Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services Committee to consider the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. The changes in this bill form part of a comprehensive package of welfare reforms staged over 2 years. These reforms will fundamentally shift the focus of the benefit system towards encouraging and supporting more people into paid work. The status quo is not an option any longer.

I do not for one moment underestimate what I am asking people to do, but I am backing them to be able to do it. Every time that the Opposition cries that this is beneficiary bashing, I simply just see people who are ignorant of the effects of the welfare trap. It is not enough to feel sorry for people trapped on welfare and do nothing. The left’s answer is to transfer people between benefits and throw more money at them. I am far more ambitious for them than that. I will back, cajole, encourage—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Would members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I will back, cajole, encourage, and incentivise people to get work-ready, to take up the jobs as they become available, and to get ahead in life. There is a compelling case for investing up front. We already spend around $8 billion a year on welfare, but we are seeing intergenerational welfare dependence. By investing in people sooner, we can actually start to break that cycle.

Through this bill, the investment approach will target resources to those who are likely to end up welfare dependent without some extra support. Actuaries have done a detailed valuation of the total future liability of the benefit system and have it at around $78 billion. That is based on the expected length of time individuals will stay on benefit, given that we know that some will stay on for 10 weeks, some for 10 months, and some for 10 years. That gives us a clear basis for targeting more money, more support, more resource to the right people at the right time. Too many New Zealanders have been stuck in a system that provides little incentive to get out, for too long. This bill will change that.

This is the next step in a concerted programme of reforms. At the end of July this year the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Act 2012 passed into law. The new youth service kicked off in August, and community providers are already working closely with our young people to connect them back into education, training, or work-based learning. From 15 October this year, sole parents will be expected to look for part-time work when their youngest is 5 and full-time work when their youngest is 14 years old. Most New Zealanders, I think, see that as reasonable. Similar expectations will apply to those on the women alone benefit and the widows benefit. Those without dependent children will be expected to be available for full-time work.

This new bill represents the largest structural change of the Social Security Act in decades. Central to reforms in this bill is the introduction of three new benefits: jobseeker support, sole parent support, and the supported living payment. These replace seven categories of main benefit. The emergency benefit is not being changed. This bill will modernise and simplify the benefit system. It removes outdated, offensive terms like the invalids benefit, and reinforces the fact that most beneficiaries can work and want to work.

Jobseeker support brings together people on the unemployment, sickness, women alone, and widows benefits, and sole parents with children aged 14 years or older, and those who do not have children. Those on jobseeker support will be expected to be available for and looking for full-time work. There will be some who are able to work only part-time, and some who will be exempt from work for a period of time.

Bringing sickness beneficiaries into jobseeker support marks a fundamental shift in attitude to support beneficiaries to get back to work as soon as possible. It will also increase the number of people on this benefit to 135,000. Just as the health benefits of work are well documented, we know that the health costs of unemployment are high. Professor Sir Mansel Aylward, recently in New Zealand, said: “After six months’ unemployment, each additional day out of work is as detrimental to your health as smoking 200 cigarettes.” We know that work can play a vital role in recovery, and the worst thing we could do is actually leave people with illness on benefits long term with no support. This bill will not do that.

As with the current unemployment benefit, the new jobseeker support will require people to reapply for the benefit after 12 months. Through the Future Focus changes we made in 2010, this change has seen thousands cancel their benefits. Many had already found work and no longer needed it. This bill also includes the flexibility to apply this to other benefit types in the future.

Sole parent support replaces the DPB for sole parents, and the widows benefit, if the beneficiary’s youngest child is under the age of 14. Those with children over 5 will be expected to be available for part-time work, and to be preparing for work before then. This benefit is expected to have around 87,000 people on it, because those previously on the DPB with children over 14 will have moved to jobseeker support.

The supported living payment merges the invalids benefit and the DPB for those caring for the sick or infirm. Benefit eligibility for these groups will not change. We recognise that some people will never be able to work to support themselves, or, as full-time carers, may not be able to. Because we are bringing those caring for others into this benefit, the numbers on this benefit will increase to 91,000.

Changing the name is significant. It removes the outdated and demeaning attitude that disabled people or those with serious health conditions have nothing to contribute. I had many representations about the name. I will be very interested, after submissions, to see what the select committee recommendations are.

Those with very disabling, long-lasting, or terminal conditions will have streamlined access to the supported living payment. They will be offered day services, supported employment, and community participation. Current provisions for people on the—as it is now—invalids benefit to try out paid work and return to a benefit seamlessly if it does not work out will remain under the supported living payment.

People in the current benefit streams will automatically transfer—the bill makes a request for this—to the new, appropriate benefit on 15 July 2013.

Beneficiaries expected to be available for work will be required to take up suitable employment opportunities. Simply put, if there is a good job and they are suitable, they should take it. In the current climate a job is an opportunity not to be missed, and, as we know, one job leads to another, as people improve their circumstances. I believe that we need to send a clear signal about what it means to refuse work. For this reason, the bill introduces a 13-week stand-down if a beneficiary fails to accept an offer of suitable employment without a good and sufficient reason. This is the same sanction that applies to people who become voluntarily unemployed, either because they quit a job or were dismissed due to misconduct.

I think it is important to note that the new benefit categories and associated rules would have meant a reduction in benefit levels for some if we did not fix that. I have ensured there are safeguards in this bill to protect the higher benefit rates of those currently on the women alone benefit and the widows benefit. I am also keeping the same abatement rules for those who are transferring to jobseeker support. If we had not done that, it would have meant that those like those on the DPB with children aged 14 years or over, who get a part-time abatement, when they moved to jobseeker support would have been full-time. We are actually going to keep them on the part-time abatement—leave them there—so that they have that opportunity.

Some speed-mentions, if you like. This is a huge bill and has a lot in it. We will be at the select committee for the full time, so that the members can really go through it. But as I think we have already said, there will be pre-benefit activities. We are also looking at drug tests for, particularly, those on jobseeker support. Where there is a job available that requires a test, they must be able to do that. Overseas absence is being also looked at. So beneficiaries with obligations to be looking for or preparing for work will not get a benefit while overseas, except in exceptional circumstances. I think that is fair and reasonable. This will not affect superannuitants or those on the war pension or veterans pension.

Work and Income will gather more information about people, to determine what they can do and what sort of support they may need to get into work. The bill also provides Work and Income with the ability to require beneficiaries to work with contracted service providers. As well signalled, there will be social obligations that will require parents to have their children enrolled in early childhood education from age 3, enrolled in and attending school, and enrolled with a general practitioner and getting well child checks. As well indicated, there will be warrants to arrest, and those subject to warrants to arrest will have their benefit stopped after 38 days, unless they clear them. There are also changes in the bill that enable the Ministry of Social Development to improve the way it procures goods and services for welfare recipients, and it clarifies some things around sanctions.

This is a significant bill. I commend it to the House. I wish the select committee good travels as it hears submissions from New Zealanders and reports back. I commend this bill to the House.

It is with a sense of déjà vu that I rise to speak to this bill, the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Again, it is with a sense of disappointment at an opportunity lost.

The Minister for Social Development, when she speaks in this House around the changes that she is introducing to our social security system through this bill, does so in what might seem a calm and rational way, yet it is quite different to the same old mantra that we sometimes hear from that Minister when she speaks publicly on issues around social security. It is time for us to stand up against the politicking that happens every time we discuss social security or welfare out in the wider public.

I feel like Labour, in fact, has nothing to lose on this debate. National uses this area as a political football, and characterises parties like Labour in a particular way during that process. That is minor when you look at the way that that party characterises the people who legitimately need and use social security in this country. I can get mad from a moral perspective, but my anger actually comes from the place around what that characterisation then does to us and our ability as politicians to make the changes to the system that we need to make. Every time National characterises those who use social security in the way it does, it makes it harder for us to do our job.

Let me give you an example. In the public’s mind, what are the reforms that they know about through this bill? It is drug testing. They know about seeking people who have warrants for arrest whilst on welfare. They know about fraud and stand-down periods for saying no to taking up jobs. Those are the messages that the National Party then sends out about those who are using social security in New Zealand. Then today we saw a perfect example of the contradiction and the corner that the Government then backs itself into. We had the Prime Minister writing to employers asking them to take on young people who have committed themselves to the Limited Service Volunteers programme, who are on Government support, asking those employers to take them on. But within the next breath he is telling them they are drug-takers, they have got warrants out for their arrest, and they are committing fraud. You cannot have it both ways.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

JACINDA ARDERN: It is time to call time out on the politicking around social security. Labour is calling the Government out on the way that it treats this system. There is no doubt that we can improve social security in New Zealand on behalf of those who are currently using the system. Labour, though, has a set of values it will always stick to when it looks to reform in this area, and that is the lens from which we view legislation like this.

