Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: I move, That the Social Security Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill is an important part of the Working New Zealand initiatives. The object of these initiatives is to provide the right services and support for people to retain, find, or move towards employment. The work focus within the social support system is a positive objective. It does not undermine the purpose of the Social Security Act in relation to providing social and financial support to people for whom work is not appropriate or who, for some reason, are not able to work for a period of time.

This Government recognises that work is the cornerstone of people’s independence and social and economic well-being. Over the coming months the services offered by Work and Income will be enhanced so that intensive work-focused support will be provided to every New Zealander who is receiving a benefit and able to work.

So how does this bill support working New Zealanders? It does so by introducing a number of amendments that support the development of the enhanced services that I have just mentioned. I would like to outline the most important of those amendments. The bill extends planning requirements to all non-work-tested benefits, but I would like to emphasise that that does not include all people. Individual circumstances will still be an important consideration. People who are clearly unable to plan will not be required to do so. This Government is aware that many people on sickness and invalids benefits have indicated that they wish to work, or to develop skills that will enable them to work at a later date. The development of services designed to enable this is an integral part of the reforms.

The changes to the requirements for people receiving sickness or invalids benefits that this bill introduces will support the greater focus on working more actively with people with ill health and disabilities. They will be provided with the right services and support to participate in the labour market, to the extent that their circumstances allow. People for whom the unemployment benefit is the most suitable benefit will be required to undertake an activity or activities in the period between their first contacting Work and Income for assistance and the benefit commencing. People will also be required to look for and accept any offer of suitable work during that time.

Hone Harawira: Labour’s Work for the Dole.

Hon MAHARA OKEROA: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. This proposal will strengthen Work and Income’s work-focused service for people on the unemployment benefit, as it will now mean that Work and Income will be able to direct a person to a work-related activity immediately, and not have to wait until after the benefit has commenced. The ability to work with a person and direct him or her to a specific activity right from the time of the first contact results in the person finding work quickly, and can remove the need for that person to go on to the benefit.

The Labour-led Government believes that it is quite reasonable to expect people who are available and able to work, and who have no caring responsibilities or health or disability issues, to look for suitable employment in the time between requesting financial assistance from Work and Income and commencing being on the benefit. Additional activity requirements for people receiving the unemployment benefit will also be introduced. The changes proposed are designed to provide Work and Income with the flexibility to tailor the service to best meet the needs of the individual. In the current environment, many jobs are no longer based on a Monday to Friday working week. To reflect changes in workforce participation, some aspects of the work test may, where appropriate, be applied over a 7-day week.

The bill also introduces a new activity requirement, which replaces the current work test, for young people on the independent youth benefit. This is a positive move, because we know that it is preferable for young people to be engaged in education and training. Separation from the opportunities that education and training offer has a negative impact on young people’s future ability to obtain or hold sustainable employment.

Hone Harawira: Youth Work for the Dole.

Hon MAHARA OKEROA: I tell Hone Harawira that working more actively with young people and requiring them to engage in activities will further their current or future opportunities to work.

The Social Services Committee in its consideration of the bill recommended a number of changes. These changes have improved the clarity and intent of the policy underpinning the legislation. On behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment, I thank the committee for the work that it did. There are two areas where the committee has recommended changes, which I would like to address. They are the new application process for benefits and the fact that non-participation in an “activity in the community” does not attract a sanction. The application process that the bill proposed was a cause for concern in some of the submissions, and the committee has recommended a number of changes to clarify the policy intent. The application process for a benefit has not previously been set out in legislation, and that has resulted in a lack of clarity and transparency in an area that is quite complex.

We have relied on case law to assist with the interpretation of the policy. It was thought desirable, therefore, to have the process spelt out quite specifically. The requirements that an application should be in writing, and that both it and the evidence to support it should be completed in 20 working days, in my view are quite reasonable requirements. They make it very clear that an application consists of a robust transfer of information that meets certain requirements and can be verified. However, the way that the provision was initially drafted did not make it clear that important case law principles were being upheld by the change. The recommendations that have been made by the select committee make it very clear that the policy that has underpinned the application process for many years has not substantially changed. If a person applies for financial assistance, then that application is taken as an application for any form of assistance under the Act. The benefit will be paid from the date the person first contacts Work and Income with either an oral or written request for assistance.

