Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill

The House is in Committee. Kia ora tātou, no reira e te Whare, e ngā iwi, e ngā reo, e ngā hau e whā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Good afternoon, honourable members. We are in Committee on the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Therefore, the Committee is resumed. Members, when we were last considering this bill we were debating Part 3. I want to take the opportunity to inform members that the Government has exercised its power of financial veto in respect of amendments in the name of Holly Walker and Jan Logie, set out on Supplementary Order Papers 77 and 78 respectively. Those amendments are therefore out of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just want to request further information from the Chair. Were those amendments relating to Part 3 of the bill or were they from Part 1?

They are from Part 3. Of course, it is a financial veto, which the Government is entitled to do.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether you can give me some guidance, as a new member seeking some advice about how to proceed. I am fairly certain that the amendment that has been put up in my name to Part 3 of the bill bears no financial cost, so I am uncertain as to the rationale of the financial veto being exercised in respect of it.

I am not aware of that, but we can certainly have it checked. If there are any financial implications in the Supplementary Order Paper that you have put up, then the Government does have the right to put in place a financial veto, and it has done so.

I raise a point of order, Chairperson. If there are no financial implications, what course of action is available to me at this point?

I think what we have to do, first of all, is to find out where the financial implications are, because the Government has indicated that it wants to apply its veto. So we need to check that now, and we could perhaps go on with the debate until such time—[Interruption] Have we got something here? OK, I am told that there is a certificate on the Table that outlines the financial impact. It says here what the reasons are for the Government not concurring: “The proposed amendments would impact on the Crown’s fiscal aggregates by increasing the Crown’s total operating expenses and level of total Crown debt by approximately $128 million over the forecast period. In the government’s view, these effects have more than a minor impact on the Crown’s fiscal aggregates and for this reason the government does not concur in the amendments specified above.” So it will apply its financial veto.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Is that explanation available to members of the Committee to consider? Is it on the Table?

It is actually on the Table, Mr Lees-Galloway. You are entitled to have a look.

When we left last night I was discussing Part 3 of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, the implications of that, and the changes that were coming up. We were particularly talking about childcare and the different types of childcare that are available, particularly for those mums and dads, of course, who have to go back into work, and the changes that are happening. I had run through the changes. Currently, when your youngest child is 6 you are expected to look for part-time work. The difference is that that is going to 5 years. There will now be a full-time work test when your youngest is 14-years-old.

It is quite interesting to see the number of both sole mums and partnered mothers who are currently working. For those whose youngest child is 14-plus years, actually 68 percent of sole mothers are working and 83 percent of those who are partnered are working. So we constantly hear this call that they cannot go out to work. We are asking them simply to be work-available and looking, so if suitable employment is not there they will not be punished. There is not a sanction for those who are out there actively looking. But certainly from all the evidence that we have seen, we think it is quite fair and reasonable for there to be that work expectation. But beyond fair and reasonable, actually, is the point that all evidence points out that those who are in work have better outcomes for them and their children. This, of course, is vitally important to us as we move forward—

I had been planning to use this call to speak to my Supplementary Order Paper 77 and to offer it in fact, in the spirit of cross-party cooperation and constructiveness, as an additional protection for children from the sanctions imposed by this legislation. Given that we have just heard that this Supplementary Order Paper has been ruled out of order because the Government has chosen to exercise its financial veto, I would like to speak a little bit to that and perhaps invite the Minister for Social Development, if she is prepared to take a call, to outline the financial impacts of the Supplementary Order Paper and the rationale behind the use of that veto.

If I perhaps can just spend a minute or two outlining what it is that this Supplementary Order Paper would have done. I was going to, in fact, thank and congratulate the Minister on her constructive engagement with my questions about the impact of sanctions on children in this Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, during the debate on Part 1 last night, and this relates to what is on the Table now in Part 3, acknowledging that beneficiaries will be sanctioned only by up to 50 percent in an acknowledgment that their children need to be protected from the loss of income that a sanction imposed on them may incur. The Minister was quite constructive with her comments about that last night, and agreed, I think, that the last thing that this legislation wants to do, or is designed to do, is have detrimental impacts, unintended consequences, on the very children whom it is setting out to assist.

So this Supplementary Order Paper, which has very strangely been ruled out of order, was going to give the chief executive the additional discretion not to impose a sanction, or not to attempt to recover a debt, if it was deemed by the chief executive that to do so may deprive the child of food or shelter, or would otherwise be detrimental to the well-being of the child. So what it would have done is add an additional layer of protection there; an additional discretion for Work and Income not to impose the sanctions. It does not actually change anything materially about the bill. It does not change the sanctions themselves. It does not change the policy behind the bill, or any of the other material provisions of the bill. It simply inserts a protection and a discretion on the part of Work and Income not to apply the sanctions that the bill allows. If it can be shown that a child is put at severe risk—that their food or shelter or otherwise their general well-being would be put at such risk by the imposition of a sanction on their parents—it would give the chief executive the discretion not to apply that sanction.

