JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) : Not everything in this bill is bad. In fact, there are a few good provisions, and on the select committee we made our views known about which provisions those are, but the one in particular that we could not like at all, and could not vote for, is in clause 4, where the definition “activity in the community” is put into section 3(1) of the principal Act. Clause 14(1) repeals the definition of “activity in the community” from section 88A of the principal Act. Clause 14(1)(b) omits “an activity in the community or” from the definition of “recognised community activity”. The effect of that is that further on in Part 2, which we will come to later, the term “recognised community activity” will mean voluntary work, and will not include activity in the community.

This is actually all about making sure that activity in the community will no longer be available as an employment intervention for people on the unemployment benefit. I think that that is a real shame. We in the National Party think that that is something we should not, in fact, support. The reasoning given by Government members is that they expect such people will return to work immediately or within a short time. Unfortunately, that is not always true for everybody. Some people have been on the unemployment benefit for many, many years, and those are not the people who will be rushing off back to work. We think it is a shame because it is a really good opportunity to give people the chance to get work experience, to build up their confidence, and to actually see what they can do. We think that is a real shame. It is being driven by an ideological view whose proponents would see the introduction of a work-for-the-dole scheme.

The reality is that at the moment we have low unemployment, but we know that economic times are very cyclical and that at various stages there could be higher or lower unemployment. One of the best times to get people into work is when there is actually work for them to do and when there are jobs out in the commercial sector, in shops, and in factories—the few factories that are left here. The jobs are mostly in the retail sector—mostly in clothes shops, to be frank—but there are jobs there.

Anne Tolley: Shoe shops.

JUDITH COLLINS: That probably says something about Anne Tolley’s downtime. There are jobs there, but the thing is that it is not sensible to expect people who have been out of work for a long time to just cruise in and get a 40-hour-a-week job in an area in which they have no experience, nor is it sensible to expect an employer to just take them on. So we think that for some people, the “activity in the community”, or its variation, is a very good way of easing people into work, but also of building their self-esteem and giving them the work experience that so many people lack.

One of the toughest jobs to get, I have always believed, is the first job. The first job for a teenager is the toughest job that person will ever get. The first job in any career that someone has trained for is the toughest job that person gets. That is because the people taking on someone say that he or she has no experience. They ask about that person’s track record and what he or she can do. They do not know how that person will operate if told he or she cannot do something he or she wants to do. They do not know whether that person will turn up on time, and there is nobody to verify it, because if someone has been to school, we do not always know whether that person has worked as hard as he or she could. If someone has been off to university, well, we all know university hours are distinctly different from those of a full-time job.

I think it is great to have that opportunity open so that when there are people who need it, we actually have it open to them. It is a bit unfortunate that the Government has gone and changed this provision part-way through the bill, because we would have been much more supportive of it if it had been left in. It is a major plank of our policy in welfare that we will have a programme of work experience for people who need it, and we think it would be counter to our own policy to support this part. That is, unfortunately, the bit that really, really annoys us.

The other issue is, of course, that of planning for getting into work when there is no follow-up. We heard a submission from the Rotorua Peoples Advocacy Centre, which made it very plain that the plans that are currently required for domestic purpose benefit beneficiaries once the youngest child is a little older are not always acted on, to the extent that staff at the Rotorua Peoples Advocacy Centre—which, by the way, has prepared a research document for the Families Commission, which, presumably, was paid for by the Families Commission—said that in most cases these plans are not even given to the beneficiaries to take away. When asked, they said that it was because no one does anything with them. They get done every year and no one takes them away. We think that is a bit of a sop. It is a lot of extra hassle for nothing. If one is to have a plan about getting people into work, it should be followed through, be taken seriously, and there should be a genuine expectation that something will happen from it.

Of course, a lot of women, particularly those on the domestic purposes benefit, have found that the in-work payment has meant that it is financially viable for them to get into work, but at the end at the day, the in-work payment—which is what costs us about $400 million a year, as I recall from the last time I looked at the accounts—added to the domestic purposes benefit, as it really should be, means that the numbers are just going up.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : I am delighted to have the opportunity to take a call so early in this discussion. I look forward to it being a useful and prolonged discussion, because I think it is very important for the community that some of the fantasy and myth that we have heard from individuals, including from the previous speaker, is well and truly put to rest.