The committee has also recommended the insertion of a provision to allow the chief executive to extend the time frame for providing the supporting evidence, if the application is good and there is sufficient reason for doing so, to within 20 days. This is a very positive move, and allows for those unforeseen circumstances when, for reasons beyond a person’s control, he or she cannot complete an application in time.

It has not always been possible, when a person applies for assistance, for that person to be able to produce the necessary verification to be able to establish entitlement, particularly when the benefit in question is an invalids benefit. When this is the case, a person may be granted a sickness benefit until such time as the establishment of the invalids benefit is verified. At the moment there is no legislative support for this operational practice. I am delighted that the committee has addressed the situation by recommending that the bill be amended to provide for the retrospective substitution of a more appropriate benefit, where further time has been required to establish entitlement, as part of the investigation of a person’s application.

The Social Services Committee has made a range of very significant changes, on which the chairman of that committee will further elaborate. I commend this bill to the House, and also reiterate my thanks to the select committee for the work it has done. Kia ora tātou.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) : The National Party voted for this bill at its first reading, to get it to the Social Services Committee. We did it on the basis that although we thought it was a very imperfect bill, as presented to us, it was at least a very small step in the way of encouraging people to understand that the able-bodied cannot continue to stay on benefits when they can get work. We also thought it was a very small step in asking sickness and invalids beneficiaries—and particularly sickness beneficiaries—who can work, to do something about getting some work. But what we found was very, very weak. We said it at the time, and we have said it in the select committee.

Effectively, sickness beneficiaries—and I say this bearing in mind that almost 25 percent of sickness beneficiaries, by their own admission through the Minister, can work and want to work—are now going to be simply required to make a plan to work. There is no requirement at all for anything in particular to happen with that plan. The plan may not necessarily be given to anybody to take away, or anything like that.

We heard from the Rotorua Peoples Advocacy Centre that it has just completed a study for the Families Commission. It found that not only did these plans—which are put in place for people on the domestic purposes benefit, rather than having a work test—not necessarily work, but also apparently they are not necessarily even given to the beneficiaries. When the Rotorua Peoples Advocacy Centre asked the Ministry of Social Development why it was that those people were not given plans to take away, because after all if they had a plan it was quite good to have it in front of them—because they do not get another plan for another year—it was told that nobody does anything with them.

I think that means we are being asked to pass a bill under which people are going to be asked to plan but not necessarily do anything with it, or even necessarily take it away. National thinks that that is a silly thing to do. Either people are to have a proper plan, they are to have some measures on it, they are going to have some progress track, and they are going to be helped to get into employment, or they are not. But we are not going to be supportive of a plan that is nothing more than just a joke.

So we are also saying here that we are very, very disappointed at the last-minute change in the select committee that the Government forced in, which removed “activity in the community” from the sanction provisions. This is, in fact, one of the few reasons why I thought we could have voted for the bill before—because we thought that provision was going to be in it. After all, that is what was stated in the bill, at its first reading. What we have now seen, and what is presented to us, is a bill where, frankly, everything that we believe in is just being pushed aside, and our support has been taken for granted. At not one moment has the Government approached us to seek our support for these changes. [Interruption] As the member over there keeps calling out, let me tell him that the National Party will not support this bill in its current form. The Government had better start thinking about what it is going to do.

One of the other interesting things that I found out in the last couple of days is that the Government has not necessarily advised New Zealand First that it will be removing the “activity in the community” programme from the sanctions provisions. I think that is something New Zealand First needs to know about. The Government has not even bothered to tell New Zealand First, on whose vote it depends. United Future knew about it, because its members were on the select committee—[Interruption] Oh no, the member just did not know, when I spoke to her yesterday. Never mind, someone in New Zealand First was told.