The first point is that Labour has always been the party of work. We were the architects of social security, and for us we will always hark back to the foundation principles behind social security. When Michael Joseph Savage established it he said that social security will never be an armchair ride to prosperity. It must always be looked at alongside good, decent health, good, decent education, and the support of all citizens.

So what do we do to create a more active social security system? That is what this side of the House wants to look at. If we want to make a more active system, we need to make sure that we fulfil our side of the bargain. If we ask people to go out and seek work, which we do—if you are able to work, you should seek it—we should be making sure that jobs are available. If you want to fix welfare, fix the economy.

Secondly, how to prepare people for work? This bill simply implements more work testing. Work testing does not make people work-ready. We have a Minister who, since she has been in Government, has cut the training incentive allowance, and has not allowed people to get support so that they can move into bridging courses so they can move into training. Through this bill she is now telling people on the domestic purposes benefit that they cannot be in study and be on Government support any more. What are those young mums who, perhaps, have low skills going to do if they are going to upskill themselves and move into employment, when she is telling them: “All I care about is whether you get a low-wage, part-time job. It does not matter whether the Government subsidises you and your child for the rest of your life, because I have a narrow view of what Government support is all about.” That is a passive system, and we do not support changes like that.

We also need to treat everyone fairly, but not the same. We cannot look at everyone simply through a lens of “You sit within a particular benefit category and, therefore, the system will treat you in this particular way.”

Finally, on the notion of the Government needing to fulfil its side of the bargain, there is no better example of that than social obligations. Here we have a Minister saying that if you wish to still receive Government support, you must enrol your child in early childhood education, enrol in a Well Child provider, and enrol with a general practitioner. Yet when we asked the Minister whether she will ensure every child can access early childhood education, her answer was no. Where is the Government’s obligation to fulfil its end of the bargain?

We will always look at this bill through our sense of what it is that we are trying to build when it comes to social security. We support notions around simplification, which this bill talks about, but in the select committee process we will be looking at what those impacts will be of simplification. It is not entirely clear what impact the merging of the domestic purposes benefit into jobseeker support will have in monetary terms on children, and we want to explore that question, and also for those on the sickness benefit. Also, we will be delving in a lot more detail around the decision-making process around what categories those seeking Government support are placed into.

We must avoid the mistakes of our international counterparts, and I have grave concerns about the path we are travelling down. The use of outsourcing of assessment of work capacity and the ACC-style model of vocational independence assessment process bears striking resemblance to that used in the UK. The Department for Work and Pensions in the UK made use of contractors like Atos to perform work capability assessments, at a cost to the State of ₤300 million. Since that time an estimated 500,000 people have been wrongly assessed. People with terminal cancer have been found fit for work, and people with mental health issues have been ignored. Not only should we not lose sight of the lessons from abroad but also we must apply our own values around the role of social security in our country.

It is not about being too soft. It is not about being too tough. It is about doing what is right and what is fair. The Minister may claim in all of her discussion around welfare reform—and I have heard this said many, many times—that the Government is taking an investment approach. I have one question for the Minister: demonstrate to me in tangible terms how the system is investing in people who are currently on Government support. Just demonstrate to me what you are changing about our passive social security system that is moving people from Government support into work.

I challenge those members to demonstrate that to me, because so far I have seen one area, and it was in the last bill. The one area where I applaud what the Government did was the improvement of child support for young parents. But that was for 1,500 people, and we asked the Minister to consider extending that to the 100,000 people on the domestic purposes benefit and that has not happened. So, Government members, show me where you have done anything more than simply work test. Show me what you are doing to support those who are on the sickness benefit to become well and to move into work—more than just being passive, sitting back and waiting for things to change without any kind of investment. There is nothing in this bill that does that. In fact, under this Government, if anything, we have seen the small tools that we had, like the training incentive allowance that the Minister used, cut. That is that Government’s form of investment approach.

Labour will not support this bill. It does not fulfil our values of an active social security system that supports people into work. It does not fulfil the Government’s end of the bargain around job creation. It does not. It does not treat social security as a dignified springboard into a better life. We are calling time on the politicking of this area, because the Government is doing nothing but disrespect a social security system that was built around dignity.

Just before I call the next member, can I advise the House that robust and passionate debate is healthy and to be expected, but every time a member uses the expression “you”, the member is referring to the Chair, and in that case, it is me. I would refer members to Speaker’s ruling 27/5(1).

It is a great pleasure to rise to make a contribution on this first reading of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. I would like to first of all start off by commending the Minister for Social Development, Minister Paula Bennett, who has done a tremendous amount of work to bring together this comprehensive reform of the welfare system.

I am a little surprised at the speaker who just took her seat, Jacinda Ardern, talking about this being a passive—passive—reform. If we are talking about a passive social welfare system we could go back to the 9 years under the Labour Government, when it did nothing to stop fraud and abuse of the welfare system, allowing it to go largely unchecked. It fudged welfare fraud data to hide the problem of welfare abuse. Beneficiaries were shifted between different types of benefit rather than being supported back to work. Welfare is about readying people for work so that they can actually get back to work and provide for their families and for themselves, so that they can feel better about themselves instead of feeling like they do not deserve whatever it is that people throw at them.

Under the former Labour Government the number in receipt of the sickness benefit went from 33,000 in 1999 to 46,000 in 2008, and the number receiving the invalids benefit went from 53,000 to 85,000. Miss Ardern did not like the fact that this Government is, in fact, going to stop payments to criminals on the run from the police. That is probably because Labour did that: it continued the payments for criminals who were on the run from the police. This Government is making sure that that is not going to happen.

I am going to make only a little contribution on this bill, in terms of the changes to the three benefit category types that are being established rather than the seven current types: jobseeker support, sole parent support, and supported living payment. Previously, when we talked to ethnic communities about the unemployment benefit and the invalids benefit, we found that they had a major stigma in those communities, especially when translated into their languages. Often people who are in dire need, who desperately need to be on the benefit, actually do not go and get the help they require. It is because “unemployment benefit” and “invalids benefit” often translate to meaning that they do not deserve it or they do not want to work. So the changes in the language are something I support.

I look forward to the submissions in the select committee process in regard to the changes to the Social Security Act 1964. This bill, which is having its first reading, does a lot for people who are on benefit. Currently, we are paying $20 million for benefits each day, which equates to $7 billion a year. We need to get people who are ready to work, willing to work, and able to work back into work. I commend this bill.

I am sick to death of hearing from this Government that the people who are to blame for the situation this country finds itself in are the most vulnerable people in our community. That side of the House needs to take some responsibility for the fact that its economic mismanagement is what has led New Zealand to be in the position it is in today. We have a situation with unemployment going up, and, my God, it would be higher if more than 50,000 people had not gone off to Australia in the last year. This Government has done nothing to create jobs. This Government has done nothing to improve our current account deficit. This Government has done nothing to improve wages. This Government has done nothing to find job opportunities. But day after day in the media the Government comes out with diversions and tactics to blame the most vulnerable people in our community for the situation we find ourselves in.

As Jacinda Ardern has already said, what have we heard about the Government’s welfare reform programme? What have people who do not spend all day analysing every bit of this legislation heard about what the Government’s approach is? What they have heard about are people who fail to meet their obligations; people who do not get their kids into early childhood education, who do not take them to the doctor when they are sick, and who are not part of a well child programme; people who need to be drug tested; and people who have been arrested. That is the message the Government is sending. That is the message the Government wants people to hear. It does not want to talk about its poor economic record. It does not want to talk about the fact that hundreds of jobs are being lost every week in this country, and that there are no jobs—Melissa Lee—for people to go to, who might well be work-ready. Those people do not have the opportunity to get into work, because there are no jobs, yet the finger of blame gets pointed at them every day by members opposite.

When people in privilege blame the most vulnerable for what is wrong in society, that is wrong. That is the wrong approach from this Government. It is wrong and it is a failure of leadership of this Government to resort to blaming the most vulnerable in society for the problems we face. But worse than that, every single time there is a problem for the Government—if it is John Banks, high unemployment figures, or whatever it is—Paula Bennett rolls out a re-announcement. She comes along and she re-announces one of these punitive measures, just to make sure everybody is reminded that “Those people are shirking, those people are dragging us down, and we will get them.”, and every single time it diverts away from this Government’s failure to provide leadership in the economy. This Government has let New Zealanders down and sets about a smoke-and-mirrors approach that says there is someone to blame.

We on this side of the House have had enough of this policy of fearmongering and exclusion—that there are people out there to be fearful of, that there are people who are ripping you off, and that you have got to look out for them because if we solve that, then everything will be fine. Well, I have got a message for the Government: it is not like that and it will not be fine. The real problems relate to the economy of this country and the exclusion of people who cannot achieve their potential because this Government will not really invest in them.