I thank Ms Collins for the clear articulation she made of National Party policy. It is not often that we hear National Party policy. The previous speaker is National’s spokesperson on welfare—and is there not a message in that in itself? The Government does not have a Minister in charge of welfare. The Government has a Minister for Social Development and Employment. The National Party is concerned about welfare, and that language speaks volumes about its attitude to New Zealanders and the sort of support that New Zealanders are entitled to and deserve. But I am very grateful to the member who spoke previously, and who continues to warble so inelegantly when it comes to articulating what very little policy the National Party has.

What Ms Collins just told the Committee, and the people of New Zealand, is that people who are work-ready—ready for work and able to work—should be paid less than the minimum wage. That is exactly the implication of what the National Party spokesperson on welfare has just put into the Hansard. I say to the Committee and to New Zealanders listening that that is not the attitude of this Government. This Government believes that New Zealanders need to be supported to whatever degree we are able to support them as a community.

Much as I disagree with many of the policies that Ms Collins and her friends advocate for this community, I will be pleased to support their eligibility should they ever be unfortunate enough to need a sickness benefit, an unemployment benefit, or an invalids benefit. When Labour remains in Government those supports will be available for them, irrespective of their politics. But to stand up in this Chamber and say it is acceptable, as Ms Collins just did, for people who are work-ready, work-keen, and able to work to be paid less than the minimum wage for doing a real job illustrates the true poverty of that party in Opposition and why it will stay there.

Thanks to the buoyant economy we have presided over for nearly 8 years now, we are able to see the fruits of these advantages for New Zealanders. This Government is focused on helping New Zealanders where they need support—and many do not—and on helping them into real work for real wages. That is the difference, and that is why the sorts of initiatives that have been up until now followed and supported by Work and Income on a voluntary basis have been so extraordinarily successful. Obviously, Ms Collins and her colleagues do not agree with that—but perhaps I should leave her colleagues out of this, because we have seen rather a number of decisions made unilaterally by National Party members lately, without having any discussion with their caucus.

I am sure that most members of the National caucus do not agree with the extraordinary suggestion we have just heard from Ms Collins. But if they do and it is really their policy, they have to support her, and we will see that as tonight, tomorrow, and the rest of the week goes on. But otherwise they need to say to Ms Collins that they do not want to be part of a party, the National Party, that encourages work-able and work-ready, able-bodied New Zealanders to work for less than the minimum wage, because that is the policy it has announced tonight.

Perhaps the National Party has not caught up with the extraordinary change that has happened in the community since it was relegated by New Zealanders to the Opposition benches. For those who do not know about that change—and obviously many members of the National Party themselves do not—let me just give members some detail. In December 1999 the total beneficiary roll—and for the benefit of Ms Collins and her colleagues who have difficulty with large numbers, I point out that that means all benefits, including sickness and invalids beneficiaries—comprised 401,415 New Zealanders. That number is now almost half that at 261,000, and it has actually become less than that in the last month. There has been a 35 percent reduction overall in the number of all benefit recipients since 1999, when National was last on the Treasury benches. That is not a bad change.

The benefit that really affects most people is the unemployment benefit, and to contextualise the importance of this change, let us not forget that in April this year the full effect of the Working for Families package started to strike home, and $1.6 billion per year—actually, not per year, because it is indexed, unlike anything the National Party ever did, so it will be more next year, more in 2009, and so on—will go into the pockets of low and middle income New Zealanders with children. In addition to that, the simultaneous change that relates to the initiatives directly advocated and mandated in this bill is quite extraordinary.

The number of New Zealanders on the unemployment benefit was 161,128 when National was last on the Treasury benches. The number on the unemployment benefit in March, which was the last time that the figures were publicly announced, was around 28,000. I am pleased to announce to the Committee for the first time tonight that the April figure shows a further reduction of nearly 2,000. The current unemployment figure in this country is 26,678. That is a move from 161,000 to 26,678. That reduction comes as a direct result of the initiatives being mandated by the legislation that is in the Chamber tonight, and that is the legislation that those members are not supporting, despite the fact that they voted for it unanimously at the Social Services Committee.