So we have the situation where the Government is going to have some difficulties with this bill. I know that an amendment has been put up by another party, and we will have amendments to put in the Committee stage. The reason for that is that either we are going to have a bill that means something, or we are not. We are not interested in being seen to support this pathetic little excuse for a bill, which is all about saying we are going to have a plan to have a plan, when at the same time Steve Maharey from this Government said just a couple of years ago: “We’re going to give $128 million to get people off the sickness and invalids benefits.” What has happened in that time, in the 3 years since then, is that those numbers have gone up by yet another 7,000 people. What that has meant is that this Government has wasted $127 million.

I found it very interesting, when looking at those figures, to see that not only did they go up after Steve Maharey announced the Government was going to give $128 million of taxpayer dollars to get people off the sickness and invalids benefits, but they actually went up more than they had the year before. So not only did they go up, but the rate of increase actually got significantly worse.

When I looked at this Government bill, having sat on the Social Services Committee as the deputy chair, having heard all of the submissions, and having read it again and thought about it again, I decided that the National Party will not support it. It is simply a sop. It is being used as a sop, on the one hand, to try to say: “Oh look, it’s all right; it’s nothing much more than a plan.”, to those who think that beneficiaries should not have to work even if they can; and, on the other hand, people like us—who feel that if one can work then one should work; that if one needs to look after oneself one needs to be able to do what one can—are supposed to be put off by this plan. But we found out from this official paper for the Families Commission that it was actually just a sop, and that people are not necessarily even given their plans.

So I suggest to the Labour Government that next time it wants to try to pull a swiftie, it should think a bit longer on it. We are not prepared to support this bill. Some of the ideas of the bill are quite good, but the Government has not followed through. It lost its bottle, it gave in on the “activity in the community” and sanctions provisions, and it put up this plan to have a plan. It is simply not good enough. If we supported this bill, it would, in fact, be a travesty, and we are not going to do so.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) : Before attacking some of that submission from the previous speaker, Judith Collins, which was incredibly unrelated to the Social Security Amendment Bill—and it would have helped if she had had notes, because she would have at least remembered the name of the bill—I want to pick up on a point made by the Associate Minister Mahara Okeroa, who was the speaker before last.

He spoke about the impossibility of determining which is the appropriate benefit at the time of application, and how this new bill codifies and enables benefits to be readjusted retrospectively. That is one of the significant areas of change. I want to deal with the second significant area of change. It was recommended by the Social Services Committee; it was supported at that committee by the previous speaker, because the committee voted unanimously for this amendment. The second—

Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When we voted on that matter, it was on the basis of the bill being sent back to the House, as that member knows.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That was not a point of order. Thank you.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: As I was saying, that change was supported by the previous speaker in the select committee; she voted in favour of the matter, as the record shows there was a unanimous vote. I am not sure, but perhaps the member was doing her hair at the time; certainly, there was a unanimous vote by all the members paying attention in the committee. That second significant area of change, that was recommended by the select committee relates to “activity in the community”. The previous speaker, of course, revealed her total ignorance of the change in the bill, because she could not even pronounce the phrase “activity in the community”. It is a pity she could not do so, because it is defined for her in clause 4.

What is the change in respect of “activity in the community”? Let me make it very clear that “activity in the community” is a unique programme. It is a discrete programme. It is a label rather than a generic description. The programme is provided under contract to the Ministry of Social Development. “Activity in the community” is not, as some people think, and as demonstrated by the last speaker—if only she would think, we would be far better off, but, assuming she does think, she demonstrates the misunderstanding—participation in any community-based activity or voluntary work. It is not participation in any activity or voluntary work. Although the “activity in the community” option will no longer be available for people on the unemployment benefit, it will become available for people on other benefits. Work experience and training programmes will still be available to people on the unemployment benefit.

The changes voted for by Ms Collins and the National Party, and brought forward by this Government, make clear that people cannot be required to participate in “activity in the community”. If it is included in a person’s plan, that person cannot be sanctioned for not participating in that particular activity. Of course, the logic to that is quite clear, because “activity in the community” is not related to work; it is for those beneficiaries who are unable to work.