The Government uses rhetoric like “an investment approach”. The real investment this Government could be making is to help create jobs. The real investment this Government could be making is to actually invest in skills and training for people who are out of work. That is what happened when Labour was last in Government. The reason we got unemployment so low is that we took an active approach. We took an approach of investing in people. We said: “If you need skills and training, we will help you to get it.”, and we did that through things like the training incentive allowance, which this Government has cut. We had an active case management process, because we believe social security should be a springboard into work. We believe social security should be a springboard into a better life. But this Government does not believe that. This Government says: “This is the way we can get to people and fearmonger. This is the way we can exclude people from our community.” Well, I think that is a disgraceful approach.

What is needed is actually some hope for these people, and some inclusion in society, so that they actually feel they have a place and a role. Of course, people should not be getting benefits if they are not entitled to them, just as people should pay their fair share of tax and should not avoid paying their tax if they are on a high income. We do not stand for that on this side of the House, whoever is doing it, but that is not the issue. That is a diversion. It is a diversion from the Government’s total failure to come up with a plan that will actually move people into work.

The key to moving people into work is to actually have jobs for them to do, and week after week in this House we hear about the jobs that are going from this economy. Week after week we hear about the impact on families, yet the best thing this Government can do is set up straw people for people to look at and say: “If that’s solved, everything will be all right in our society.” It is not true, and shame on this Government that it is using the most vulnerable in our community to play that kind of game in politics.

The Minister for Social Development, in her first reading speech on this bill, the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, talked about social obligations. On this side of the House we agree that there are the obligations of citizens and there are the obligations of a Government. Where are the social obligations of this Government? Where is its investment in housing, health, and education—in the things that will actually enable families to improve their circumstances, to grow their wealth, and to contribute to society? Where is that investment? Instead, we see things being cut all across the country in health services. We see a lack of critical investment in housing. We seek a lack of investment in education. Education in this country at the moment is seen by the Government as being a cost to cut, rather than an investment in our future. They are the social obligations of a Government, and this Government is, sadly, lacking in them.

The social obligations of a citizen go hand in hand with the social obligations of a Government. It is called a social contract. It was the basis on which the social security system in New Zealand was established, and this Government is failing its part of the social contract. It has broken the social contract. If people are breaking the social contract, that is wrong, but what kind of example are they getting from over there? What kind of example are they actually getting from this Government when it comes to social obligations? Again, it is the rhetoric of obligations from this Government—people are not meeting their obligations.

Whatever few people there might be out there who do not meet their obligations, they are outweighed tenfold, 100-fold, 1,000-fold by the number of people who just want the best for their children, who just want the best for their families, and who want to get into work, and those people are being let down by this Government. Time after time I have people in my electorate office who want to do the best for their families and want to do the best for their children, and they are not being supported by this Government because this Government is not investing in those people. It is not giving them the skills or helping them to get the skills. It is not supporting them to get the health care that they need. It is not providing the kind of social housing that is needed so that people are healthy.

The investment approach, the social obligation of this Government, is totally lacking, yet Government members stand up day after day in the media and try to send that message of fear and exclusion. Well, on this side of the House we are sending a message of hope and inclusion to people. We will work with people who are on benefits to make sure that they have the skills to get jobs. We will invest in an economy that helps create jobs. We will make sure that there are opportunities for people to train. The jobs are being lost under this Government, yet it blames people for not taking them up. They are not there, Melissa Lee—that is why people are not moving into work.

Once again we have a social security bill in front of this House that preaches all kinds of things about how the Minister cares for people and wants to cajole people into work, and it uses words like “investment”, but the reality is that every single day Government members go out and engage in dog-whistle politics that seeks to drive New Zealanders apart. The Labour Party does not believe in that. We believe that we are all in this together and that we need to work together to support people into work, give them the skills and training, and help create the jobs. That is what the Labour Party will do, and that is why we are opposing this bill.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It is with a degree of suppressed rage that I am standing now to speak to the first reading of this bill, the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. [Interruption] I know. I am holding it back, but it is actually there.

The Green Party will be voting against this bill because we believe that all New Zealanders deserve good lives and fair futures. We know that if we guarantee the essentials we guarantee the opportunities. Today I will focus on the values that have been spoken of around this bill, particularly in relation to people who are unwell or have disabilities. My colleague Holly Walker will focus on the impacts for children.

For me people in receipt of income support are not problems to be solved. They are not nameless, shapeless bludgers costing our country money or causing their children to live in poverty. I have in front of me today, as I speak to this bill, the faces and the voices of hundreds of people—people who are struggling, stressed, and very worried about what is to come. Some of these people are receiving income support, and some of them are family members trying to support a loved one who is receiving income support.

Talking about beneficiaries as if they do not know what is good for them and as if they need incentivising to take care of themselves or their children misses their fundamental humanity. I will not deny that some people’s decision making may be impaired due to long-term poverty, mental health issues, addictions, violence, or even continual rejection. But that is true whether somebody is in employment or not. I do not see people on income support as fundamentally any different from me. I am angry about the hardship they are subjected to now and the likelihood that this bill will make things even worse for them. I am angry and I am worried.

The Government has said it will be focusing on what people can do, not what they cannot, and will be transforming the Ministry of Social Development to provide much more support for people to get into employment, thus radically improving their lives. The Minister has accused Auckland Action Against Poverty in its response to the bill of wanting to leave people stagnating on welfare. She suggested that those who oppose these reforms are patronising and stereotyping people by not believing they can work. She characterises those of us with concerns as wanting to solve problems by throwing money around. She told us that being on a benefit is unhealthy, and today she quoted the evidence from a doctor who showed that every day on a benefit over 6 months is equal to smoking 200 cigarettes.

You know, it is a clever line, and I do not deny they are clever. It positions the Government as ambitious and willing to break with tradition and treat people receiving welfare as capable rather than not—needing help rather than punishment. In other words, the Government is progressive and it is taking on a major problem in our society. But there are many problems with this, and I will talk to just seven in this speech.

The first problem is that the Government is not treating people as capable. Focusing on capability is critically important. Unfortunately, the Government is not doing that. If it thought people were capable, it would not feel the need to incentivise job-seeking behaviours with sanctions. Sanctions are punishments for when people are not doing something right.

The second problem is that it individualises social problems. By focusing on the individual again, this whole model misses employer biases when it comes to employing people with mental or physical illnesses, people with disabilities, or even people who have a name that is not European. It is incredibly frustrating for me that while this Government focuses on creating these incentives for beneficiaries to work, there are thousands of people desperate to work who are being denied these opportunities because the Government refuses to recognises the structural inequalities that are locking them out of employment.

Recently, I have been working with People First, a wonderful self-advocacy organisation for people with learning disabilities, people whom we previously probably talked about as people with intellectual disabilities. They are really worried that the Government is going to decide that they are not work-capable and leave them languishing without support on the supported living allowance. I was encouraged to hear that this allowance will encourage people into supported employment, so that may go some way to countering their concerns. However, I do not think most people realise that over 600 people in this country are earning less than $3 per hour because there is a minimum wage exemption for them, and that requires them to stay on a benefit, go to these appointments, and work. There are fundamental injustices here.

I have also spoken to many people within the disability sector about the discrimination they are facing in gaining employment. I would like now to share a story from Allyson Hamblett, who is the chair of the CCS Disability Action local advisory committee in Auckland. To quote her—this is a long quote, so try to hang in there—“I have spent about 15 years working on the not-for-profit governance boards, starting when I was 17 years old at the Cerebral Palsy Society. My father commented once that all the work I do means the Government is getting my services really cheaply. The current Government policies, however, make me feel incredibly guilty that I have been unable to turn my contribution to society into something that can support me financially. I feel guilty because I know that I have enough intellect and function to get paid work, but employers look at the way I walk and talk, then freak. They need to see me at the LAC board table. They need to see me having meetings with the regional manager. They need to see the ideas that are generated by the Auckland LAC. They need to see me in the other advocacy roles that take up my time.” This bill does nothing to get Allyson paid employment. It reinforces her sense of guilt and the sense that she has the problem, when it is our society that has the problem.

The third problem with this bill is that there are many people who may not be in a place to work. I have suffered from depression, and I know how bleak the world can seem from that place and how even the smallest demands can seem impossible and reinforce existing feelings of inadequacy. The Government’s new policy sounds to me like the legislative version of the “pull your socks up” approach to depression. This has never worked, and it will not work, because even with the fancy new language depression is fundamentally different from laziness. Of course, it helps in recovery to have people supporting you and encouraging you to do things like get up and go outside, but a Government institution cannot be that person. It has too much of a conflict of interest, especially in a wider cost-saving culture. Also, being that supportive person does mean that you need to recognise that the healing process is not linear. Sometimes it will be OK not to get out of bed, and it will be OK not to go to work, and that is an important part in the process of recovery.