Am I surprised that their spokesperson on “welfare”—their word, not mine—has left the Chamber? I know she does not want to hear these numbers.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, no. The member cannot say that. Would the member please withdraw that remark.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I withdraw. Am I surprised that members of the National Party find it so hard to swallow the fact that this extraordinary shift has happened under their eyes? As we heard over the last couple of days, they are not even prepared to acknowledge that the numbers are a reality. We can forget the issues about the myth they have developed about Government agencies manipulating numbers illegally. We can forget that myth. That myth is now well and truly dead. What I am saying is that as a result of the initiatives introduced by the hard-working, visionary, diligent, professional people on the front line at Work and Income, huge numbers—over 132,000 New Zealanders, who were on the scrap heap when National members were sitting on the wrong side of the House—are now in productive work, earning heaps more money for their families, having a much better lifestyle, and, most important, making a really valued contribution to our New Zealand community.

One of the other subsets of the information is also extremely pleasing, and that is the movement in the number on the domestic purposes benefit. That figure has also consistently trended down since National was consigned to its correct place in Opposition, and that trend will obviously prevail for a long time. Those numbers have decelerated further since the introduction of the in-work payment, which, as we know, was a key part of the Working for Families package.

Later on during this debate, I will share with the National Party some extraordinary figures about the reductions in youth unemployment. For me, and I am sure for most parents and young people in this country, the most important break we can make to the cycle that National supported—and, indeed, accelerated because of its attitude to using working people as pawns for economic growth or business growth, to the advantage of its mates—and the most important change we have seen in this community, is the huge reduction in youth unemployment. I am confident that as a result of the changes that this bill mandates, which are currently operating so successfully because they operate on a voluntary basis at Work and Income—with our front-line case workers who are doing such fantastic work—those numbers will continue to decline even more strongly.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : As I foreshadowed in the second reading debate last week, I am putting forward several amendments in relation to Part 1 and Part 2 of the Social Security Amendment Bill. The relevant Supplementary Order Paper is available to members at the Table. However, one of these amendments, in relation to a new clause 10A regarding absence of beneficiaries overseas, has just this week been superseded by a Supplementary Order Paper from the honourable Minister David Benson-Pope. I therefore formally state that I wish to withdraw the amendment, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 113 that relates to new clause 10A.

The new clause I proposed was intended to amend section 77 of the Social Security Act, under which the Ministry of Social Development is given the discretion to pay an invalids benefit to a person who is overseas for a period or periods not exceeding 2 years, for the purpose of receiving vocational training or guide dog training, provided that the beneficiary is receiving the benefit on account of blindness.

A submitter on the bill made a compelling presentation to the select committee in our new official language, New Zealand Sign Language, concerning the anomaly that similar overseas training for invalids beneficiaries who receive the benefit on account of being deaf is limited to a period of just 28 days. My amendment intended to rectify what I saw as a historical anomaly in the Act by extending the discretion to permit an absence of up to 2 years to people who are profoundly deaf, as well as to those who are blind. Since then, Mr Benson-Pope has put forward a much better amendment expanding the scope of the new clause so that any invalids beneficiary who meets certain criteria can spend up to 2 years out of the country in order to receive vocational training or disability assistance dog training, if he or she is unable to get the same thing within New Zealand. I think this is great, and I acknowledge the Government for making progress on this matter.

My second amendment in relation to Part 1 of the bill deals with clause 15 and related clauses. It is a much more complex matter and one of significant constitutional importance. Clause 15 proposes to insert two new sections—132H and 132I—in the principal Act. These will provide for rules to be made by Order in Council prescribing the determination of income and deprivation of income or property. Clause 4(2) and clause 9 are consequential upon this.

These proposed amendments give rise to significant constitutional concern. One of the fundamental constitutional principles is that subordinate legislation, such as regulations or rules, should not override a statutory definition. This would result in the subordinate legislation—in this case, rules—effectively amending the statutory definition itself.