The question has been asked—and I have just tried to answer it—as to why the “activity in the community” option would not be available for people on the independent youth benefit. Well, as I have just explained, there is a very good reason for this, as well. It is not appropriate to tie young people for up to 26 weeks into such a programme when they could be better off engaged in education and training opportunities or actively seeking work. I ask members to tell me what is wrong with that. What is wrong with having our young people actively seeking work? What is more, there is work for them for the first time in many, many years.

The bill is not just about planning and activities, although that is a major part of the bill. As well as planning and activities, this bill introduces a number of other changes that are designed to make access to assistance easier, and to modernise some of the provisions so that they reflect the reality of today’s society—of New Zealand in 2007, of New Zealand with a near full employment rate. I will give some examples of what the bill proposes to do. I have time to give only some examples; I could spend the rest of the evening outlining the broad ones, but I will concentrate on just a few.

The bill reduces the maximum stand-down time from 10 weeks down to 2 weeks. Who could complain about that? Judith Collins did. It rationalises the period of residency to 2 years for all benefits. Who could complain about that? Judith Collins did. It removes the qualifying child criterion for the domestic purposes benefit and widows benefit. Who could complain about that? Judith Collins did. It extends the definition of hospital care to include residential care of other kinds. Who could complain about that? Judith Collins did. It introduces a correction power so that a benefit can commence earlier than the date of application, if the application was not made because of an error on the part of the ministry. Who could complain about that? Judith Collins can. It inserts new purpose and principle provisions in the Act, and these purpose and principle provisions are fundamental in a day when we have near full employment and such a stable economy that people are investing in manufacturing and productive industries, and people are being encouraged to boost the manufacturing sector.

I have just outlined some of the benefits this bill introduces. The Working New Zealand programme reiterates as a key principle the long-held Labour view that people who, for whatever reason, are unable to work will be supported, whilst assistance will be provided to those people who are able to work. This is the central thesis of the bill, which was unanimously supported in the select committee according to the vote. I must say that the Green Party, having supported it, then expressed a reservation—and it is the only party on record as doing so.

I repeat this fundamental thesis, which is the key to Work and Income and social security benefits in the year 2007: those who are able to work will get assistance to work; those who are able to work will be helped into employment by planning and other forms of assistance; the ability to work will be determined not by the benefit received but by the situation of the individual; and those who are unable to work because of either illness or disability will not be required to go on to the work focus programmes. They will look at other options that are voluntary, such as “activity in the community”, which will add to their wellness and to their sense of person and sense of belonging in the community. But because that is without sanction, it is there merely to aid their contribution as worthwhile human beings. So the key thesis of this bill—and the reason why it was supported, I suspect, by the National Party in the select committee—is that the bill, for the first time in New Zealand, determines that people will receive support to get into the workplace according to not the benefit they receive but their individual, personal circumstances.

This is a major bill. It is a bill that has been very well drafted. Many, many submissions were heard. The committee was aided by very good advisers, who deleted from the draft bill some of the clauses that needed further consideration. But those clauses that are clear have come forward in the bill that is now before the House for this reading.

The philosophy of New Zealanders is that those who can work should work. There is absolutely no reason why anybody in this country in 2007 who is capable of working should be excluded from the workforce or be left out, and this bill makes sure that nobody is left out. If people need assistance to become work capable even though they are able to work, they will get that assistance, but, again, the dividing line is not benefit-related. Those few individuals whose personal circumstances are such, through tragedy, disability, and illness, that they cannot reasonably undertake work will be under no pressure to do so. But community-based activities, such as “activity in the community”, will be available to them so that they have a sense of belonging, because there is an old saying that before we receive, we must first give. Every New Zealander appreciates the importance of that saying. So those who cannot, because of their circumstances, work—whether it be through ill health, a disability, or the like—can still contribute in a meaningful way through this bill, but it is without sanction. It is without sanction. If the effort to contribute does not work out as those people had hoped, then that disappointment does not attract official sanction.

That is the exciting aspect of this bill. It is not a bill that isolates one based on the benefit one receives; it is a bill that defines help by one’s ability to contribute. I commend this bill to the House.

