. Happy 30th birthday, Paula! I want to congratulate the officials also, the clerks, the parliamentary counsel, and also my fellow members whom I may disagree with tonight on this substantive issue of welfare reform.

We are here because it is the second phase of welfare reform, which introduces new benefit categories, ensures a work focused system, and requires job seekers to be drug-free, ready, and available for work.

💬 Simon O’Connor: Social contract.

The bill, as my colleague behind me says, is about introducing a social obligation, a social contract for parents to make sure that their children are participating in early childhood education, are at school from the age of 6, are registered with a general practitioner, and are up to date with their Well Child checks. Those things are positive. They are positive for those kids and their families, and they are positive for our country. It also provides for benefit payments to be stopped for those who are on the run from the police. To me that is just common sense. Members opposite think it is the end of the world.

The reforms we are making today are about building confidence in the welfare system, which we campaigned on, so it can regain the work focus that it was intended to have 75 years ago, which that member Jacinda Ardern spoke about.

Long-term welfare dependency is trapping way too many people in a life of limited choices, poverty, and poor health. We are doing this for the 220,000 children who are living in benefit-dependent homes. Evidence shows clearly—and the Minister sees this almost every day out there in the community—that children are better off when their parents are at work and not on welfare.

💬 Sue Moroney: Yes. That happened under Labour. Actually, they got jobs under Labour. Under National there’s no jobs.

We are doing this because we are focusing on what those people can do, and not on what they cannot do, Miss Moroney. But having said all that, we still believe that it is about protecting and safeguarding those people who need assistance, who need the assistance of the State, and who are unable to work. We believe that wholeheartedly.

National campaigned on reforming welfare by taking an investment approach. The Minister for Social Development talked about that. We have a welfare system that is active and work focused. Last year we implemented some of those changes—$287 million of welfare reforms—so that young people, as the Minister stated, and teen parents could access specialist services around things like budgeting services, parenting courses, and getting them back into school and into education so that their lives can have more meaning into the future.

Future Focus, implemented in 2010, introduced clear obligations and greater fairness to the benefit system. Since then more than 171,000 benefits have been cancelled because people found work. I want to reiterate that for members opposite: people found work, which is a good result in spite of a tough local market.

💬 Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: Where? In Australia?

The member there asks where the jobs are. I am going to say it once again; this is the fourth time I have said it in this House on this bill. The jobs: 15,000 on the SEEK website. Twelve thousand of those are full-time, about 1,000 are part-time, and 2,000 are contract jobs. That is without talking about all the jobs that are advertised internally, all the jobs that are filled by word of mouth. There are thousands of jobs out there, but Labour does not want to hear about jobs—no, it does not.

One simple policy change requiring unemployment beneficiaries to reapply if they remain on the benefit after a year saw 21,000 people come off the benefit. That saved the State $74 million. The Government is focused on supporting New Zealanders whom Labour, when it was in office, abandoned to a life of long-term welfare—long-term welfare. There are more people working in this country today than ever before. There are over 2.3 million jobs in this country and Labour cannot back it up with its record. When you look at its economic record you see that sickness beneficiaries went up by 17,000, you see that the number on the invalid’s benefit increased by 26,790. Labour does not want to talk about that, because it knows its record was poor and needed improvement. It was actually a former Minister of Social Development and Employment who said that a rise for two quarters in unemployment numbers was “Not bad news, actually.” That is the sort of aspiration that we get from across the aisle, and that is the aspiration that those members continue to show in Opposition.

We are delivering on welfare reforms for New Zealanders because they voted us in in 2011 to get the job done: expecting job seekers to be drug-free, ready, and available for work; ensuring a work focused welfare system; stopping benefits to those with an outstanding warrant; and introducing health, education, and social obligations so children in welfare-dependent families get the best possible start in life. We are tackling welfare fraud. We are tackling long-term benefit dependency. And this is a Government that will still protect the vulnerable. Members across the House talk about how they built the welfare system 75 years ago, but I can tell you they are also the ones who broke the welfare system. We are here to fix it. I commend this bill to the House.

This Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill epitomises the major differences between the National Government and the Labour Opposition on how New Zealanders should be treated and how to address the development needs of our most vulnerable citizens. While National is trying to pander to the punitive perspective of its conservative, well-heeled constituents and supporters, and show them that it is tough on those who in their eyes are abusing the benefit system, Labour is more interested in finding lasting solutions and pathways to prosperity for its most vulnerable citizens. The backdrop to this bill has always been the legendary stories about mothers on the DPB not taking care of their children, spending their moneys unwisely, and having more children just to continue to be on the benefit—that it is a lifestyle option for many, that they are work-shy, and that they care little about the health of their children. In other words, they have no social responsibility towards the child-caring role that they should focus on as a matter of priority. That is the kind of rap that National has given the most vulnerable, and then it develops these punitive measures.

For this National Government, the singular focus has always been on reducing the number of people on benefits, and its members display no concern about who gets caught up in the backwash. They have created an image of beneficiaries as bludgers, and now they must hit them with as many disincentives as possible, no matter what might be the impact on vulnerable children. Some of the language used by the Government members in this debate demonstrates this agenda. They use that language and the concept of lifelong costs of benefits to justify their punitive measures.