“Income” is a concept that is fundamental to the purpose of the Social Security Act 1964. Indeed, much of the Act is concerned with providing assistance to people who have no income or who have insufficient income. The level of most entitlements under the Act is dependent on that definition of income. The Green Party believes that the ability to amend the definition of income in the Act should therefore be reserved for Parliament rather than exist at the whim of the executive. Permitting the definition to be amended by Order in Council is a travesty of democratic process that has the potential to cause outright unfairness. It will, for example, permit the definition to be amended in response to a judicial decision regarding the interpretation that is viewed unfavourably by the executive, without any reference to this Parliament. Beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries should be entitled to a degree of certainty regarding what constitutes income and deprivation of income or property. At a given point in time this can have a major impact on beneficiaries’ entitlements and therefore their lives and those of their families—many months or even years after the receipt of the income or the deprivation of income or property actually occurred.

I am not opposed to clarifying issues around income and deprivation of income; in fact, I support it. The definition of income in the Act is written from the perspective of paid employment and does not adequately address the circumstances of the many New Zealanders who are self-employed. The definition needs amendment. However, if this House is to uphold constitutional propiety, it is imperative that that amendment should be made in a proper manner by way of an amending bill, not through the back-door method of rules made by Order in Council that provide no certainty for current or future beneficiaries. I am therefore proposing to remove the ability for the definition of income, and provisions relating to deprivation of income or property, to be effectively amended by Order in Council, and ask other parties here to consider supporting this amendment.

ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) : I rise to speak on Part 1 of the Social Security Amendment Bill, and start by saying that the Minister David Benson-Pope talks big. He stood up in this Chamber at the start of the Committee stage of the debate and made a great political speech about what wonderful things he has done as Minister—big-noting with figures about how wonderful it all is. But the reality is that this Minister has done nothing. He has done nothing, and his Government has done nothing.

The Government has been the fortunate recipient of good economic times. I agree that the unemployment figures are great. Every New Zealander celebrates the fall in unemployment. But if the Labour Government thinks that the fall in unemployment is anything to do with what it has done, then it is deluding itself, and if this Minister thinks that the fall in unemployment has anything to with what he has done, then he is deluding himself—as he was deluding himself when he announced this bill as being the biggest reform to welfare in 50 years.

Again, it is big talk, but when it comes down to it, when one looks at the details of the bill, one sees that it is a pathetic reform. The bill is not anything that people would ever hold their breath waiting for. It is nothing.

I want to talk about sickness and invalids benefits. The Minister might throw all the figures together and show a decrease in unemployment, but in this House we all know that invalids and sickness beneficiaries are on the increase—

Darren Hughes: Marginally.

ANNE TOLLEY: Marginally! They have been on the increase for some time. This Government talks all the time about doing something, but in actual fact it does nothing more than talk. This bill is nothing more than talk.

Lynne Pillay: We’re getting older, Anne.

ANNE TOLLEY: We are all getting older waiting for this Minister to do something about the increasing numbers of sickness and invalids beneficiaries. I challenge the Minister about this so-called myth that beneficiaries are coming off the unemployment benefit and going on to the sickness benefit. I know that happens; I have seen people in my electorate office whom it has happened to. I had a man come in not long ago in a terrible state—

Hon David Benson-Pope: Give us his name.

ANNE TOLLEY: I am happy to.

Darren Hughes: Oh yeah! That won’t happen.

ANNE TOLLEY: Yes, it will, because this man has a good story. He was in a terrible state when he came to see me. Some time ago he had been asked by his local Work and Income people to go off the unemployment benefit and on to an emergency unemployment benefit, in order to make their figures look good. They were due to report, and wanted to make the figures look good. The man agreed to do that.

Then, after he had been on that emergency benefit for 10 months and we queried why he was still on it, the man was offered the sickness or invalids benefit. He said: “I don’t want to go on to that; I want to go back to work. I am happy to work. I am not sick. I am happy to work.” But from Work and Income’s perspective, in order to make its figures look good, it would be better if the man did a little period of time on the sickness or invalids benefit. So Work and Income sent this man to the doctor. He said to the doctor: “I don’t want to be on that benefit. I am perfectly capable of working. That is what I want to do.”