The fourth problem with this bill is that it is based on a model that has not worked in other places. This model in the UK has resulted in an increasing number of suicides of people with illnesses and disabilities.

The fifth problem with this bill is that it takes away people’s control of their own health. To require people who are sick to engage in work readiness activities and to look for work assumes that they do not know what is best for them. It assumes that they would not do that when they were ready. It even seems to assume their doctor does not know, either. This legislation will require people diagnosed with cancer to focus on what they are capable of in terms of employment, rather than what they are not. This will change once they have been diagnosed as terminal, admittedly. If they want to keep working or to look for work, then great—I am not against that—but, surely, in a reasonable society we would let somebody battling cancer focus on that battle, not siphon off their energies into proving their work readiness or availability.

The sixth problem with this bill is that not all work is better for you. Despite the evidence that was quoted, there is plenty of other evidence that says the contrary, and to quote from just one section of research: “These findings underscore the importance to a person’s well-being. Rather than seeking any new job, the study suggests, people who are unemployed … should seek new positions that offer more security, autonomy and reasonable workload.” This legislation proposes a 13-week stand-down loss of income for anyone who turns down what Work and Income defines as suitable, but has no allowance for security, autonomy, and workload. This will have negative health consequences.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe i tēnei rā. Tēnā koe, tēnā tātau katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Regards for you today are great, so greetings to you and to us all.]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Kei te pehea koe?

[How are you?]

TE URUROA FLAVELL: Āhua pai, āhua pai. Kia ora rawa atu.

[I am somewhat good. Thank you indeed.]

Koinei te mihi o te ngākau ki a tātau e kōrero nei i tēnei take nui, whakaharahara i tēnei rangi. Tēnā, i te tuatahi, kua rongo au i ngā whakawhiu ki te Minita i tēnei ahiahi. Ko au tētahi kāre i te tino whakaae atu ki ērā momo kōrero. Ko au tētahi e kī ana, ko te wahine nei ko tōna ngākau, he ngākaunui nei ki te āhuatanga o te hunga e rongo nei i te ngau o te pōharatanga me ērā mea. Ko au tēnā e kōrero pērā ana ki a ia. Nō reira, waiho tērā kōrero ki reira. He mahi uaua ki te whakatikatika i ngā uauatanga o te wā, me te penihana tonu, he take nui tērā. Nō reira, waiho tērā kōrero ki reira.

Kātahi anō ka hoki mai i tētahi tangihanga i roto o Tauranga Moana, i te motu o Rangiwaea. Nā, ko te tangihanga, he tangihanga mō tētahi tangata ko tōna īngoa ko Ben Tawhiti. Ko wai a Ben Tawhiti? He tangata nō roto o Tauranga Moana, ā, ka mutu nō Rangiwaea tonu. Ēngari kua roa ia e noho ana i roto o Tāmaki-makau-rau. He aha tāna mahi? E aua hoki kāre au i te tino mōhio i ngā rā ō mua ēngari, nō nātatanei kua koroua, kua pakeke. Ka mutu ko tana tino pūkenga ko te purei i te rakuraku, whakatangitangi i te rakuraku. Koinā tāna mahi i ngā tau kua hipa. Nā, he aha te pānga o te Ben Tawhiti ki tēnei o ngā kaupapa. Kāti me tuku i taku poroporoaki ki a ia. Kua ngaro atu i te tirohanga kanohi engari, ko tērā whakatipuranga, he whakatipuranga kaha ki te mahi. Ka haere ki ngā wāhi katoa ki reira kimikimi haere nei i te āhuatanga o tēnei mea o te mahi. Pai mai, kino mai, ka whai atu i ngā huarahi katoa kia taea ai e rātau te whiwhi i te mahi. Nō reira e aroha atu ana ki tērā whakatipuranga. Ki tērā whakatipuranga ahakoa pēhea te āhuatanga o te ngākau, i kimi mahi rātau, pukumahi tērā hunga.

Nā reira, ko te wero nui nei ki te titiro i a tātau e kōrero nei mō tēnei take, ēhara i te kōrero hōu. Ko te wero, ki te titiro ki te aronga tahi nei o te tangata ki te penihana, ehara i te mea hōu, ehara i te kaupapa hōu. Ono tekau mā ono tau kua hipa, nā Henare Waitoa tētahi waiata. Ko te īngoa o te waiata nei, ko “Moni Penihana”. He waiata tēnei ki te aki i a Ngati Porou ki te pōti mō Āpirana Ngata i te wā i a ia, ahakoa, kāre tērā koroua rā i tautoko i te āwhina a te penihana. Ēhara i te mea ko Tā Āpirana i tōna kotahi, nā tētahi anō rā o tērā iwi o Ngati Porou nā Tuini Ngāwai tētahi waiata. I kī mai ia i roto i tērā waiata, he mea patu mahara, he mea patu tikanga ā-Maori te penihana. E ōrite ana nei ōku whakaaro mō te penihana. Kāre au i te paku whakaae kia noho te toru tekau mā tahi paihēneti hei mōkai ki te penihana, Māori nei tāku e kōrero nei. Kotahi rau, tekau mā rua mano tāngata kei runga i te penihana. He rahi rawa tērā.

Kua roa te Pāti Māori e kōrero ana mō te noho tata o te ao Māori ki te penihana. Ahakoa ehara tērā momo kōrero i te reka ki te taringa a wētahi. Mēnā he roa rawa te noho i te penihana, arā noa atu ngā whāinga, ko te kore whai i te mātauranga, ko te māuiui ā-tinana, ko te patu wairua pēnei i tā Tuini i waiata nā i roto i tana waiata. Ki te pērā, he wā tōna, ia tipuranga, ia tipuranga, ia tipuranga, ka noho kōhatu i te penihana. Koinā te mutunga iho. Kai te pērā te āhua i ngā taone pakupaku, pēnei i a Tokoroa, pēnei i a Kawerau. Koinei te āhuatanga, ngā taone i rongo nei i te ngau o te kore mahi. Nō reira, e kore te Pāti Māori e tautoko i tētahi hīkoi mō te penihana kia noho tonu te tangata i te penihana ēngari, ka noho pokohiwi ki te pokohiwi, i te taha o te rawakore, i te taha o te tamariki, i te taha o te mokopuna. Koinei te raruraru. Kua noho taupatupatu ngā mea e rua. He noho taupatupatu tā mātau. Āe, he hiahia nō mātau kia kaua e noho i te penihana, he hiahia nō mātau kia kimi mahi, kia whai i te oranga o te tangata. Engari i tēnei wā kei te whakahē mātau i tēnei pire nā runga i te mōhio, he wā uaua tēnei, ka mutu, arā anō ngā uauatanga o tēnei momo penihana.

I tēnei ata, me pēnei rawa te kōrero, i whiwhi au i tētahi ī-mēra mai i tētahi o aku hoa nā runga i te putanga o ētahi kōrero mō te penihana. Anei tana kōrero i te reo Pākehā, kia huri ki te reo Pākehā kia mārama tonu te tikanga o tana kōrero. This morning I received an email from one of my constituents to share her concerns about this bill, the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. This is what she said: “I think this is a really dangerous reform as it doesn’t take into account circumstances of poverty. And by this I mean people who are unable to run a whānau car, as they have just enough money to scrape by on; people who cannot physically get their children to these preschool centres, because the bus run is too far away; and people where there is no accessibility to a bus run. If they could walk their children some distance to the nearest bus stop, do they do so in the rain or in the cold of winter? Then once bussed to a certain spot, do they then have to walk the rest of the way to the centre? The solution is to find ways to empower, to provide creative ways towards educational opportunity, and to lift up, not to increase the burden of poverty.”