Where National has chosen to be less generous towards the poor and those who rely on the benefit system to keep body and soul together, and care for their children at a time when there are few jobs for them to apply for, Labour will focus on job creation, job training, and getting people ready for work through voluntary activities they choose, educational opportunities they take up, and voluntary contributions they will make to society. The National Government places little value on the poor taking care of their children full-time themselves, and it takes away their option to be good parents. The Minister for Social Development is saying that if you are poor and rely on a benefit income, you have no rights to the care of your children yourself—

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: She’s not saying that at all. That’s nonsense.

Does the member deny that? That is exactly what this bill is saying. That is exactly what the sanctions are about; they are about childcare, compulsory childcare for the 3-year-olds. Why do parents not have a choice, Mr Lotu-Iiga? Why not? Why not give those parents the choice? No, they do not have the choice. What this Government is saying is that when these parents avail themselves of a benefit, they forgo the right to provide full-time care themselves for their children over 3 years old. That is what the impact of this bill will be. If this is not nanny State, I do not know what is. However, this Minister’s spin recasts this as backing the poor to live in her image. Or is it? Or is it? As I recall, this was good enough for her, but it is not for others. Despite the crocodile tears, it was good enough for her, but not for others.

Labour, on the other hand, places a very high value on the parenting role, and will enable parents to fulfil that role if that is their wish. Labour believes that parents are the best at providing care for their children, even if the parents are supported financially to do that. If parents need assistance to be better parents, then that is the assistance that should be provided, rather than compulsorily removing that opportunity for them, only because this National Government wants to appease those who cast this sub-population in a negative light—because that is what National members do. National members say that because some parents abuse the welfare system, all parents on benefits are tarred with the same brush, so rights have to be taken away from all of them. They could not come up with any answers to that in the Social Services Committee, apart from saying that it was fair. They are reluctant to go after those who are wealthy and visit havoc in the commercial sector through their unconscionable behaviour, but the poor and the marginalised are fair game.

There is no leadership in this way of operating. I say this to this Minister: history will not judge her contribution well, and she will be remembered for the misery she will cause through the provisions in this bill, very much as Ruth Richardson is remembered for her attack on beneficiaries.

💬 Simon O’Connor: Oh, come on.

Maybe the member back there was far too young to remember it, but that is exactly what Ruth Richardson did, and that is what she is remembered for. You have to wonder whether this National Government has a compassionate soul, or whether it is just politics. Labour places a much higher value on what parents do with their children during the formative years.

💬 John Hayes: Who wrote this? You didn’t.

Yes, I did, and if the member does not know what formative years are, I will spell it out for him. At least I do write my own speeches, not like that member, who barely gives one. Labour understands what the evidence says about those early years, unlike those three interjectors opposite, and will provide the best opportunities to them to be the best that they can be. The decent society owes this to the most vulnerable, not to make life more miserable for them. The provisions of this bill demonstrate no compassion and no understanding of the plight of the poor at all. The Government has come up with words like it wants to be “fair” and to be “balanced”, but these sentiments have a very different meaning from what is demonstrated in this bill. There is very little in this bill that is fair.

National says the best way to get conformity from sole parents and those dependent on a benefit is to place sanctions on them if they breach some of the conditions of their benefits. All this will achieve is the continued social exclusion of large numbers of people from sharing in the benefits of a society they have helped create. Social inclusion will be the dream, and maybe members opposite do not care about that, but we do. Those who are reliant on benefits today were taxpayers yesterday or will be tomorrow. Life goes through many phases, I say to members opposite and I say to this Government, and we must not make it difficult for our citizens, especially the most vulnerable, to transition through these phases undamaged. What this bill proposes would result in a sizeable proportion of the most vulnerable transiting through these phases much more damaged, and yet this is what these provisions will do for many. They will become bitter, and will start life without any respect for the collective society of which they are a part. Is that the kind of society—a society of winners and losers—that this Government is trying to create? There may be short-term political gains and there may be short-term dollar gains, but there will be no long-term gains for the soul of this society.

National has a system of social obligations, transactions, and sanctions, while Labour will work on all the needs of the most vulnerable, while enabling them to be their children’s carers while they prepare for work. Work is only one aspect of development. Placing disproportionate emphasis on it over the other roles a parent has and a family has in the care of children, and in the care, socialisation, education, and guidance of our children, is a big mistake that this Government is making in this particular bill. This will be a cost, and future generations of New Zealanders will have to pay for that, and a future Labour Government will have to come back and sort out the mess that this will create.

But this Government is not listening and is not interested. It knows that this is not about the poor and the marginalised, and their needs and interests; it is about quenching the insatiable thirst for punishment and for giving the appearance of being strong. National is punitive, while Labour is developmental. There are so many other ways of achieving the goals of bringing up the next generation of citizens as responsible people apart from those presented in this particular bill. There are many other ways of enabling parents to be good parents, but this National Government has not been interested, in any of its welfare reforms, in taking leadership in these areas. Its supporters want the blood of misery, the pain of failure, the perverse joy of keeping people beholden, and the sense of power to do something only because they know they can. There is no science in these proposals. National creates its own method of calculating the cost of welfare, which is intellectually dishonest. National wants to divide and rule, and this bill is the latest episode in its story of how to achieve that. We remain implacably opposed to this bill.

It is with a degree of anger that I am rising to speak again against this Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, which will profoundly negatively impact on our collective well-being. I rise to speak against this bill, which will, against best practice, solid evidence, and heartfelt pleas, further disempower and exacerbate the significant hardship that the most vulnerable people in our society are experiencing—that is, namely, sole mothers, the sick, and the disabled and those caring for them.