I am still trying to get this man on the unemployment benefit. He cannot get into the local office—

Darren Hughes: One case.

ANNE TOLLEY: No, I am relaying one case but I have had several cases coming through my office in the last month of people who were asked to go on to the sickness benefit and were sent to the doctor. It is not a myth, and I am happy to provide the Minister with the details of exactly how this is happening. Regardless of all that, the figures themselves show that it is happening. We have heard this Minister himself say that one in five potential sickness or invalids beneficiaries who have been signed up by a doctor are actually fit for work.

When this bill came to the House we looked at it to see how the Minister would tackle this issue. We thought that at last he was going to do something about it. We thought we would see provisions stating that these one in five people would have to go through some form of examination to determine whether they were capable of work.

What do we see in the bill? These people have to prepare a plan. They do not even have to take away a copy of that plan with them. They do not have to do anything other than sit in front of an official and fill out a form that is headed “A Plan”, and then they will be eligible for the benefit. That will not address the issue of the rising number of sick New Zealanders.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) : Is it not absolutely incredible to sit in this Chamber and see the Tories—knowing what the debate will be about; knowing they will have to meet a sturdy challenge when we are bringing the benefit system into the year 2007; and knowing they have all the time in world, with Government-supplied computers, to compute ones and twos—rise on their hind legs, stand in the Chamber, and make assertions? When challenged to provide the evidence they say: “Yes, I can provide the evidence.” When asked what the number is, they say: “Oh, it’s about one or two.” We get prevarication, evasion, hedging, and rhetoric, and we go from hearing allegations that cannot be proven to grandiose statements that have no substance, at all.

Is it not ironic that the Tory party in this Chamber is saying there should not be some provision to help people who want to work, and who can work, back into work? Is it not absolutely ironic that the Tory party wants to encourage people to stay on benefits?

Of course, the last speaker, Anne Tolley, who represents East Coast, is faced with percentages that are totally embarrassing to her own argument. There has been a 45 percent decrease in the number of unemployment beneficiaries in the East Coast in the 12 months to April 2007—a 45 percent decrease. Now that is a figure she could have looked up very easily on her computer, or found in any other resource. She could have come to the Chamber with that figure and said: “We the Tory party, which likes to encourage work, independence, self-motivation, greed, and great sums of money, think we should celebrate the decrease in the number of people on the unemployment benefit. We think we should be talking about a 45 percent reduction as being something we can boast about.” But, no, National members cower in embarrassment, because the policies of this Government to provide full employment are working so astoundingly well that they can meet that argument only with assertion, prevarication, and evasion.

The simple truth is that if one can find an unemployed youth in Hawke’s Bay, one is very lucky, because in Napier there are just two of them. And they will not be in that position for very long, because it is important that our youth get to work. The bill we are discussing today does just that. It changes the mindset demonstrated to us by the last speaker, who whinged about someone who seems to have fallen through the cracks. That member has the expectation that people will forever be beneficiaries of the State rather than take advantage of the work opportunities available to them.

The Social Security Amendment Bill is a bill for the year 2007. This bill will take us through this century, starting with the high times of high employment. We will encourage people who have not previously had a mindset to work, to get out and work. But the bill is not sanction-based, as such; the whole work idea starts with a plan. It is a plan that is discussed with the person applying for a benefit. As soon as people walk into Work and Income for a benefit, the director-general will immediately be able to say that suitable work is available for them right now that they can do. So without delay, without prevarication, and without finding excuses to avoid work, a person who comes in for help from the State can be directed to a position of gainful and profitable employment. And who can be unhappy with that? Who indeed?

This sort of philosophy was envisaged way back in 1972 by a royal commission in a breathtakingly large report—the Royal Commission on Social Security in New Zealand, which examined in some detail the purposes of New Zealand’s statutory scheme for social security. It concluded at paragraph 3.42(f): “Social security cash benefits are only one aspect of the total problem in maintaining incomes and raising living standards.” The commission went on to refer to a number of factors, such as taxation, wages, employment, health, housing, and cultural policies.