KATRINA SHANKS (National) : I rise to speak to the Social Security Amendment Bill. The claim that this bill is the biggest reform to the welfare system in 50 years is ridiculous. I would assume that going to work and receiving the benefits that one receives from working, such as high self-esteem, confidence, and a feeling of belonging, outweighs the benefits of sitting at home. A “work first” focus is imperative if we want to allow all the people in New Zealand to have a high standard of living and a high quality of life. The main aim of this bill is to move towards a work-focused system, instead of the benefit-first system that exists currently. Unfortunately, the aims of the bill—which I will outline—are just not inspirational enough to free people from the welfare trap.

The first aim is the new pre-benefit activity requirement on applicants for the unemployment benefit and the change in the requirements put on people who are work tested. At present the work-test requirements do not apply to a person applying for the unemployment benefit until after the benefit commences. The introduction of a pre-benefit requirement to undertake a work-related activity, if directed to do so by the chief executive, will apparently strengthen the job search service. It will mean that Work and Income will be able to direct a person to a work-related activity immediately.

The ability to work with people and to direct them to a specific activity right from the first contact with them could result in them finding work quickly—maybe—and would remove the need for them to go on to a benefit. However, because this pre-benefit requirement will happen only when requested, it means that applicants will not actually have to seek work first. They will still go to Work and Income first to find employment and will still have the mentality that they are not personally responsible for finding appropriate work for themselves.

The second aim is that there will be the introduction of planning and activity requirements for sickness benefits and invalids benefits. People who are work tested will continue to make themselves available for, will actively seek, and will take up offers of suitable employment, and they may be required to develop a job seeker agreement and to undertake activities in the plan by agreement. In addition to this, they may in the future be required to undertake planning for employment; undertake, if required, a specific activity or programme included in the job seeker agreement; and undertake, if required, activities including rehabilitation—but not medical treatment—to improve their work readiness and prospects of obtaining employment.

The new activity requirements address limitations in the current provisions. Work and Income may be able to require people to undertake a specific job seeker development activity in their job seeker agreement that could address a barrier to employment—for example, poor literacy skills or poor numeracy skills. This is great, but the question must be asked: how did these people fail in the education system originally to the extent that their literacy and numeracy skills were so bad that they could not meet even the basic work requirements to begin with? Is it really the role of Work and Income to re-educate the people who are failing in our education system so badly?

The new requirement will also allow people to be assisted to find work in cases where a person does not have an agreement in place, introducing a planning and activity requirement for sickness and invalids beneficiaries. Those beneficiaries who are not work tested will still go through the process of planning and activity requirements, even though there is no expectation for them to enter the workforce.

The Minister, the Hon David Benson-Pope, has admitted that 1 in 5 potential sickness or invalids beneficiaries who have been signed up by a doctor are actually fit for work. Is it not a contradiction that beneficiaries who are fit for work fall into the sickness and invalids category? As Barbara Stewart mentioned during the first reading debate on this bill, one must wonder whether the number of sickness beneficiaries increased and the number of unemployed dropped in part as a result of decreased personal expectations, the stress that is caused from not being employed, and the lack of social interaction. Therefore being unemployed is actually making them sick.

The third aim of this legislation is the introduction of an activity requirement, education training or employment for young people receiving an independent youth benefit, instead of the work test. Recipients will be required to participate in agreed and approved activities for 30 to 40 hours per week, be available for, and be seeking, full-time employment, or be unable to do the two mentioned as a result of sickness, injury, disability, or pregnancy. Recipients may be required to participate in at least one developmental training or educational activity for a minimum of 3 hours per week.

Young people who fail to met their requirements will have the work test sanctions applied, unless the activity in the work programme is a community group – based activity, in which case these sanctions cannot be imposed. A community group activity cannot be enforced in their programme. This is a major flaw in the aim, as community activities have not been made mandatory.