This bill tells those people that the Government knows better than them. This bill tells people with disabilities that they cannot assess their own abilities. This bill tells parents on the DPB that they are likely to be such crap parents that the Government needs to tell them what is best for their children and to threaten them with sanctions if they do not do what Wellington says, because Wellington knows best how to be a parent.

This should not be an ideological battle, yet somehow this Government, all the way through the submission process and now still in this House, has managed to reduce all of the evidence opposing this direction—from the Ministry of Health, from community organisations on the ground, from the Human Rights Commission, and from, you know, that radical organisation called the Legislation Advisory Committee, which is a subcommittee of the Attorney-General’s office—to an irrelevance. You know, that is an extraordinary feat, I think. In the face of all of the many perspectives telling us that this bill is more likely to create harm than good, somehow this Government can still stand in this House and claim so confidently: “It’s for their own good.”

Well, several people with disabilities have told us, just as one example, that they wanted the name changed from the invalid’s benefit, which they interpreted as an “in-valid benefit”. They wanted that changed, and the Government listened—you know, it has changed it to the supported living payment—yet the feedback from those same communities was that, actually, that is confusing because that is the name of another funding system, a district health board support service. Yet in this final version of the bill, we still see that same title. This may seem like a really small point, but to me it sums up the complete arrogance of this Government. You know, this point is not about money. It is not even about anything really substantive that I can see, and yet this Government has refused to listen to the people who are most likely to be affected by it. What would it have taken to listen and change the name? The Government’s inability to listen and respond is, to me, emblematic of a very, very deep problem.

Last week I was listening to community advocates in South Auckland, who told me that a few years ago they were giving out 35 food parcels a week and now they are handing out 200 a day. That is just one organisation. They told me that, according to Otago University research, a family of four in their area should be spending about $200 a week on food to be able to maintain their health. Yet their clients, the average family they were seeing, were able to spend only about $44 a week of their income on food. That is $156 a week short of being able to ensure the health—the basic, fundamental health—of that family. They told me that the cost of private rentals in South Auckland had gone up by 16 percent in just 2 months and that there is a turnover of about four families a year in private rental housing because the community just cannot afford the housing.

I have heard about a woman who is 7½ months pregnant and living in a car because she is $2 a week over the income threshold for Housing New Zealand housing. I have heard about a 15-year-old boy with a disability living on the streets of Auckland, moving around on a skateboard. I know of a woman leaving a violent relationship who has had to tell her children to adapt to having holes in their shoes because she cannot afford to replace them. I have heard of a man looking after a son with a disability being asked by Work and Income to sell his car before it would offer him further financial support. I have heard of people with disabilities with PhDs who are desperate for employment, but who are unable to get an interview for a job.

Our society is showing deep signs of breakdown and people are starting to lose their resilience. Some people are starting to opt out of the formal economy, giving up on Work and Income, giving up on paid employment, because they are just not able to survive.

Children are getting sick. We have just seen the report from the Ministry of Health on rheumatic fever and on how the Government’s health programme is missing the fundamental problem of overcrowded, damp housing and poverty. Our children are getting sick. Our children’s futures are being stolen from them by this Government’s refusal to address fundamental poverty. These stories are not exceptions. Sadly, they are now the norm for the marginalised in this land of plenty.

We have been sold a pack of lies. We have been sold the lie that there is no alternative—or, at least, that an alternative vision is not affordable—that the problem is the individual, and that we need to fix them. We can empower them to get a job—the problem is with them. And if we reduce the employment rights of workers, then maybe more employers will be more likely to employ more people. Well, welcome to the thinking behind the financial crisis. Welcome to the thinking behind growing inequality and social breakdown.

I have been listening to the Minister for Social Development. To quote her, she was saying that she had heard quite a lot of rhetoric from the Opposition about welfare but that, quite frankly, she had seen no plan. Well, I wish she had come to us and asked us for a plan earlier. We could have solved quite a few problems here, because the Green Party does have a plan. The first step for us would be to consider our values. What kind of society do we want? What do we want for our children and our most vulnerable? Our answer would be that we believe everyone deserves decent work, a living wage, and to be treated with respect. We believe everyone should have enough income to fully participate in their community and to live safe, healthy lives. We support welfare policies that are sufficient to ensure this, simple to understand and access, and universal in their application.

In fact, that is the antithesis of this piece of legislation, the Social Security Act, which, it is worth noting, has been amended 131 times. There are 54 new sections that have been added to the Act since it was first written, and it contains over 50 points of discretion, which, as the Legislation Advisory Committee noted, cuts across guidelines for legislation and Cabinet Manual advice.

If the values I have been suggesting tonight seem radical to you, I would remind you that they are at the heart of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the very possibility that these values could seem radical to you is truly a sign of how fundamentally fixed this society has become. There is a lot that we could do to support the most vulnerable in our society through streamlining our income support service, making it easier to use, reducing the costs of running it, and actually helping to create work about solving some of those social problems that are leading a significant number of people to need social support when they may not otherwise have needed it.

The Minister has said that she wants New Zealanders on a benefit to know that they have a Minister and a Government that are backing them to look beyond a lifetime on welfare. Well, I want New Zealanders to know that the only people in this country who have ever been likely to spend a lifetime on welfare are people with significant impairments. This bill is going to do nothing to help them earn a living wage and be able to get off income support.