Nā, koinei te kōrero a tētahi o ngā mea i whakapā mai ki a au. Ko tā mātau, ko te kī atu, me puta te tangata i te penihana. Ēngari kei te mōhio tonu tātau, he wā uaua tēnei ahakoa koinei te moemoeā, te wawata, e kore e taea i raro i ngā uauatanga o tēnei wā. Nō te marama tata kua hipa i roto i tētahi pūrongo o te tari o te Minita i puta te kōrero kei te whānui tonu te wāhanga o te hunga e noho nei i te kore mahi ki ērā o te hunga me kī whai rawa. I roto i taua pūrongo kua piki haere te āhuatanga o ngā uauatanga kua pā mai ki ngā tamariki. Ko ngā mea Māori o te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, ko rātau kua tino rongo nei i te ngau o te kore moni. Pēnei i a Kawerau kua ngaro atu te āhuatanga o ētahi mahi i roto i ētahi hāpori. Nō reira, ko te hunga ka rongo nei i te mamae ko te hunga tamariki ko te hunga rangatahi ko te hunga taiohi. Nō reira, ko te wero ki a tātau, kia kaua e titiro ki te patupatu i a rātau, engari me titiro ki ētahi huarahi hei whakapakari ake, hei whakahihiko i te ngākau, kia puta rātau. Anā, mēnā ka titiro ki tētahi tauira ko Vodafone tētahi. Kua whakakorengia te āhuatanga o te kirimana ki Īnia. Ka mutu kua hoki mai ngā kotahi rau mahi nei ki roto o Aotearoa mai i tāwāhi. Kātahi nei te mahi pai. I a mātau e haere nei i te mata o te whenua ko te trade training tētahi mea e kōrerotia ana. Nō reira, me mihi me whai atu i ērā momo mahi.

E kī ana te kōrero, ko te whakamoni nei i te penihana ana ko te capitalisation of family benefit. Koinei tētahi kaupapa i ngā tau kua hipa. Me whai atu i tērā i te mea, tērā tētahi kaupapa i whai painga nā runga i te hiahia o ētahi ki te hoko i tētahi whare. Me whai atu i tērā huarahi. Ko ētahi pēnei i a mātau kei te pīrangi ki te whai atu i te utu whānau ā tamariki, arā, te universal child payment i puta i roto i tētahi pūrongo inā tatanei. Ēnei kōrero katoa, me whai atu i tētahi huarahi kia puta te tangata i te penihana. I tōna mutunga mai, ko te mātauranga tētahi, ka mutu, ko te oranga o te tangata te huarahi hei whāinga mā te kāwanatanga tērā.

Nō reira, ahakoa te tautoko a te Minita me tōna hiahia kia puta te tangata i te kore mahi, i te uaua, ko tā mātau ko te kī atu, ehara tēnei i te huarahi e tika ana. Me huri kē ki kaupapa hai whakaora, hai whakapakari i te tangata. Nā reira pea, ka puta te tangata i te penihana. Tēnā koutou katoa.

[This acknowledgment to us, addressing this marvellous and great matter today, is coming from the heart. Now then, in the first instance I have heard criticism of the Minister for Social Development this afternoon. I am one who does not agree with those sentiments. I for one say that this woman is passionate and committed to the situation and other circumstances that cause people in poverty great hardship. I am one who talks like that to her. So park that statement there. Finding a solution for the hardships of the time is a difficult thing to do, and as for benefits, that is a major issue. So park that one there.

I have just returned from a funeral on Rangiwaea Island in Tauranga. Now the funeral was for a man and his name was Ben Tawhiti. Who was Ben Tawhiti? He was one from Tauranga, but really of Rangiwaea, yet he lived in Auckland for a long period of time. What kind of work did he do? I do not really know. I am not sure what he did in former times, but in recent times he became more grandfather-like and an elder. But he eventually became an exceptional guitar player. That is what he became known for in the past. So where does Ben Tawhiti fit into this issue of the policies? Enough, I must deliver my farewell tribute to him. He is seen no more and no longer with us, but he was from that generation of hard workers. They went anywhere to seek this thing called employment. Be it a good job or a bad one, they sought all avenues to secure a job. And so I empathise with that type of generation. That was the generation that sought work regardless how they felt. They went looking; they really worked hard out.

So this is the greatest challenge for us to take aboard as we address this issue, and it is not a new conversation. The challenge in confronting the battle of benefit dependency is not a new one. Sixty-six years ago, Hēnare Waitoa composed a song. The name of this song was “Pension Money”. It was composed to encourage Ngati Porou to vote for Sir Āpirana Ngata when he was a member of Parliament, even though that fine old gentleman did not support pension dependency. It was not as though he crusaded on his own against this. Another of that tribe of Ngati Porou, Tuini Ngāwai, composed a song. Through her song she suggested that reliance on the pension would render their Māori thinking and Māori ways useless. I have similar views about the pension. I do not accept at all the notion that 31 percent of working-age Māori should be enslaved by being on a benefit. That is 112,000 people on the benefit. That is really too high.

The Māori Party has been saying for a long time that Māoridom has been too closely aligned with the benefit. That sort of talk, however, is not sweet to some. If dependency on benefits gets too long, other considerations come up, such as lack of education, poor health, and low self-esteem and hope, as mentioned in Tuini Ngāwai’s song that I mentioned. If that became the situation, in time successive generations would become totally dependent on benefits or pensions. That is how it will end up. It is a bit like that in smaller towns like Tokoroa and Kawerau. This is the situation in towns where there are no jobs. So the Māori Party will not support a march related to benefits that encourages a person to remain on the benefit, but we will remain shoulder to shoulder with the destitute, the children, and the grandchildren. This is the problem. The two things are at loggerheads with each other. We have a double-edged situation with each other. Yes, we want non-dependency on benefits, and we want to find employment for the well-being of the person. But at this stage we oppose this bill, knowing full well that this is a time of difficulty and that, at the end of it all, this kind of benefit has other difficulties.

This morning—let me put it this way—I received an email from a colleague of mine, when some information about this benefit was published. Here is what she said in English, and I will switch to English now so that the meaning of what she said is clear. This morning I received an email from one of my constituents to share her concerns about this bill, the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. This is what she said: “I think this is a really dangerous reform as it doesn’t take into account circumstances of poverty. And by this I mean people who are unable to run a whānau car, as they have just enough money to scrape by on; people who cannot physically get their children to these preschool centres, because the bus run is too far away; and people where there is no accessibility to a bus run. If they could walk their children some distance to the nearest bus stop, do they do so in the rain or in the cold of winter? Then once bussed to a certain spot, do they then have to walk the rest of the way to the centre? The solution is to find ways to empower, to provide creative ways towards educational opportunity, and to lift up, not to increase the burden of poverty.”

This is what one of the ones who contacted me said. Our response is that we want people to get off the benefit. But we know for a fact that this is a difficult time, and despite it being the vision, the hope, and the dream, it is not possible under the difficult circumstances. In a report from the Minister’s department, the Ministry of Social Development, just a month ago it stated that the gap between rich and poor is wider than ever. In that report, as well, it said that hardship rates for children had increased. Māori and Pasifika ones had fared particularly poorly during the recent economic downturn in communities like Kawerau. So children and youth are often the most vulnerable in a recession. The challenge, then, for us as a country is to quit the blame game and to look for avenues that are inspirational and motivating for them to succeed. Vodafone is an example to look at. It has ditched its contract with India and, as a consequence, created a hundred jobs here in New Zealand. Now this is a great outcome. In our travels, trade training is something that is talked about across the country. Those kinds of employment are applauded and must be followed up.

There is a quote worth revisiting that is about capitalisation of the family benefit. This was a system of some years ago that should be followed up, because it was a policy that had good homeownership outcomes for those who wanted to buy a house. That avenue should be explored. Some like us want to follow up the universal child payment that emerged in a very recent report. All these statements should be followed up, to get a person out of the benefit-dependence syndrome. At the end of it all, education is one aspect, and well-being of the person is another for the Government to follow up.

Therefore, despite the support of the Minister and her desire for people to get into a job, it is difficult. We say to her that this is not the right way. She should turn to policies that will enhance the person’s well-being and outlook. That might just be the solution to make a person less dependent on the benefit. Thank you all.]

On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to speak to the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First has got some reservations about some aspects of this bill. That is why, contrary to what some parties expected, New Zealand First is prepared to vote the bill only to a select committee at this particular stage. New Zealand First has its own views about beneficiaries keeping faith with the taxpayer. We are voting for this bill to go to a select committee because we are very interested in what various organisations and people directly affected by this legislation have to say, and that is the only way we are going to hear what they say. It is only democratic that they have a say, and they must be heard.

Overall, the bill states that it seeks to improve the social and economic outcomes for all New Zealanders, and we agree with that—it does sound good. The bill does include some measures to protect the interests of children by encouraging parents to be employed in the workforce, to increase participation in early childhood education, which is good, and to have Well Child checks, which is also positive. We can agree with that. But we have to remind the Minister for Social Development that encouragement to work does not equate directly with the achievement of actually obtaining a job.

Some of the practicalities of the legislation raise some questions in our minds. We know that the challenge for everyone is paid work, and for those with few qualifications, or for those people over the age of 40, this bill will actually be a challenge. Are we actually raising the expectations of these people in a way that their expectations cannot be met? We know that those people are struggling, and it is quite a large group. We hope that there is light at the end of the tunnel and that this light is not a train actually coming to run them over. That is important.