This Government is right on the ball, as laid down by the royal commission. This is a Government that is attacking the need for employment. It is attacking health, housing, and cultural policies that have been inhibitions to full employment. So I find it exceedingly ironic—in fact, if it were not so tragic it would be funny—that the Tory party is standing up and having to defend the idea of keeping people on a benefit in this year, 2007.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) : I rise to speak to the Social Security Amendment Bill. It was a revelation to me to hear my colleague say that the Minister said that this legislation is the biggest reform to welfare in 50 years. Also, we have just heard Mr Fairbrother say that this will take us through this century. What an extraordinary clanger! And what an underwhelming bill it is, because it promises only bureaucracy and complexity.

Although the bill contains some positive things—and I think we have recognised this—there are very few. The bill contains very few substantial differences that will help people into work. That is absolutely obvious when we look at clause 15, which relates to executive control over rules determining income and income deprivation. IHC New Zealand says that this is something it absolutely opposes. Here we have the Labour Government, in its usual form, bringing in little exceptions to the basic principles, and saying: “Oh no, the chief executive can make exemptions and we can decide when we feel it is right.”

Clause 15 raises serious constitutional issues around giving the executive branch of Government the power to override statutory provisions—and that is what the Minister is happy to do. It goes on to say that income is central to determining benefit entitlement and that therefore control of the definition must stay with Parliament, and the suggestion itself of regulations that specify rules for determining income highlights an intention to override the provisions contained in the principal Act. It goes on to say that an existing principle underpinning social welfare is that assistance goes only to those who need it and that efficiency of administration and putting the least pressure on the public purse are concepts already implicit in how income support is delivered.

So here we have the Labour Government again coming into direct conflict with one of its largest providers. I would be interested to hear the Minister explain to the Committee why it is so important that the chief executive officer of the Ministry of Social Development has those powers that are laid out in Part 1.

We also know, as my colleague Judith Collins said, that clause 4 inserts a definition of “activity in the community” and that now it has been taken away. I think it would be very useful to get the Minister to tell us why it has been taken away. Why did the Government put it there in the first place? What was it dreaming about? It looks as though what it was dreaming about in the first place was that it did not like the idea of people working for the dole.

I might say to the Minister that when I went down to Raglan one afternoon a few years ago I met a group of young Māori guys at one of the streams that goes into the Whāīngaroa harbour. They were planting out native trees along the banks of this particular stream. I asked them what they were up to and they said, with a quiver of pride in their voices, that this was the first job they had ever had. They said they had enjoyed watching those trees grow, watching the clarity of the stream, and watching the whitebait come up—and receiving money for doing so. This was the first time they had got up regularly in the morning and had actually done something constructive and positive. It was, indeed, a work-for-the-dole scheme. They had had no work at all prior to that, and they said it was one of the best things that had ever happened to them.

This Labour-led Government always wants to bring in some artificial mechanism to get someone who cannot get a meaningful job to do something pretty silly, and that is exactly what it has done. We have had this Minister go on and on about how unemployment has gone down. Of course, it has come down despite him, not because of him—and we have seen a 50 percent increase in invalids and sickness benefits in New Zealand over the last 7 years.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) : I want to take a brief call on Part 1 of the Social Security Amendment Bill, because I really am extremely puzzled. Normally at the Committee stage of a bill I would be calling on the Government to address concerns I have about some aspect of the bill, but in this case I am calling on National to explain why it is not supporting it. I have to say that when I first read this bill, when it first turned up in my office, I was quite surprised that it was coming from a centre-left Government. I was not at all surprised during the submission process to see groups who normally would be considered Labour supporters coming in and throwing some real questions and doubts over whether this was a centre-left bill from a centre-left Government.

I personally welcome some of the provisions. I think it is extremely positive that we are starting to see a work focus underpin the way we approach beneficiaries; it is a good thing. I am pleased that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach, that we recognise that some people are on benefits because they genuinely are unable to work, and are unlikely to be able to work in the future, and therefore their income needs to be secured and also their ability to participate in the wider community needs to be assisted.