Let me give members an example. In a small rural town a beneficiary may wish to pursue social work as a career path, and the only provider in that town is a church. The applicant, in his or her job-seeking agreement, writes this down as the aspiration and the career he or she chooses. This is the only activity on the agreement as this is the only provider. That person does not actually have to perform this activity, as it is provided by a community group. Therefore there are no implications at all for not fulfilling the activities on the plans. So why would people go and do that work if they actually do not have to and it cannot be enforced?

The level of benefits and provisions is complicated and complex. Once again, the single core benefit has been delayed. It is now almost 20 years since the idea was first mooted. Why cannot the Government come clean and just admit that it is not going to happen, instead of wasting time and more taxpayers’ money on searching for and developing a redundant model that still just does not work?

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) : I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the second reading of the Social Security Amendment Bill. In New Zealand First we believe that the employment of New Zealanders is a priority. The failure to ensure that the potential workforce is employable not only limits the labour market capacity but also imposes a huge cost on all New Zealanders while indirectly contributing to the level of crime and substance abuse, and adding generally to the demands on our health system, which we know is already stretched. It is also important that people get and retain a sense of worth and self-esteem through making a role for themselves in society—and they can do this. We believe that people should move from dependence on the State to a state of independence if they can possibly work, but we are very aware that some people in the community just cannot do so.

The welfare system that we operate here in New Zealand is actually a safety net that gives people a helping hand when they need it most. But it should never ever be a lifestyle choice for those people who can work. Some people work in the community or in a pre-employment programme, which is always better than sitting at home and being isolated from the rest of society.

We would like to signal that we had some areas of concern about removing from the sanctions provisions the requirement for beneficiaries to undertake activity in the community. So we followed that up, and we were told by the Minister that this applied to sickness and invalids beneficiaries, and that unemployment beneficiaries would be involved in training for work or some other pre-employment activities. We were, in the main, satisfied by that—it is really hard to argue against. We do not want to see people turn down a job because they feel obliged to turn up to a training programme of up to 26 weeks. Also, we do not want to see the training programmes jeopardised for the people who remain, due to a total lack of participants.

New Zealand First is firmly committed to the concept of mutual obligations. When a person is unable to get paid employment, the State will pay that person on the understanding that he or she make some contribution back to the community. This can be interpreted as a training or pre-employment programme. We believe that this requirement assists many people, many of whom have completed quite a number of courses, to find employment. Work experience is a very valuable training ground for employment. I understand from the Minister that the change in the requirements for “work” in the community is aimed principally at sickness and invalids beneficiaries.

A number of activities are already aimed at the unemployed—mainly training programmes and work experience. The mere discipline of having to attend a programme or to work on a daily basis, and to reorganise one’s life to accommodate that, and the need to focus on one task for 6 to 8 hours, to work as part of a team, to follow rules, and to have a supervisor who is not in one’s home are all part of work preparation and are valuable skills for everyone to learn, or for some people to relearn. When one looks at the number of employers who are already teaching young people these skills—and I can list a few: the local councils, supermarkets, fast-food outlets, gas stations, and factories—one can see that the list just goes on and on. One must applaud the effort that all of those employers put into these young people. It cannot be easy; we all know that. It raises the question of why a person, if he or she is on a sickness or an invalids benefit, is totally exempt from having to learn these skills to plan for employment at some time in the future.

We have all said in this House, and we have heard many times from both sides of the House—particularly from National—that the largest number of people on benefits are those on the invalids benefit or the sickness benefit. The bottom line is that one actually needs skills to be employed in the workforce. To clarify this area, I say that I was pleased to see what the United Future member had proposed in her minority report attached to the bill: placing clear and concise guidelines around activities in the community for unemployed and sickness beneficiaries, so that sanctions cannot be imposed for unreasonable expectations.

We do not want to see beneficiaries having unfair advantage taken of them. But we do want to see that the right services and support are in place for people so that their opportunities for work are increased. People need to be assisted so that they can develop work skills, and some will need to be supported and assisted towards finding and keeping a job. We all know that working adults are the basis of any successful society, and we do not want the numbers of people on either the sickness or the invalids benefits to increase any further. All of the research shows us that families thrive when they are not dependent on a benefit. We need people to be in work, and we need people to want to work.