Just before I actually get on to the core of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, in its third reading, I would like to mention to that member who spoke previously, Jan Logie, that I would not be taking her advice. I would not be taking any kind of advice from that particular party, considering it is led by two leaders, one of whom suggests members sell dope to actually supplement their income, and the other of whom suggests that we print money to help economic growth in this country. Perhaps that is the reason why that party is completely not in tune with what this bill is actually all about.

I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for Social Development and her officials, who have done a wonderful job developing this bill. I would like to thank the chair and the members of the Social Services Committee, who actually worked very hard to bring this bill all the way through to this third reading, as well as the submitters. Often we did not agree, but I thought the debate was a good thing to have.

During the course of the passage of this bill through this House there have been many times when members have stood philosophically and ideologically opposed to the arguments put forward by different sides of the debate, but I would like to say that today I was actually appalled at some of the personal attacks that were thrown at this side of the House and also at the Minister. On the day of the passing of one of my heroes, Margaret Thatcher, I would like to repeat one of her quotes: “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”, and nor do they have any solutions to welfare.

I know that Jacinda Ardern mentioned that 75 years ago it was her political forebears who created the social welfare system. I have to say that they would be turning in their graves if they found out exactly where this social welfare system has ended up. It was about giving a hand up to help people who were in difficult times. It was never about giving a handout for generations to come.

It is a great bill and we have traversed the contents of the bill over the Committee stage. I commend this bill to the House.

Talofa lava. Allow me to say to Melissa Lee, the previous speaker, that there is a saying that to one without faith, no explanation is possible—no explanation is possible. I also want to acknowledge Sam Lotu-Iiga. Tonight he quoted Margaret Thatcher. Can I also remind Peseta that Margaret Thatcher also said that if you want something said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman. [Interruption] Ha, ha! But, first of all, allow me to say to the Minister for Social Development tonight, happy birthday, Hon Paula Bennett. I think it is better that we start off by wishing you many happy returns for tonight.

However, I wondered whether the Minister would know one famous leader who actually said: “Let me tell you something that we Israelis have against Moses. He took us 40 years through the desert in order to bring us to the one spot in the Middle East where there is no oil!”—no oil. This bill, the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, reminds me of that. This bill has been introduced for the sake of being seen to be doing something. That is what this bill reminds me of. The Minister is taking New Zealand beneficiaries and ordinary New Zealanders on a fantasy job recruitment where there are no jobs—there are no jobs. This bill is now in its third reading and New Zealand First has not changed its stance. I want to acknowledge all the submitters, because we worked really hard in the Social Services Committee to try to make some changes to this bill. New Zealand First has raised a lot of concerns about this bill, and it would not surprise me that later on down the track we will be back in the House trying to provide remedial reforms to the unintended or unforeseen circumstances that this bill will create.

If I might say so, it is troubling that this Government is willing to push through a policy that will create more social harm than social good. The Minister responsible for this bill needs to front up to all New Zealand families out there who will be targeted and unfairly mistreated because of the underlying assumptions and perceptions that pertain to this bill. Is the honourable Minister prepared to take responsibility and accountability for what she has put forward if it all falls apart? Is she? Is she really? Or will she push the blame elsewhere and try to position herself under the National safety net, where its Ministers just get a slap on the wrist?

This bill as is will be detrimental to the well-being and welfare of innocent beneficiaries. Innocent beneficiaries should receive social security for the right reasons when the need arises. These are real people. These are real New Zealanders. These are real, ordinary people with real problems that the Minister has probably forgotten about since she received her last benefit payment. Drug testing beneficiaries in order to get them into paid work is something that needs to be introduced in this country, but it needs to be administered correctly.

The Government states that it is adopting an investment approach to social security. We all like the sound of that. The public’s expectation of any Government is to do this. I acknowledge that the honourable Minister’s dream is to invest our taxpayers’ hard-earned money in a policy that would revamp and revitalise our economy—and New Zealand First shares the same vision, if it means that there will be more jobs—and to ensure that beneficiaries are able to attain the skills and relevant training so that they may prosper in that well-invested economy. No one would think that this is too much to ask; I cannot see why, though. However, the Government needs to prioritise its commitments properly to ensure that New Zealanders are being treated fairly and justly. It is also equally important that taxpayers’ money is being used in the most cost-effective way possible, because that would make it an investment approach.

The cost of drug testing beneficiaries could potentially surpass $14 million a year. Well, that is according to the chief executive officer of the Early Childhood Council. Maybe this is why the Government intends to test only beneficiaries who are considered to be “at risk”. How it intends to determine who will be in this category can only lead us to assume that racial profiling will definitely be utilised in the process. Inevitably, this will create further disharmony within society and will develop certain perceptions that some people have regarding Māori and Pacific families who are receiving social security.

One of the other main concerns that we have raised in the first and second readings is about the social obligations regarding dependent children. This Government cannot be serious about taking away the rights of parents to raise their children in the way they see fit. In the very early stages, any child needs to be around their parents, and, for goodness’ sake, not all parents who receive social security are bad parents, nor do they lounge around all day taking drugs. It is impossible to expect them to all be in such circumstances.

New Zealand First’s principles clearly outline that money spent on education will be treated as an investment, not as expenditure. Educational achievement is both in the national interest and in the individual’s interest. Educational investment is critical for economic and social recovery. So surely the National Government would accept that this is a common-sense principle and one that it should support. Home education is the ultimate investment in education, as the parent retains full control of a child’s education. The social obligations of this bill will deny beneficiary families this option at both school level and preschool level.