Those discretions are easily catered for. But I really do feel that National members, in terms of supporting their voting base, need to come up with some better reasons than I have heard so far as to why they cannot support this bill. They admit there are provisions in the bill that they like. They use glib terms like “there is quite a bit that we don’t like”, and it is very hard to get specifics from them. I really do think that they owe their voters some clear reasons why they cannot vote for this bill. I believe that the bill is in many ways a closer reflection of the ideological position that National is known to represent than that of the Government that is putting it up. In that case I think National members do need to come up with some seriously good reasons why they would oppose a bill that shifts the focus so that when beneficiaries have lost a good job, or have given up a good job, or are out of work—and are not entitled to a sickness or invalids benefit or are not on the domestic purposes benefit—they are immediately required to do some pre-benefit activities before they can even get an unemployment benefit.

There is a new edge that this bill introduces into the way Work and Income will handle people on the unemployment benefit, taking advantage of our current record-low figures, which I think is a good thing. This means we can now focus really clearly on those who are currently unemployed and who represent long-term unemployed people who genuinely have skill sets that are missing. Now there will be increasing pressure put on them to start to take advantage of all that is on offer so that they can gain the skills they need and become work-ready.

United Future is very pleased with most of the provisions in the bill. There are one or two things that if we were writing the bill we would have written differently. I agree with National in that we were disappointed that involvement in community activities is removed from the sanctions provision. As I mentioned last night in my second reading speech, I fully intended to put up a Supplementary Order Paper to try to correct that. However, I have had numerous discussions with officials, because I kept hitting some very big walls in my efforts, and I discovered that what I was likely to do was to put sanctions on beneficiaries for whom I did not think they were appropriate—for instance people on the invalids benefit. I also hit a snag when I realised that if one is going to use community agencies to provide activities for which there can be sanctions then imposed, one does actually require some real buy-in from the community agencies themselves. They need to feel comfortable about whom they are having working for them and what the implications are should these people not follow through on their commitments.

As I said last night, I believe there is a real opportunity for community agencies to be better utilised, and I think some ongoing work needs to be done, but I am very happy at this stage for us to continue to support the bill even with these reservations. I call on National to think really, really seriously about how it will look to its voters if it continues not to support this bill.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) : It is a pleasure to speak to the Committee stage of this bill—the Social Security Amendment Bill. I commend Judy Turner for a really honest and good speech, and I would love to see that same degree of—certainly not goodness; that would be going too far—honesty from the Opposition. I looked before at the report, and I want to take this opportunity to commend Russell Fairbrother for fantastic chairing of the Social Services Committee; we worked very constructively together. I was quite impressed with the National members on the committee; I thought at last they were trying to work quite constructively.

When I look at the bill I see there are a lot of recommendations—we recommend this and that, and we recommend that the bill provides for retrospective substitution for a more appropriate benefit. The select committee made all sorts of recommendations. The minority report contributed to by the National members was very small and they did not really grizzle in it very much at all, not half as much as the Nats are inclined to do. Then, surprise, surprise, they are not supporting it. It really is confusing, and they are confusing. Of course, with all the flip-flops that that party is inclined to do, it is very hard to keep up with what its members should be doing. It would not surprise me if they got back to their leader today and he said: “Look you’ve got it wrong. We’re supposed to be supporting this bill.” Anyway, at the moment they are opposing it and I think that is very, very sad.

This bill builds on what this Government is about. It is about assisting people to get back into work. What do we need for that? We need a recipe—a whole package. The first things we need are a buoyant economy, a supportive climate, and support for our business and our industry. We need the opportunities that we have provided in skills and training through the Gateway programme when kids are at school, through apprenticeships, through industry training, through tertiary reform, and through interest-free loans for our students in universities and polytechs. They are just the first things that are under way.

For people to re-enter or to remain in the workforce we need good-quality, affordable, early childhood education, and, my goodness, the initiatives in our early childhood field that we hear a number of people from the Opposition speaking about are assisting people into the workforce and assisting our statistics. We need great schools and we need good after-school care so that when parents are in the workforce they can be comfortable knowing that their children are being cared for. And, of course, we need Working for Families.