The difference in people when they are working is absolutely amazing. Last Christmas my son was fortunate enough to be employed as a trolley assistant at a local supermarket. Initially, it was for just the school holidays. He had to learn some work skills: making sure he was there on time, getting into the uniform, and actually working and focusing on a task for 8 hours. Of course, as with any student, he found it totally challenging. He is 16 and it has been really great to see the change in that particular lad. He is now keen to go to work on a Sunday. He could not actually give up the job at the end of the school holidays, because he enjoys being part of a team and being respected and acknowledged as part of that team. Of course, he had to make lifestyle changes so that he could give his best. There are lots of young people like that who want only to have a chance and to make the best of it.

The bottom line is that work matters. That is what should be happening. The emphasis in this bill is on getting the right services and support in place for people so that their opportunities for work are increased. We would blame any Government if that were not one of its policies.

We like many aspects of the bill, which were listed by Russell Fairbrother earlier. We were very pleased too to see the changes in the services offered to the 16 and 17-year-olds on the independent youth benefit. Those changes need to be carried through. It is far more preferable for young people to be engaged in education and training, so that they can hold down sustainable employment, than for them to be receiving a benefit at this particular point in their life.

We know that young people today face a far more challenging environment than any of us did in the past. So any initiatives to ensure that young people can be engaged in activities that will further their opportunities to hold down a job are absolutely welcomed. We know that young people cannot be inactive for long periods of time. We are all aware of the negative outcomes that eventuate from this: mental ill health, substance abuse, and criminal activity—all of those things that we do not want our young people to be involved in. Success in employment, education, and training is by far the most important way out of poverty for young people. We are particularly pleased to see the services that have been offered to those on the sickness and invalids benefits. We believe that those services are important for everyone in the community.

New Zealand First supports this bill. We believe that the changes it makes are positive for young people. We want all people to work, so New Zealand First definitely supports this bill.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : As I stated in the first reading debate on the Social Security Amendment Bill, the Green Party will not be supporting the passing of this legislation despite some of its useful elements. Unfortunately, the potentially negative impacts of this bill outweigh the good things the Government is seeking to do. However, to be fair to the Government, I will briefly outline the changes the Green Party does see as beneficial and welcome. They include the reduction of the maximum stand-down period to 2 weeks, the development of consistent residential qualifications across the benefit system, allowing people who care for children who are not their own to qualify for the domestic purposes benefit, aligning the ending of benefits for sole parents who cease caring for dependent children, and extending the exemption from a stand-down to all benefit types for people who enter refuges after a relationship breakdown.

I also acknowledge several major changes the Government made to the bill during the select committee process, as a result of the many submissions that criticised or downright opposed the bill. The first of those was around the application process for benefits. Many submitters, as well as the Green Party, interpreted the bill as originally drafted as overturning the Scoble and Taylor decisions and requiring all benefit applications to be in writing and to be for a specific benefit. There appeared to be no provision to backdate entitlements except with the specific approval of the Minister, and then only when the ministry acknowledged it had made a mistake. We were concerned that under the bill as originally drafted, the onus would be on benefit applicants to work out which benefit they should be on and what they may be entitled to, rather than on the department doing that. During the Social Services Committee’s consideration of the bill, the committee agreed to amend the bill in order to make it clear that the Scoble principle will still apply and that an application for a particular benefit will be taken as an application for any benefit once the department has worked out the appropriate entitlement. The bill has also been amended to provide for retrospective substitution of the correct benefit.

The second major change that came about through the select committee process was in the area of “activity in the community”. Under the bill as originally drafted, a number of submitters felt that beneficiaries, including invalids and sickness beneficiaries, would potentially be required to undertake so-called activity in the community as a requirement of their job seeker agreements or personal development and employment plans. If they did not do the unpaid work required, they would then be potentially subject to sanctions—in effect, a form of forced work for the dole. The bill has now been changed to clarify that the definition of approved activity in job seeker agreements does not include “activity in the community” and that this element is excluded from pre-benefit activities. A new subsection has also been added to make it clear that a non- work-tested beneficiary cannot be required against his or her will to include “activity in the community” in his or her personal development and employment plan, and that if it is included, the person cannot be sanctioned if he or she fails to carry it out. I am relieved that the Government has seen fit to make it plain that it does not, after all, support the back-door introduction of a form of work for the dole, and I welcome this change of heart on its part.