We know, too, that 1,000 people a week approximately are travelling over to Australia for work, and, funnily enough, this has not translated into an oversupply of jobs, which one would think is a really logical progression. People want to work. They do not want to be excluded from the economy and the life that they want to lead. Work testing does not actually make people work-ready. They want that job right there at the end.

One of the areas that does concern us is the increasing focus of this Government towards greater use of the private sector in order to bring about achieving targets. New Zealand First sees a real problem of accountability in this particular area, and it is one area that we are going to be interested in exploring further, because we need to ensure that these private companies are actually meeting the targets and doing the work that they have been contracted to do. Obviously, we would like this work to be contracted back into the public sector so that we can ensure that those people have work.

Another area that we have got some concern about is in relation to recent widows benefit recipients. We believe that they will be insulted by their amalgamation into the new jobseeker support benefit, which requires recipients to be work-ready and available. We do not believe that that is very fair at all in this area.

Drug testing is another area that is going to be outsourced. Are there strategies in place to actually advance this drug testing in a timely and effective way? This is one area in which we cannot afford any mistakes, because people do not want to have a drug reference against their name, particularly if they are looking for work.

The availability of early childhood education and the number of places in these institutions also have to be explored. We were very concerned this week when this was raised during question time and the Minister was not certain whether or not this was going to happen. We know that a change like this is not going to happen overnight, so action has to be taken now if this is going to be part of the new way that benefits are going to be given out.

Whatever the views that people hold on these points, social welfare policy should be all about getting people off benefits and into jobs. Therein lies a major issue for this Government, because whatever welfare reforms that it is pushing through Parliament, it is doing absolutely nothing to foster an economy that ensures that there is job creation. We can take that even further by looking at National’s refusal very recently to even consider my leader’s member’s bill to give the Reserve Bank the flexibility that it needs to handle our seriously over-inflated dollar and to help our ailing manufacturing and exporting sectors. They are the sectors that are actually going to provide the jobs. We need to ensure that they can actually survive.

The reality is that we want to see jobs created. We believe that at this point in time the National Government is a bit like a fly trapped in an empty soft drink can—buzzing around, making a lot of noise, but going absolutely nowhere fast. Beneficiaries may end up being drug tested. Those wanted by the police may have their benefits slashed, but will these measures actually see them end up in paid employment? Sadly, New Zealand First does not think so, because these jobs do not exist under the policies of the National Government. But we are prepared to vote to refer this bill to a select committee so that the people of New Zealand can actually have a say. We believe that is what is required with such dramatic and drastic reforms as these, which are going to be imposed on a very vulnerable group in our society.

I was fascinated at how silent members opposite were when the Minister for Social Development was moving the first reading of this bill a short time ago. In fact, I think I was not the only one on this side of the House who came to the conclusion that maybe they had had a road to Damascus experience and had actually decided to support the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. But, sadly, we then had the clichéd and unconvincing contributions of Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson, and it was clear that they had fallen back on their failed ideology, which, it has to be said, is actually the reason why we have got the problems that we are tackling in this bill.

I have repeatedly argued in this House that New Zealand needs a generous and compassionate welfare system. I am going to start by repeating that today, because I firmly believe it, but it also needs to be said that we can have that only when the policy settings are right and relevant to contemporary circumstances, when incentives are in place to assist people out of welfare and into work and self-reliance, and when abuse of the welfare system is minimised, or, preferably, eliminated altogether.

I am hugely enthusiastic about this second tranche of our welfare reforms, and, I want to point out, so are all of my constituents who talked to me at length about these issues during the campaign last year. It would appear that the whole of the country is, because voters enthusiastically embraced the idea by voting for National in record numbers on 26 November. This bill sets out a vision and it sends the right signals, yet Jacinda Ardern questioned where the incentives focus is that the Minister talked about. I am really surprised that she cannot see it, because assisting people to gain skills and become ready for work is a significant investment in them, and it is the right thing to do. So is giving extra support to those who want to work but need a little bit more help in order to get ready for it, such as those who struggle with addiction, and we are putting that investment into them. Those provisions are in this bill. We have struck the right balance between incentives, obligations, and the provision of targeted assistance.

Miss Ardern’s protestations prompted me to have another look at Labour’s legacy, which it left the new Government just 4 years ago. If we are talking about incentives, let us remind ourselves of that record. Labour paid criminals the benefit while they were on the run from the police. Well, it has to be admitted, that is, I guess, an investment, but honest taxpayers deeply resent such nonsense as that, and this bill will stop it. Labour claimed that it had a strategy for reducing unemployment, yet what it really did—and the figures show this—is that it merely shifted beneficiaries between different types of benefits.

Iain Lees-Galloway: No. Don’t tell lies.

TIM MACINDOE: As I say—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

TIM MACINDOE: The figures show it. Let me give you some figures, Mr Lees-Galloway. Under the 9 years of the Labour Government the number on the sickness benefit increased from 33,000 to 46,000, while those on the invalids benefit increased from 53,000 to 85,000. I do not think there are a whole lot of young people in every town and city wandering around on the street all day who are invalids, but according to those numbers there must be.

Opposition members have again chirped today that our welfare reforms are cruel and callous and that there are no jobs available. Well, not only are our reforms an expression of confidence and belief in those who are on benefits but the evidence tells a different story. So let me just close with this. I am very happy to tell the House that as at 3 p.m. today 12,194 jobs were advertised on TradeMe, and 10,278 of those are full-time. Meanwhile on SEEK 16,420 jobs were advertised, and of those 13,085 are full-time. So there are certainly jobs out there. These reforms are about assisting as many people as we can to be ready to take them on. When they do, they will become aspirational. They will become self-reliant. The quality of their lives will improve, and so it will for all of their families. The whole country will be better off, but, most important, those whom we are assisting will be. I enthusiastically support this bill.

It is a sad task, really, to stand up and expose this bill, the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, and expose this Government, because behind the figures and the facts we speak about are real human beings. So the National Government again is continuing with its war on the poor and its war on those who actually rely on social security. We have heard impassioned statements from this side of the House, and there is nobody from that side of the House who has taken a full call to actually defend—apart from the Minister for Social Development—the provisions of this bill, because they cannot, because they do not believe in it, or because they know that when they speak they will expose the very criticism that Jacinda Ardern directed towards that side. Melissa Lee was a case in point—a case in point. Tim Macindoe has just done that again. It is all about this fraud, and the attitude to those on benefits by those members—I will include Mike Sabin in that as well—

Tim Macindoe: We care about them.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: I do not think the member does care about them, because of the language the member uses to describe them. The Government really has made it a virtue to appear tough, and to make life as difficult as possible for those who rely on social security through that period in their lives when there is nothing else for them to rely on and it is their entire means for them to fend for themselves and their family.

The National Government has waged this war on the poor and on those on social security right from its inception in 2008. This Government has convinced itself and satisfied itself, consistent with its particular ideology, that beneficiaries should be presumed guilty until they are found to be innocent. That is what they talk about. That is what Mr Sabin talks about. I have heard Mr Sabin on many occasions. The only person from that side that I might exempt from this is Alfred Ngaro, because Alfred Ngaro has actually worked with this group. He actually has seen what battered women do: safeguarding their children, on the benefit and doing the best they can to keep the house warm, to keep the house clean, to look after those children, and to protect themselves. That man has seen that, and I do not expect him to have the punitive approach to beneficiaries that all of the others who have spoken have taken so far.

But the Government’s entire attack on those on social security is anchored on the one concept, and this is the concept of welfare dependency. What the term “welfare dependency” does is it actually pathologises the problem to the individual. It is actually saying “You are dependent, it’s your fault, and we are going to have to fix you.”, when everything we know is that it is about an interdependent world in which we live. Members opposite might not remember, but when people in Mosgiel lost their work, the Government did nothing. Their factories closed down. They did not become bludgers overnight. But, in fact, according to the definitions that the Government members take, that was dependency, and, therefore, they pathologise their problem.

What they have done is they have gathered a whole bunch of information about those on the unemployment benefits and on the domestic purposes benefits and built a case around the length of time they are on those benefits, and, therefore, that is dependency. It has taken one more cynical step further in the recent research reported last week that the lifetime cost of beneficiaries is something like $67 billion. It is almost as if we are asking the mother whose child is born today whether she has got the $150,000 it will cost her to take that child through to the age of 15 or 16. Do we ask that question? No. But here the case is made for welfare dependency based on that kind of intellectual dishonesty. And we have a lot of intellectual dishonesty about many of these figures from that side of the House. They have actually convinced themselves that those who are unemployed prefer to stay unemployed, and make little attempt to get a job. The Government actually feeds off that prejudice.