Although many of those who have contacted us share our view wholeheartedly, they agree with the need for welfare reform. But New Zealand First completely disagrees with having any restrictions on parental freedom to act in the best interests of children, particularly their health and education needs. Parents will not be free to meet the health and education needs of their children under the provision of the social obligations and sanctions in this bill. I am a mother of three children, and I know that the first 2 to 4 years of my children’s lives were the most important time, when my children learnt specific ethics, manners, knowledge of their environment, and those innate abilities to be nurtured. They learn those values and develop their innate abilities that cannot be taught at school or in early childhood education. Often it is the mother or father who would help nurture their children’s innate abilities at this early stage. We may be having problems with education or underachievement amongst our young children, but it is also punitive to enforce such policy.

This bill is not a scenario this Government wants to espouse. Unfortunately, this is what will happen if this bill continues and is passed in this House. There are other, more effective alternatives that would fulfil this Government’s investment approach more appropriately. It is about being tough but fair. It is about reinforcing the egalitarian values that underpin our democracy with people’s basic human rights. These basic human rights lead to self-determination. The people of New Zealand deserve better than what this Government is giving them. Thank you.

I rise in support of this legislation, the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, and I too would like to congratulate the Minister for Social Development, Paula Bennett, her officials, and all those who have inputted into this legislation over a long period of time. I am disappointed, of course, to hear the calls from the Opposition asking the Minister to “front up”—the Minister who fronts up everywhere. She fronts up in the city, fronts up in the provinces, and is fronting up on television, in the House, to small meetings, to large meetings—everywhere and anywhere across the country, and has done so for a long time. In fact, we have not seen a Minister of welfare fronting up so much in so many places for so long and talking about the hard decisions, so I would like to congratulate the Minister on that and also on seeing this bill through—accepting where changes were necessary, hardening where it was necessary, softening where it was necessary, and understanding that the legislation needs to land where it meets people in a practical way.

This bill does amend the Social Security Act 1964. It introduces new benefit categories and has a very work-focused approach. Interestingly, even the Opposition is calling it the “investment approach”, as it can see too that it is an investment in these people’s futures, the beneficiaries’ futures, as much as it is in New Zealand’s future.

The aim of the bill is to make key changes—probably five of them, you could say. There is a new system of main benefits to embed a work focus throughout the whole benefit system. The jobseeker support benefit replaces the unemployment benefit, the sickness benefit, the domestic purposes benefit for solo parents whose youngest child is 14 years old or older, and a number of other benefits as well. It delivers a new approach to working with people in the benefit system who are either sick or disabled.

It introduces drug-testing requirements where a beneficiary is referred to a job or a training programme where drug testing is a prerequisite, and, of course, there are financial sanctions if they do not pass that test. It is just stunning to think that the Labour Party is telling New Zealanders up and down the country—even on television tonight—that it is OK to apply for a job and actually be full of drugs, to have your blood system and breath showing drugs, and that it is OK to do that. The Labour Party is so focused on its philosophical standpoints that it stands in front of New Zealanders and Kiwis up and down the nation and says to beneficiaries, who are receiving taxpayer-funded support, that it is OK that their bloodstreams are full of dope; that when they apply for a job, particularly where health and safety is a certain requirement, it is OK that they have taken drugs. It is just unbelievable that Labour thinks that one could pass muster in the court of public opinion. Anyway, go for your life, Labour Party. Keep pushing that barrow.

The other aspect that the bill is looking to change, of course, is using the welfare system to reinforce some important social norms regarding children’s education and health. For example, a beneficiary who has a child needs to ensure that the child is enrolled and attending early childhood education, enrolled and attending school when they are 5 or 6—if that is the correct age—and enrolled with a primary health care provider and up to date with core Well Child checks. We think that it is very, very important that those children from beneficiary households get a good start.

Last of all, the fifth aspect is stopping benefit payments to beneficiaries with a warrant of arrest that remains unresolved after 28 days. In other words, if you have got a warrant for arrest, the police are pursuing you, and you are on a benefit, then, indeed, with fair warning and your awareness of the situation—certainly you would be given that chance—your benefit could be cut.

Again, the Labour Party is convincing New Zealanders, or has been trying to convince them, over the last few months that it is OK to get involved in crime, to run from the law, to run from police, to be involved in serious crime in one way or another, and to still receive taxpayer support. Well, good luck with that one, too! I would not say you are in touch with New Zealand, but I would say that most taxpayers and those who are on benefits themselves who lead quiet lives would not think that it is fair that we should be paying benefits to people who are on drugs and not passing drug tests and who are also running away from the law. I commend this bill to the House.

Labour strongly opposes this bill, the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. By passing this bill, the Government will spread out for all to see the naked evidence of its reckless dismantling of New Zealand’s social security system. By dismantling our social security system, the majority of hard-working New Zealand families can expect to be consistently beaten down—more so now under this bill than they may have already experienced since this Government came into power.

Families all over New Zealand already feel beaten down by this Government. We were hammered right from the beginning with a tax switch that favoured the wealthy. We were slammed with increased costs by the raising of GST to 15 percent. We were booted with lost jobs and rising joblessness, the high cost of living, low wages, and unaffordable rents, while all the time this Government made empty promises and sat on its hands. It promised a brighter future, and for the majority of us that has come to nought. If there are any families left who, through some miracle, have managed to escape being beaten down already by the reckless and punitive legislative agenda of this Government, of which this bill is a significant part, then just wait and see.