What I think I can understand by the Government’s decision to rule this out, based on the financial veto—and I see that the number of $128 million has been quoted here and I would be very interested to hear how that figure was arrived at—and what I assume it means, is that the Government would be anticipating imposing that $128 million worth of sanctions under this bill, and is anticipating that that is the level of sanctioning it will be doing of parents. That is very concerning if that is the case, because that is a significant amount of money, and it is a significant amount of sanctions, and there are large numbers of children potentially affected by the sanctioning of their parents’ income. I would like to invite the Minister to take a call—if she could—to explain, perhaps, the rationale behind that $128 million figure, and whether, in fact, we can take that in the Committee to be, if you like, a guarantee by the Government that that is the level of sanctioning that it is expecting to apply, because that seems very significant to me.

I must say that while the Greens do take issue with many of the substantive provisions of this bill, this Supplementary Order Paper was, in fact, simply seeking to add in an additional level of protection. I would have thought it was something that all members of this House could support, or at least see the merit in, given that all it does is provide discretion—not even requiring the chief executive of Work and Income to exercise this discretion, but simply gives them the option not to apply the sanction if it could be deemed not to be in the best interests of that child. That seems to me very important, both from the perspective of child well-being but also to comply with our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and I am referring here to article 27, which talks about the rights of the affected citizen in need of social security to be able to support themselves and their children. There is a risk, I think, that if we allow this bill to pass—

I wanted just to respond to the member, Holly Walker, around the financial veto for her Supplementary Order Paper 77. She called it a discretion. The first thing I would say is that the way it has been interpreted is that it is not really a discretion as such, particularly in respect of not recovering any sum comprising part of a debt. I am referring to clause 35A to insert a new section 86 (9C): “(a) the debtor has 1 or more dependent children; and (b) the chief executive is satisfied that recovery of the sum may deprive …”. We do not see that as a discretion. It actually will limit our ability, at some level, and it will be suspending debt recovery. So that is a big part of the financial veto, and it is because of the way that it is written that we cannot accept it. The advice I have had is that there would be a substantial, long-term financial impact if we did not recover any debts or overpayments from someone. We actually do have a huge amount of overpayments that happen, sometimes because someone does not alert us soon enough that they have got a job or that their situations have changed; sometimes it is the systems themselves. As you can all understand, we usually try to err on the side of the beneficiary getting their money, and sometimes that means we overpay them by a week or two. We are better off to recover that and let that happen. Most of our overpayments are actually only for about a week so they are not the huge debts that some people think that they are, but they accumulate and they are incredibly high.

To be fair, around the sanctions as well, the estimates that I have had from the department—even though the Minister of Finance with his advice from Treasury has gone for the figure of $128 million—the advice that I have had is that it could cost between $200 million and $300 million over 4 years if we did not impose sanctions on anyone and with that debt recovery. The other reason is the behavioural changes, and that is why we have sanctions, quite frankly. We have sanctions so that we get behavioural changes and so that the obligations are actually fulfilled. If that was not so, then, quite frankly, we would not sanction, because it is for no other reason than to have those obligations fulfilled and to see the changes that we are looking for.

The other thing I would bring to the member’s attention is that, actually, the protection that she is talking about and that level of discretion already exists. It is in the legislation; it has to be good and sufficient reason. As such, I would say that there is the discretion, and it is actually used as well. To give an actual example of that, there are many cases where someone does not make an appointment, does not turn up to an interview, does not turn up to training or something that they were supposed to, and they do not give us a reason until we go to sanction them. Then they inform us that a child was sick or that there was a good reason, and for that reason we do not sanction them. So they have not actually done the activity they were supposed to; however, we see good and sufficient reason not to actually administer that sanction. I can tell you that in literally thousands of cases, we do not, for those very reasons. There is a level of discretion. It is used, quite rightly, and that will remain.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would ask you to look at Standing Order 317 that relates to the financial veto certificate that has been tabled relating to two Supplementary Order Papers, from Jan Logie and Holly Walker. I would like you to look at what the Standing Order says, and then look at the certificates that have been provided by the Minister of Finance. We have just had an explanation from the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Social Development, as to why a veto has been applied, and that is all very well. But when you read the Standing Order, it says the certificate by the Government “must state with some particularity the nature of the impact on the fiscal aggregate or aggregates concerned and the reason why the Government does not concur in the bill, amendment, or motion.” If you read the certificates, they do not give any explanation at all. While it is very nice for the Minister to tell the members of this Committee why there is a veto, I do not believe these certificates are adequate in informing the Committee, in line with Standing Order 317. Just to say that it is going to have an impact on the operating expense, and give a number but no explanation, in my view, does not meet the test that is meant to be applied in Standing Order 317. I would ask you to look at it. I believe these ought to be withdrawn and rewritten to meet the Standing Order, because, as they are, there is no explanation or particularity in their reasons given to this Committee.