However, as the Green Party has pointed out in its minority report contained in the select committee commentary on the bill, we continue to oppose this bill, above all because of the major shift it represents towards a “work first” approach underpinning our whole social security system. As many submitters pointed out, there is a total absence within the purposes and principles statement in the bill of any role for the welfare system that is not focused on paid work. Work is seen as the ultimate goal, no matter what the conditions or pay, and no recognition is given to the value of the unpaid work that many beneficiaries undertake—caring for children, the elderly, or people with impairments—or to the valuable voluntary contribution many beneficiaries make in their communities. The purposes and principles clauses reinforce the unfortunate attitude that people in the benefit system are somehow less worthy of dignity and respect than anyone else, that they are not fully realised and recognised members of our community, and that they will become so only if they join the paid workforce. The fact that many beneficiaries also happen to be people with long-term illness, injury, or impairment only intensifies the opprobrium with which some able-bodied and employed members of the community view people who are not only in the benefit system but also living with illness or major impairments.

During the Committee stage of this bill I will be moving an amendment that contains new purpose and principle clauses. My Supplementary Order Paper will propose to get rid of the existing drafting, and to substitute wording based on a mix of the Treaty of Waitangi, the long title of the Social Security Act 1938, the recommendations of the 1972 Royal Commission on Social Security in New Zealand and the 1988 Royal Commission on Social Policy, and the principles set out in section 6 of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 that the welfare and interests of children and young people should be paramount. I also propose that the provision of full and correct entitlements to people applying for benefits should be included in the principles section, and that although looking for sustainable and suitable work should be a priority activity for unemployed people, the focus for other people, like those on sickness and invalids benefits and the domestic purposes benefit, should be worked out in consultation with them, taking into account their individual circumstances.

The second amendment I would like to see made to the bill is in the area of pre-benefit activities. At the moment, the bill provides that the Ministry of Social Development can either orally or in writing require a beneficiary to undertake a pre-benefit activity, and that if that beneficiary fails to do so, he or she will fail to receive any benefit. The problem with that is the potential for misunderstandings regarding the precise nature of the activity that is required, and, consequently, for people to lose out on the money they need in order to survive at even the most basic level. I am therefore proposing that requirements must be given in writing, and that any decisions must be subject to review and appeal rights. I have also been concerned that the pre-benefit activity clauses in the bill will, in some cases, result in unnecessary administrative delays before someone actually receives the benefit he or she is entitled to. My amendment is designed to ensure that claims for the unemployment benefit are investigated as quickly as possible and not held up as part of the bureaucracy of the pre-benefit activity process.

The third amendment I am putting forward deals with an anomaly in how blind people and deaf people are treated in terms of their ability to travel overseas for the purpose of receiving vocational training or guide dog training. The Ministry of Social Development has the discretion to pay an invalids benefit to a blind person for up to 2 years for those purposes, but similar training for those who are deaf is limited to a period of 28 days. I am suggesting that Parliament rectify that anomaly by extending the provisions of the Act so that people who are profoundly deaf are allowed to be away for up to 2 years as well. I can ascertain no reason why that historical incongruity should continue, and I hope members from across the House may find themselves able to support the amendment.

The fourth amendment I will be putting forward is in the area of the definition of income. It is aimed at ensuring that if the definitions of income and deprivation of income are at any stage amended, such changes should be undertaken through Parliament by an amending bill rather than by an Order in Council. We will, of course, have time to debate those amendments and other details of the bill in more depth during its Committee stage next week.

I would like to finish by saying once again what I have said many times before: that it is a great pity we are once again tinkering with the administrative detail of the benefits system, rather than producing a whole new Social Security Act designed for the 21st century and geared towards making our insanely complex system much simpler, both to understand and to administer.

• Debate interrupted.