This bill formalises the bashing of beneficiaries through a work-testing regime with sanctioned removal or reduction of welfare support from New Zealand families who are most in need. Every hard-working member of our families who finds themselves either unemployed, underemployed, jobless, a solo parent, sick, disabled, or widowed will inevitably be beaten down by this bill at some stage. The Government’s welfare reform bills are punitive to say the least, and are designed to encourage beneficiary bashing, calling those on welfare “bludgers” when they are the Kiwi families most in need of our collective support.

The bill will create deep divisions in our communities by adding a further burden of stress and hardship on families who are already struggling, while this Government sits on its hands and its mates continue to earn millions and live their lives of luxury and extravagance. These families, the majority being middle to low income families, are already doing it tough during these difficult and hard times. The majority of Kiwi families are struggling to make ends meet as the cost of basic food, power, and petrol skyrockets while their wages plummet and the loss of jobs continues to rise. The majority of hard-working Kiwi families do not know where to turn, because of the consistent beatings they have received at the hands of this National Government and this nasty bill.

Can we blame New Zealanders for feeling let down by this Government? Can we blame Kiwi families for wanting to leave for Australia? Can we blame any of the community organisations who submitted on this bill and overwhelmingly and strongly opposed it? These community groups are forced to pick up the pieces of this Government’s austere and brutal approach to welfare reform.

Even the new arrivals to our shores, the new migrants who initially arrive in the Land of the Long White Cloud with excitement, dreams, and aspirations of a new life, a new beginning, and new opportunities, are soon beaten down by the empty promises of this Government, the lack of opportunities, the rising joblessness, the lack of affordable housing, and the low wages. Ever since this Government came into power many Kiwis have believed that New Zealand is fast becoming the “Land of the Long Dark Cloud of Hopelessness”. We owe full credit for our current and terrible state of affairs to this John Key Government.

The bill reforms our social security system. The inclusion of the words “Work Focus” in the name of the bill provides a false sense of security. People think the inclusion of the words “Work Focus” in the name of the bill means that they will have jobs. The “Work Focus” words are deceptive, as this bill does not help to create jobs in the private sector and it does not create any jobs in the public sector. It does not raise wages or income levels for those most in need or in desperate situations. It does not provide affordable housing for those families living in garages or in crowded houses. It does not value motherhood and the role of raising children. It does not even address the issues that have been identified as barriers to work. It does not make more jobs available.

We currently have 16 percent unemployment for Pasifika. We have 90,000 young people aged 15 to 24 not in education, not in employment, and not in training. It does not assist mums and dads with childcare costs. Childcare is getting harder and harder to access, with the high cost of private care and long waiting times taking it out of reach for many solo parents. It does not ensure that workers have the necessary skills required to get a job. Anyone studying full-time will not be eligible for jobseeker support, which means that those currently on the DPB who are studying will have to have a student allowance or student loan.

What this bill will do is punish those who want to work but cannot get a job. It will punish those mothers who want to stay at home and look after their children. This bill does not recognise the importance of the role of raising children. It will punish those with disabilities if they do not go looking for work, even when unemployment for someone with a sight disability is at 60 percent. It will punish the close to 300,000 jobless New Zealanders who have been discouraged from finding work as they have been turned down time and time again.

Under this bill every New Zealander who finds they need welfare support to get by, because through no fault of their own they have lost a job, will be work tested and will face the stress of imposed sanctions. Every mother with young children who loses a family member who may have been the main breadwinner and then seeks welfare assistance will be required to be work tested, and have the threat of sanctions hang over them, under this bill. Under this bill anyone who receives welfare support from this Government will be work tested, in an environment of high joblessness.

If they do not meet work-test requirements, they then face sanctions, the loss of welfare support, in an environment of high living costs, low incomes, and unaffordable housing. Their benefit may be cancelled, with a 13-week stand-down for any beneficiary who fails to accept an offer of suitable employment. Beneficiaries with children will lose up to 50 percent of their benefit. What if the pay for that job is low? What if the job is far removed? What if their benefit is cut or they face a 13-week stand-down period? How will they put food on the table for their family for those 13 weeks? How will they pay their rent during those 13 weeks? How will they pay for their power during the coming winter over those 13 weeks? This bill will increase the underclass, which John Key said he wanted to help.

The premise upon which this bill is founded was flawed from the beginning. This Government has assumed from the start that people seeking welfare support do not want to work. The basis for this welfare reform bill was wrong from the beginning and remains wrong now. Most people do not want to be on the benefit; they want to work. We know this because when Labour was in Government, we saw thousands of people on the benefit coming off the welfare system when jobs were plentiful. Labour believes that the best kind of welfare reform is providing high-quality jobs with wages that help workers sustain their families. A good Government can deliver all of this if it is a hands-on Government. The welfare system is used by the majority of hard-working New Zealanders as a safety net. It is used briefly by most as they get themselves back on their feet and off the benefit.

This short-sighted bill will cost us more than it will save in the longer term. In the long run New Zealand will be a poorer country for it. As one submitter said, children will be the biggest losers under this bill, as this Government does not value their welfare. We can stop this madness by getting rid of this Government in 2014.

I am proud to make a speech in this third reading of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. In regards to that last speech, all I need to say is this: how about taking some responsibility? I was in a meeting at the New Zealand Educational Institute last year where that member, Su’a William Sio, pointed at me and said: “That member is part of a Government that has the responsibility for poverty, that has the responsibility for underachievement, that has all the responsibility.” But that member and that party over there did not take responsibility for its issues.