Can I thank the honourable member for her dissertation on the situation regarding the Government’s financial veto. I am advised that it is covered under Standing Order 322(1) and (2), and, in fact, what we have here that has been lodged by the Minister is the standard form for any proposals to implement a financial veto. This is the standard form.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I accept that it may have been a standard way a certificate has been provided for a financial veto, but I am asking you to look as to whether, in fact, we have been doing it appropriately in this House. Maybe it has never been brought to attention before, but I do not believe it meets any of the Standing Orders, including the ones you have just quoted, Mr Chairman. It does not provide what the Standing Order asks it to provide. If it has been done like this in the past, then, in my view, it has not been done correctly.

I am advised, looking at the certification upon Standing Order 322 relating to amendments proposed to be moved in a Committee of the whole House, that under the standard format supplied there is a paragraph here, which I would point out to the member. It is under “Impact on fiscal aggregate(s) concerned and reason for the government not concurring:”. It reads: “The proposed amendments would impact on the Crown’s fiscal aggregates by increasing the Crown’s total operating expenses and level of total Crown debt by approximately $128 million over the forecast period.” That is why the Government has implemented its veto, because of the increase in costs to the Crown.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I want to raise two matters. One is to endorse what my colleague Annette King has said about the question of what due particularity is, but I also wonder whether these certificates are in order at all, because they begin by citing Standing Order 317. Standing Order 317, as I read it, in what I think are the latest Standing Orders, is, in fact, a Standing Order that relates to disallowance motions from the Regulations Review Committee. The headline mentions Standing Order 322, but I do not actually believe Standing Order 317 is at all relevant to this particular matter, and I would suggest to you, Mr Chair, that these certificates are, in fact, completely out of order, because they are not given to the Committee under the correct Standing Order.

I can only relate again the advice that I have been given, and that is about the financial impact to the Crown of $128 million over the forecast period. I have been advised that also in this particular lodgment from the Government, where it refers to Standing Order 317, it is in fact a typographical error. That is what I have been advised.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It may well be a typographical error, but I think that means that the certificate is out of order. It does not achieve the purpose that the Government wants. A certification clearly would have to state the Standing Order under which it is being put in, and I believe that that, typographical or otherwise, means that these certificates are not in order and therefore do not apply.

If it would so please the Committee, I would be happy to go away and take advice and make sure that we have the correct Standing Order there, and make sure it is at the attention of the Committee. We have got plenty of time to do that. The Committee will go about its business and we could remedy that.

💬 Hon Annette King: Speaking to the point of order—

Just before I call the member, I have been advised that instead of Standing Order 317 it should be Standing Order 322. That is a fact. So the member has made a very valid point.

I was just going to point that out. I think an old edition of the Standing Orders from 2008 was used instead of the most recent one. But I would still ask for advice to come back to this Committee via the Chair or an official of the Committee as to whether there is enough particularity given by just saying: “It’s going to be this amount of money—we veto it.” I do not think that meets the test of “some particularity”; it is just a figure. There is nothing given to us as to how they added it up and what they included in it, and I would like us to have a considered ruling on that at some stage.

Can I thank the honourable member. What we will do is we will check with Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand and we will certainly come back and inform the member the situation as it currently is.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I want to thank you and the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Social Development, for undertaking to correct the certification. Can we then take it that for the time being, while this debate is under way, the Supplementary Order Papers from Holly Walker and Jan Logie remain on the Table? Can I take it from you that they are now live, subject to the Minister returning to the Committee?

The Minister has indicated that that is fair enough.

While Holly Walker’s Supplementary Order Paper remains live, one question I want to raise is whether or not, perhaps, the member may consider splitting the two clauses that are sought to be amended in this Supplementary Order Paper. It seems that at present the financial veto hangs quite closely to the recovery of payments made in excess of authorised rates—the section 86 amendment. The Minister for Social Development has given an explanation that suggests that the financial veto is because this provision would incur a cost on the Crown because of its inability to do debt recovery. I think that sits quite separately to clause 37A, because debt recovery allows the discretion of recouping costs from an individual at a very low rate over a particular period of time, whereas clause 37A, in contrast, instead gives the discretion to the chief executive not to impose a sanction—and a sanction is quite a bit more onerous in terms of the amount of money it would remove from an individual than, for instance, debt recovery.