Jacinda and the others on this side of the House were absolutely right when they said what the messages are out there about welfare reform. It is the message that these crooks are going around using our taxpayers’ money; that we pay the money, they are stealing from us, they are committing fraud, we have got to get them; that they are all on drugs, and they are all cheats; and that we are going to have to do all these nasty things to them. That is the message out there, and the Minister is quite two-faced about it. In the House there is that language, the language of “We are backing”—I think she uses that a lot—“these people.” Out there, it is that we will create a system that actually will reduce the bill. In a sense, that is intellectual dishonesty as well. What we have never heard from this Minister is a philosophically well-argued position on how to take this country to another place, where people will have jobs, where those who are needy will be looked after, and we will all move together—but, no, that is not there. It divides and rules.

In the end, where are the programmes that this Government has put together? The message in this bill is not that subtle. It really is about that those on social security behave contrary to “important social norms” around health, education, work, and social welfare. My own daughter who is looking after two kids today will not qualify, because she does not use 15 hours of early childhood education for her 3-year-old. She is a mum, and dad is at work, but she will not qualify. But a solo mother has got to ensure that that 3-year-old is in early childhood education. Here are these people who do not fill “important social norms”. This is prejudice of the worst kind. This is a punitive approach. The Minister does not like the term, but all of her welfare provisions are punitive. It blames somebody, it punishes somebody; it is not developmental. If the Minister took a developmental approach, this side of the House would support her, because we know what that is like. We know how difficult that is, and we know what needs to be done to put all of that together. But we do not get that from this Government. It is not actually interested in that.

It has become this Minister’s badge of honour to be unnecessarily aggressive and unnecessarily punitive. It is almost as if there is something in that. Well, there is not, because once they have gone from this place, they are not remembered for those characteristics. What people are remembered for when they leave here, particularly those who have been in Government, is the good they did, where they used the best science and the best information to bring about the best results, particularly for our most vulnerable but certainly for our families, who really are the driving force of our society.

Here, we know that this Minister is the “Minister of Distraction”. Whenever John Key is in trouble, whether it is the water issue or whether it is the John Banks issue, what you do is reannounce the policies again. We know that it is a distraction. There is no ethics in that. There is no morality in that. There is—

Mike Sabin: This Minister has done more in one bill than that party did in 9 years of Government.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Mr Sabin talks about 9 years. In 9 years we reduced child poverty. In this Government’s life, just about 260,000 children are in poverty. And where are the jobs? When will that member create them? That member comes from a very poor part of New Zealand. I expect that member to understand and advocate for those families. He does not. He actually does not. He is part of the problem, as, indeed, that member’s colleagues are part of the problem. These are the people whom I have worked with all my life. These are the people I know well. And these are the people Alfred Ngaro knows well. And here we are, screwing them down to the lowest common denominator. We call them names—that is the subtext of this bill, Mr Sabin.

Mike Sabin: Get off that ideological hobby horse that you keep riding.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Perhaps the member had better read up and we will debate every bit of this in the select committee. But there is nothing that is redeeming in this bill at all. This notion of an investment approach is the biggest—I better not use a certain term, because it is unparliamentary—load of rubbish I have heard. This is not an investment approach. We know what an investment approach is, and those business-oriented politicians on that side of the House have taken something out of the business world and are applying that to human relations, believing that the country will understand. There is no investment in this. This is punitive. This is negative. This is divisive.

But the other side is also possible, because every family on social security is known to the organisation. Our organisation, without any legislative change, can work very, very well with them to put them on the right path to development, which is what the Clark Government did. These unemployed people were triaged. We had the lowest unemployment rate in the world. I know about those because the same staff in Work and Income worked day in and day out alongside those people and got them into jobs, while the country was creating jobs as well. So here we are: do not create jobs, increase child poverty time, and at the same time punish our people. That side ought to be ashamed of itself, and I look forward to a robust debate throughout the select committee process. Thank you.

I stand here today unashamed. What I do is stand here to take a call on this Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill and to talk about, first of all, the purpose and the principles. The purpose of the Social Security Act 1964 is to help people to support themselves and their dependants. Section 1B, “Principles”, says in subsection (a): “work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being:”. There has been a lot of talk and rhetoric about the young people who are going overseas to the GC—the Gold Coast. But what we do not talk about is the GFC—the global financial crisis. That is some of the reality, but somehow we forget about those things.

This bill addresses purpose and principle. That is what is important. It helps people for whom work may not currently be an appropriate outcome, and they should be assisted to plan for work for their futures. That is what this bill is doing. Very simply, what we are doing here, but very significantly, is changing a brand in order to change a focus. There is something about a name to give focus and direction. This bill amends the Social Security Act 1964. It does not change its purpose; neither does it change its principles. But, instead, it wants to transform a system that needs to be changed, because we are seeing many, many of our people being trapped in this system as well—and we know. This system is like a good Clint Eastwood western: it has the good, the bad, and the ugly. So when we talk about sanctions, when we talk about those who are inside that system, it is the ugly side of the system that is being recognised on the other side, in terms of people who are taking the system and taking it for a ride. When we talk about the bad in the system, it is the parts of the system that have entrapped a lot of our people in this system as well.

So what are we doing? We are rebranding benefits by calling them jobseeker support. That way, we will have work expectations that are set depending on capacity. We are not beneficiary bashing; instead, we are giving them a sense of hope and opportunity. Sole parent support is another new brand with a focus for sole parents with children under 14 years. From October this year sole parents are expected to be available for part-time work. Again, it is only if they are available in the circumstances that are there. In terms of the supported living payment, the ability to participate in society is very important. This was branded and the name was given by those in the disability sector themselves. They wanted to brand it as the supported living payment. Their sense was that they want to be active contributors to our community as well. In the Solutions to Child Poverty in New Zealand report that was brought out, the issues and options paper for consultation, it simply said that one of the range of areas that are absolutely important to reducing poverty—and we are not talking about just child poverty; we are talking about family poverty—is the opportunities for work and employment. To increase household incomes—that is the focus of this bill. We are supportive of that. We are thankful to the Minister for Social Development who has put forward a vision and a hope for our people and in our community. Thank you. I commend this bill.

I understand the next call is a split call. I will ring the bell at 4 minutes.

That contribution from Alfred Ngaro absolutely sums up what this Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill is all about. All he talked about was branding. It is an absolute distraction. It does nothing to actually help people into work. All it is is a branding exercise. Alfred Ngaro talked about the branding of the different benefits, but, I tell you what, this is not about the branding of benefits; this is about branding beneficiaries. That is all that this bill is about. When the Government is in trouble, when it knows that there are 270,000 children growing up in poverty in this country, when it knows that income disparity is greater now than it has ever been before, and that it is a direct result of the policies that this Government has implemented, what does it do? What does it do? It starts to pick on the beneficiaries. It tells New Zealand that every beneficiary is on the run from the law, or every beneficiary is a drug taker, or every beneficiary is a bad parent and needs to be told how to raise their children.

The things that those parents have to comply with! I saw Paula Bennett’s press release about forcing parents to put their children into early children education. The words “comply” or “compliance” occurred at least five or six times in that press release, and that is what this Government is all about. It is about getting people to comply.

Louise Upston: Social obligation.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I hear terms like “social obligation”. I hear terms like “social engineering”. This Government is working overtime on social engineering, getting people to comply with its view of the world—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): If I cannot hear the debate, members are too loud. Quieten down.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I do not mind the Government members screaming back at me, because I know that they do that when they know they have been found out. They have been found out about what this legislation is really about. It is about pitting one New Zealander against their neighbour. It is about divide and rule. It is about distracting people from the Government’s own failures. That is all that this legislation is about. It will do nothing to get people into work.

Tim Macindoe tried to smear the last Labour Government’s record. He tried to say that all that the last Labour Government did was shift people from one benefit to the other.

Melissa Lee: That’s right.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, I have news—Melissa Lee believes that lie, as well. Melissa Lee has fallen—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member cannot use that word. There is Speaker’s ruling 42/2 about using the word “lie”. So I would ask the member to withdraw that comment.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Speaking to that—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, no. I have ruled—Speaker’s ruling 42/2. Just carry on.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I withdraw that comment. Melissa Lee has fallen into that trap, because she is so foolish as to believe the Government’s own rhetoric. This is what the last Labour Government did. We got people off benefits and we got them into work, because we made sure that there were jobs. That is what this Government should be focusing on, but it has so demonstrably failed to get people working that it has started this act of diversion, simply to get New Zealanders fighting against each other and not fighting against this pathetic, worthless Government, which is not working for New Zealanders.

The Government wants us to believe that all beneficiaries are on drugs, that they are not ready to work because they are on drugs. Tim Macindoe used an example; he cited the number of jobs that are available in New Zealand at the moment. I agree with Tim Macindoe—there are jobs out there. There are jobs out there, but people cannot get them, and here is why. First, for every job that there is out there, there are at least 10, if not 20, people applying for that job.