Here is some evidence for this. In the Dominion Post editorial of 29 February 2012, this is what was written: “They would have been appalled”—that is, the pioneers—“by the thought of thousands of perfectly healthy adults spending more than a decade on the dole and thousands more 16- and 17-year-olds being paid to sit around and do nothing.”

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: How many, Alfred? How many?

And here is the bit that Mr Prasad should listen to: “Critics who have branded the reforms ‘nasty’ or claimed they spell the end of the welfare state as we know it have either not studied the detail or are deliberately misrepresenting the facts.”

So here are the facts—here are the facts as we know them. The Social Security Act 1964, let me remind Mr Prasad and Mr Sio, has a principle that at section 1B that says: “work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being”. What have we changed? Absolutely nothing. We have stood on the foundation that was clearly established that work provides the best opportunities for our families, for our communities, and for our children. Read the detail. The problem is that you have not read the bill. So you keep arguing, but the truth is here are the facts. Stand on this. This is what we are doing under this Minister for Social Development. It is to make sure that the opportunities for our communities are there. This is what we are doing. This is the second stage in our welfare reforms, to ensure that the Government is future-focused.

But this is what we have heard from the other side—this is what they have said. Miss Moroney said: “Go and speak to the real people.” Well, we have been to the real people. Here is a question for the other side: when was the last time you were in a Work and Income office? When was the last time you actually sat with a family? Well, let me tell you this, I say to the member who walked out. Mr Sio, I was at the Māngere Work and Income office. As I sat there and as I talked to the people there, this is what they said. They said: “Yes, there are opportunities. What we’re hearing our clients who are coming in saying is this: ‘For the first time we’ve been given an opportunity for hope. For the first time we’ve been tested on work obligations.’ ”

Then there is the rhetoric and the scaremongering saying: “But they’re going to be hard on our mothers, our young mothers who are there.” But this is what the case managers are saying: “We know that times are tough, so we show discretion.”—they show discretion.

It is not the scaremongering that we heard from the other side. It is not the doom and gloom. Instead, while I was there they rang the bell. That is right—ring the bell, ring the bell. Why? When they ring the bell, everyone stands up and they clap, because someone has found full-time employment, and they give them a chocolate fish. So guess what? We are ringing the bell on opportunities for our young people. We are ringing the bell for those who have been in long-term dependency. We are ringing the bell for opportunity.

This is a bill that is making a difference. I commend this bill to the House. I am proud to go out into my community, to my families, and to our people and stand side by side with this bill to look for the opportunities. Ring the bell.

I understand the next call is a split call.

Yes, indeed, ring the bell. Give that member Alfred Ngaro a chocolate fish and please, please make him sit down.

A number of members in this debate have evoked the spirit of Margaret Thatcher, and I actually think that it is very, very appropriate that the debate on this beneficiary-bashing bill, the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, should be dedicated to the spirit of the late Baroness Maggie Thatcher. It was she who presided over a period of privatisation of State assets, the destruction of the welfare State, and the smashing of the unions, and in her society she delivered levels of poverty and inequality and social deprivation that had not been seen since the 1920s. That was her legacy: poverty and inequality that had not been seen in her society since the 1920s. The National Party members on that side of the House are very welcome to wrap themselves in the shroud of Maggie Thatcher, and it is entirely appropriate that this petty, nasty, divisive, punitive little bill that Paula Bennett has brought to the House should be dedicated to the spirit of Margaret Thatcher.

Sam Lotu-Iiga started off his speech by quoting Maggie Thatcher, who said that without economic liberty, there would be no liberty. I sort of agree with that, actually, because if you do not have freedom from hunger and you do not have freedom from poverty and exploitation, how can you possibly enjoy any other human freedoms? But this bill is not about economic liberty; this is a bill that is based on social obligations that imply that a parent relying on the temporary assistance of the State is a poor parent. It is a bill that imposes obligations of drug testing, going against the expert submissions that came to the Social Services Committee that said that those provisions would do more harm than good. This is a bill that has work obligations based on the assumption that people who are on benefits do not want to work. This is not a bill that extends economic liberty to the citizens of this country; this is a nasty, punitive, petty little bill.

I wonder whether Paula Bennett, when she is in her political retirement, will look back on this bill with a feeling of shame and disappointment. Is this what she came to this Parliament to achieve? Is this what she came to achieve—not to develop the potential of our people, not to unleash the creativity of a whole generation of young people in this country, not to empower people, not to step up and wrap support services round people, but to actually punish, to put down, and to denigrate? This is a nasty, political, divisive law, and you know it, Minister.

Let me give the House some evidence. Let me give you some evidence—I will give you some evidence of why this bill is a nasty, petty piece of politics. Nick Smith resigned last year over the ACC debacle. Within 6 days of that story breaking, the first part of this package was announced. Oh, it may be a coincidence—maybe that was just some random convergence of events. All right, then the Kim Dotcom - John Banks story broke, and the heat was really going on the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was up to his eyeballs in the Kim Dotcom story, and then what happened? Paula Bennett announced the whole policy around contraception for long-term beneficiaries. Then in June we saw a rash of resignations from the ACC board and a series of revelations about Bronwyn Pullar, and Bill English made the first of three different announcements about drug testing. That was raised again on 21 July, a month later, and re-announced for the third time on 28 August—all at the very times that this Government was feeling the heat over its own political scandals. And then the police report on the John Banks - Dotcom scandal was released. Coincidentally, Paula Bennett then announced the whole package around social obligations.