Working for Families has assisted good people into work. I can see Paula Bennett over there, who often talks about her experience as a single mother. I acknowledge the single mothers whom I spoke to a few years ago who told me they wanted to be back in work, but it was really difficult. It was difficult with the cost of childcare, with transport, and really it was just too hard to get back in. It was not that there was not a will to do it; it was just that there was not much of a way. Now the in-work payment and family credits through the Working for Families package have enabled mothers to get back into the workforce if they want to, with early childhood support. It has made the return to their career a reality and that is a really, really good thing.

I also want to talk about some people from within my electorate whom I have talked to. I want to talk about Teresa, who went to Work and Income to seek job assistance before applying for a benefit in March 2007. She attended a Work and Income job search service—a planning and assessment module—and was referred to the Straight 2 Work school of business hospitality course. As a result of attendance at that course she is now working in a restaurant in the city.

Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We have waited for almost the entire speech from this member for some relation to this bill. We have had Working for Families. Now we have a story about someone coming into her office and applying for some benefit. That really has nothing to do with the bill. Could I ask that you direct the member back to the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I listened to what the member said and she was certainly talking about the domestic purposes benefit. I have looked it up. I remind the member that we are on clauses 4 to 21.

LYNNE PILLAY: If we look at the bill, it talks about the initiatives that have ensured we get people in work.

KATRINA SHANKS (National) : I rise to speak to the Committee stage of the Social Security Amendment Bill. National supported this bill at its first reading in order to get it to the Social Services Committee. We did this because we believe in work first, and we thought that this bill supported work first. The current system emphasises getting a client settled into the benefit system first and then considering whether he or she should work. This mentality of benefit first and work second only undermines those who want to work first and use the benefit as a last resort. Not only is the current system flawed in the “benefit first” mentality; it also creates a perception that only Work and Income can provide work. In effect we support the idea that work should be the first focus and that the individual is also responsible for obtaining that work.

The welfare system in New Zealand was designed originally to be a safety net. No one disagrees that this safety net is important for those who are down on their luck and vulnerable. The system gives these people a helping hand. Our welfare system was never intended to be a lifestyle choice for those who can work. Welfare before work was never its intention. Now we have people who are able to work who are on both the unemployment benefit and the sickness benefit. The mentality of many is that they do not have to work, regardless of their ability to contribute to the workforce.

Some of the proposed changes were hotly debated in the select committee. There was concern in relation to the phrase “activity in the community”—an example is in clause 29. A new subsection (3A)(b) in section 60Q was inserted to provide that a beneficiary “cannot be required … to undertake activity in the community (whether or not it is included in his or her personal development and employment plan).” He or she cannot be sanctioned for not demonstrating commitment to the plan if the work is not done.

During the select committee process the beneficiary advocates implied that having activity in the community is allowing the introduction of work for the dole. In effect this subsection was included so that the new amendment could not be called “work for the dole”. However, the implications of the subsection are great. Let me give an example. A client lives in a rural town and wishes to pursue a career in childcare. The only childcare provider in that town is run by the local church. Therefore, the client puts in his or her personal development and employment plan that he or she will undertake work experience at the church creche. It is a community organisation, so the client does not need to turn up for work and there are no consequences for him or her for not fulfilling his or her personal development and employment plan. The client has breached the agreement made with Work and Income, but Work and Income can do nothing to correct the situation or make the client actually fulfil the agreed terms of the personal development and employment plan.

This, in my view, is poor lawmaking. We are producing legislation that one could drive a truck through. Work experience is invaluable in assisting people into employment. Whether that work experience is received in the community is irrelevant; it is still work experience and it is all valuable in getting a first job. We need inspirational change to free people from the welfare trap. This bill just does not cut it.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : Well, that was a really interesting contribution. What my colleagues and I have been waiting for is for any member of the Committee to explain why the National members on the Social Services Committee supported this legislation while they were in the select committee, but voted against it when it got to this Committee of the whole House. Can I just explain for those members who talked about their so-called concern for youth a little while ago—their crocodile concern—that when National was last in Government, the number of 18 and 19-year-olds on the unemployment benefit was 17,500. That number is now 1,424. The National Party in Government presided over 17,500 18 and 19-year-olds not in work, on the unemployment benefit, and National members fail to acknowledge that, now that number is an extraordinary 1,424.

• Progress reported.

• Report adopted.