Darien Fenton: More like 200.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Darien Fenton suggests it is more like 200. There is so much competition for jobs out there. But here is the other thing. This Government has cut back the training that people require to have the skills that they need to get into those jobs. This Government has slashed polytechnic funding. It has slashed tertiary education funding. That is why people are not able to get into those jobs—because this Government does not want them to have the skills to be able to—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Not true.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Maurice Williamson says it is true. He is saying it is true—

Hon Maurice Williamson: I said “Not true.”

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Oh, he says it is not true. Well, you just have to look at the facts, Mr Williamson. You just have to look at the facts. This Government has cut and slashed tertiary education. That is why people are not able to get—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but his time—[Interruption] Order! Order! When the member’s time is up—[Interruption] Order! When the member’s time is up, when I have called the member and said his time is up, that is it. You do not carry on.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just like clarification over a point that you raised—

No. I have ruled on that matter—[Interruption] Sit down. [Interruption] No, sit down. I have ruled on the matter. The member—sit down. The member has withdrawn the comment that he made at the time, and we have progressed. That is the end of the matter.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seeking clarification. You referred to 42/2. That is not the Speaker’s ruling, and I am seeking clarification—

The member will sit down. Sit down. The member in this debate, and he did it earlier on as well, used the word “lie”. That is what I pulled him up on and that is why he apologised—no, he did not apologise. I asked him to withdraw the comment, and he has. We are now moving on.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): There is no further discussion on this.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am referring to—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): If you are trifling with me, then—

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I am not trifling. It is an issue that has been raised with me during a speech that I have made, and I am seeking clarification, because it is the accusation against a member, which I accept, and the Speaker’s ruling says that it is not appropriate to say that a member lies. But my colleague said that a statement was a lie—

No. I have ruled on this matter. The member will sit. I quoted 42/2. The member, when I asked him to withdraw the comment, did so. That is the end of the matter, and I am calling the Green member Holly Walker.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I have ruled on this. The Hon Trevor Mallard, I have actually ruled on this.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I would like to refer you to the ruling on Tuesday of this week from the Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith in the Chair during question time where he, in fact, allowed that comment to be made about a member during question time. Can I complete my comment please? That was consistent with the ruling from Speaker Wilson when Dr The Rt Hon Dr Lockwood Smith himself used that. It has been ruled out as a matter of interjection but not as part of a question or a debate. What you are not allowed to do is to say that someone lied in here. But the ruling has consistently been that people can say, especially if there is justification, that people lied outside.

The member used the word “lie”. I have ruled on it. That is the end of the matter. The member withdrew the comment at the time. I am now inviting the Green member Holly Walker to continue.

I am proud to stand in strong opposition to the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. I would like to focus my comments, in particular, on the impact that this bill will have on children. Children are something we are all talking about at the moment, and I think that if there is one thing that we all agree on in the House it is that we are failing our children, currently, when we allow one in four children growing up in New Zealand to live in conditions of deprivation and poverty.

This bill makes the bold assertion, in the explanatory note, that it will improve outcomes for children by helping parents out of poverty. If only that really was the focus of the welfare system or the focus of this bill. But, in fact, this bill will do quite the opposite, and I want to address my comments to that today. So the way that this bill is supposed to help improve outcomes for children is through rather sinister and Orwellian language—which I think is probably familiar to members who remember Jenny Shipley’s code of social responsibility, which I remember debating at high school—in terms of talking about social obligations: “Using the welfare system to reinforce some important social norms relating to children’s education and health through the use of obligations that beneficiaries with children must meet in order to continue receiving Government assistance.” I find that language very concerning as, I am sure, do many members of the House.

Those obligations, as we have heard, are things like ensuring that children are enrolled in 15 hours of early childhood education from the age of 3, enrolled at a primary health organisation to receive health care, meeting their Well Child checks, and being enrolled at school when they are of age to do that. Those are all good things for children to do, but there is an inherent tension and a lack of logic in the Government’s approach to these issues in this bill, and it goes like this. We have a problem of child poverty, and we know that children are missing out on the basics and are not having access to the services that they need to get the best start in life. We want to do something about this. And the Government says what we are going to do about this is provide parents with less income with which to provide those basic services.

The logic goes in circles. Parents do not have enough income to provide the basics, so we will punish them, for not providing the basics, by cutting their income. It is absurd. It is absolutely absurd logic, and it completely undermines the bill’s supposed objective to improve outcomes for children, because all it will do is place children and their families in greater hardship. The Government knows that it will place children and their families in greater hardship, because it actually budgets to do that in its costings and the way that it anticipates the bill will apply.

So never mind the fact that families already make trade-offs in stretched financial environments, like with doctors’ bills versus power bills, and fuel versus food, which could be a very legitimate reason for not being able to meet those so-called social obligations. Indeed, it may be impossible for them to do so, because they do not have access to those services in their area, or because their primary health organisation has a closed book or a long waiting list, or because their local early childhood education provider or kindergarten accepts children for only up to 12 hours a week, so they cannot meet the 15 hours a week requirement. All of these are perfectly legitimate reasons not to meet these obligations. The Government knows this, and it knows that around 2,000 families will find it difficult to meet these obligations. It has budgeted for and fully expects to sanction around 1,300 parents a year in these situations. That is a huge number of children who will be adversely affected by those sanctions. There is something very wrong and very cynical about that. Budgeting for savings from sanctioning families, which the Government knows will disadvantage children—essentially, it is banking the kids’ lunch money. It is very disappointing and it is very disturbing. Again it completely undermines its apparent objective of improving outcomes for children.

It also breaches our international human rights obligations, like the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, for children to have the right to benefit from social security. It is an absurd logic that underpins this bill, and it is a logic that will do nothing more than harm children who are already vulnerable and whom, we all acknowledge, we are not doing enough for at the present time. The Green Party is proud to stand in opposition to this bill and to stand up for our most vulnerable children.

I am very pleased to stand in support of this particular bill, the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. We have heard from the other side about politicking. If we want to fix welfare, then we should fix the economy. Yet the Labour Party and the Greens will oppose every move that this Government has to grow the economy. Well, I say that those members cannot continue to run with the foxes and hunt with the hounds. New Zealanders have woken up to that. We also hear about blame and that this bill is about blame. Well, we say on this side of the House that this bill is about overcoming barriers to work and ensuring that people get into work. They also say there are no jobs. Well, I challenge any of those members to come up to my electorate and do something else other than have fish and chips at the Mangonui fish shop and have a few photos taken. I challenge them to actually talk to local employers—talk to local employers. What they will find is that local employers want to employ local people, but those local people would rather not be employed. That is a rather unacceptable situation.

This bill is a fundamental change in welfare. We say that if someone can work, they should work, and, in simple terms, that means that if an individual is on a benefit, it is because they do not have a job. Therefore, the focus of welfare should be about getting people into work, not about finding the appropriate benefit category and just leaving them there to sit there and get on with it. This bill brings about three very, very important changes, which underpin what this fundamental change in focus is about: the three job benefit types—jobseeker support, sole parent support, and supported living payment. This bill will extend the work focus far wider than it has been to some 150,000 New Zealanders, as opposed to the 50,000 currently on the unemployment benefit. Job seekers will have work-ready requirements. A very good example of that is that those who are being work tested for jobs that require a drug test will have to pass a drug test. If they do not, there will be sanctions, and if they fail to comply, there is a possibility of benefit cancellation. That is about consequences for actions. If it is good enough for New Zealanders out there working in the workforce to be drug free, then I say it is good enough for those on a benefit, who are having their finances supported by the taxpayer, to be drug free as well.

This bill will introduce social obligations, and they are about supporting vulnerable children in real terms. Children over 3 will have to be enrolled in early childhood education where that can be the case. Children aged 5 and 6 will have to be in school. Those on a benefit will have to have their children enrolled in health care, and we will also ensure that the health-care checks are being done. For parents who are on a benefit, this is a positive thing. If they comply, it is a win-win; if they do not, then we will be asking questions as to why not. This is about really addressing vulnerable children, rather than thinking that if we provide a lunch and a breakfast, then somehow we are acting in the best interests of those children, relieving their parents of any responsibility.

This bill will also go on to ensure that those with a warrant to arrest will have their benefit cut. Of course, the Labour Party and the Greens want to fund those criminals on the run, and to maintain their taxpayer-funded evasion of the consequences of their criminal activities. The Greens will oppose this legislation. That is what we have come to expect of them. The Labour Party will oppose this legislation. That sends a very important message to New Zealanders. As long as that is the message it sends to New Zealanders, then that party will be wearing out the leather on the seats on that side of the House. I fully commend this bill to the House.