This is the “Minister of Cheap, Nasty, Political Diversions”. That is what is going on—cynical, manipulative, divisive politics brought to you by National, which would rather demonise and stigmatise people who rely on the temporary assistance of the State than do anything about jobs and develop this economy.

I rise to speak to the third reading of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Today is a sad day for me. It is a sad day, because I know firsthand what it is like to experience economic hardship and to have to turn to the State for support. It is a sad day because this bill undermines the core principles of social security, which are essential to a fair and just society. It is a sad day because I know that this bill will cause stress, harm, and suffering to some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

Social security is the way that we collectively, as a country, agree to ensure that all of us have access to a safety net during hard times, whether that is because of economic recession, a lack of accessible jobs, illness, or disability, or because we are caring for dependent family members. I strongly believe that social security must be based on respect for individual dignity and circumstances, provide economic security, protect children, and empower people to have some control over their lives. This bill does not do that. It instead imposes a patronising and punitive model, where benefits are to be handed out to those deemed worthy and sanctions imposed on people who are deemed to be not complying with social obligations that the rest of us do not have to comply with.

This model has been tried overseas, in the UK, where it has caused significant harm and suffering, plunging people into a downward spiral and forcing them to steal food just to survive. It is a model that has failed there and it will fail here.

We need to remind ourselves that there are people who may never be able to access economic independence, for many reasons, and that many people will need ongoing Government support, not just to survive but to have some quality of life so that they can contribute and participate in society. I fear that this bill will be a disaster for many, but most of all for those who have poor health or dependent family members, or who are mentally unwell. My biggest concern is for children, for forcing families into serious hardship will inevitably cause children harm, with lifelong consequences.

I would like to affirm the right of every parent to be able to determine which combination and level of whānau and family support, parent-led centres, playgroups, or early childhood education works best to meet their child’s needs. The right to decide what is best for your child should not be taken away from you just because you are on a benefit. If it was really in every child’s best interests to attend early childhood education for 15 hours a week from the age of 3, then the Government would make it mandatory for all children, not just for those whose parents are receiving a benefit. The reason the Government does not do that is that it knows that, actually, many children thrive in a secure home-based environment for their early years and that depriving families of the right to choose this option for their child will cause harm.

Above all, I would like to affirm the Green Party’s support for a strong social security system that ensures that vulnerable people can access their economic rights and social well-being and make a positive contribution to society. This bill will not achieve that. Therefore, the Green Party opposes it.

I am very pleased to take the last call on this very, very important bill, the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. I want to commend the Minister for Social Development. I want to commend the chairman of the Social Services Committee. In fact, I want to acknowledge all members of the select committee. Although we have exchanged some robust discussion in here, I think the select committee has worked very, very well on what has been a very challenging piece of legislation, because this is a challenging area for New Zealand society.

What sickens me is that those chardonnay socialists over there stand there wringing their hands about what we are doing, and yet they, during the boom times of this country, sat by and watched thousands upon thousands of people on the unemployment benefit migrating on to the sickness benefit and invalid’s benefit without so much as a by-your-leave. They had their chance to do something about that, and they did not.

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: Oh, come on.

That member Rajen Prasad said that this bill is a very good example of what the difference is between the National Party and the Labour Party, and it certainly is. It certainly is, because the difference is that this party has done something about it. So you can sit there and wring your hands and sip away at your chardonnay, but this party has done something about it.

This Government has done something about it, and are people out there marching in the streets? Are they marching in the streets? Is talkback radio going crazy about this terrible destruction of welfare in New Zealand? No, they are not—no, they are not. If this is so controversial, why are they not? Well, they are not because New Zealanders know that this Minister and this Government have got it right—that finally we have addressed what is so important and what has been missing in welfare for so long, and that is the work focus.

The Children’s Commissioner summed this up beautifully. The Children’s Commissioner said that work is the best route out of poverty. Work is not a negative or punitive thing, and it should not be positioned as such. The work focus, the intention of this bill, and the support that we are putting around individuals are crucial, because we say that if a person can work, they should work, and that is not a bad thing. If they can work, they should work. Certainly, if they are in a position where they are not in work, we should support them to have the requisite skills to be work-ready and work-focused.

If a drug habit is the reason that they are not ready for work, then we should tackle that. The first message that we should be saying to them is that if it is good enough for other New Zealanders out there in the workforce, who are helping support you in your time of need—not you, Mr Assistant Speaker, obviously—who are helping support those people, then it is good enough for those individuals to be drug-free as well, in the interests of having a safe and productive workplace. That is a very important thing. It is called a social obligation.

I will come back to the Children’s Commissioner. What did he say in the select committee about that? What did he say about social obligations? He said that it is a normal part of life—it is a normal part of life. Social obligations are a normal part of life. Every New Zealander faces that in the workplace. They face that right across society, and in clubs and voluntary organisations social obligations are a normal thing. The reality is that rights and choice must be balanced against responsibilities and obligations. That is also a normal part of life.

This is an extraordinary bill. This is an extraordinary bill, because what it does is address the underlying issues that have dogged our welfare State for so long. This Government has shown, and this Minister has shown, the determination to do it. New Zealanders wholeheartedly support it, and the more that that party rails against it, the more those members had better get used to wearing out the leather on that side of the House, because that is where they are going to stay, and long may that continue.

We back New Zealanders into work. We back them to have the skills. We want them to have the opportunities that we should all have, and this bill does that. I commend it to the House.