This Supplementary Order Paper talks about giving discretion to the chief executive not to impose a sanction on an individual if they have not complied with their work obligations if the chief executive determines that that sanction would deprive a child of food or shelter or would be otherwise detrimental to the well-being of a child. The Minister, when she referred to this amendment, suggested that that could come at a cost to the Crown of between $200 million and $300 million. That was not stated in the financial veto, so I would expect that if the department is going to go away and rework that financial veto, if that indeed is the cost of this discretionary provision that could be incurred by the Crown, that should be included in the financial veto. I would be extremely surprised if using the sanctions set out in section 117 of the Social Security Act meant that $200 million to $300 million per annum in sanctions was being imposed on those on the domestic purposes benefit with a dependent child. If that is the case, this Committee should know about that.

We are not talking about incremental sanctions here. What we are talking about is if an individual on a domestic purposes benefit refuses to take up work—for instance, when their child is 1 year old, potentially, if they have had a second child, if they refuse to take up part-time work, as instructed by the Ministry of Social Development, under the Social Security Act, section 117, the sanctions that the chief executive must apply in respect of those failures is: “(i) the person’s benefit must be reduced by 50% until the person recomplies; and (ii) if the person has not recomplied within 4 weeks after the date on which the reduction took effect, the person’s benefit must be reduced by a further 50% (so that the total reduction is 100%) …”. A second failure and a third failure finally means the cancellation of a benefit. These are not incremental sanctions; they are significant.

If the Minister is telling me from the chair that imposing the ability of a chief executive to have discretion over the use of those sanctions where a child is involved would cost the Crown $200 million to $300 million per year, then I would be interested in that. If that is not true, I invite the Minister to clarify her statement when she rises from the chair, because otherwise I would have assumed that the cost to the Crown of giving discretion to a chief executive would not be that significant—certainly not enough to warrant a financial veto—because it is ultimately a discretionary power, because it relies on the individual circumstances being taken into account. What we are asking is that the chief executive take into account whether or not the sanction would have an undue impact on a child, if involved, where a sanction is being imposed. I think it was a very reasonable amendment. I would like to see it considered separately to the amendment relating to the recovery of payments, and perhaps if the Supplementary Order Paper is still live, the member may have a chance to submit that amendment on a Supplementary Order Paper separately, and it may therefore be salvaged from a financial veto, unless the Minister can explain where those figures she used came from.

I would like in my remaining time to speak to a couple of other parts of Part 3. Of course, these are the substantive parts around work-testing provisions. We have already—[Bell rung] Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Jacinda Ardern.

Thank you. I am pleased to finish my substantive points on Part 3. Obviously this part brings in work-testing provisions and is an extension on the Government’s existing programme. Future Focus was the first tranche of work-testing reforms that the Minister brought in, so we do already have some evidence to suggest what is happening, particularly with those on the domestic purposes benefit, around declared earnings, because that is basically the measure we can use to assess whether or not those on the domestic purposes benefit, when extra work-testing is being applied, are moving into part-time work.

Interestingly enough, the figures when Future Focus was introduced sat at around 16 percent of those on a domestic purposes benefit having some declared earnings. Although there have been some incremental changes, it has not moved away from being roughly between 16 and 17 percent. So that does suggest that work-testing provisions are still very heavily dependent on the nature of work available. When you are in a recessionary environment, obviously the availability of work is affected, but so is the nature of the work that is available. In particular, demand—we have seen from the household labour force survey—for additional hours has increased significantly. The number of people taking on part-time work has increased. Therefore the number of available part-time jobs for those who are having part-time work tests against them—that pool of jobs—is reduced. I would say that that would be my assessment of why we have, even when new work-testing regimes are being introduced, very little movement around those who are declaring additional earnings. In fact, if you want to see where there was a significant increase in declared earnings, the last time—and I am going from memory here—we saw it sitting higher than that was roughly 2006-07, when, from memory, it was sitting at about 20 percent.

The economy and the nature of the job market certainly matters, and we have implored the Government all the way through here to consider allowing greater flexibility in the imposition of sanctions because of the nature of the economic environment in which these measures are being imposed. So that is why I would contend that Supplementary Order Papers like those from Holly Walker are very fitting, given what the evidence suggests is happening in our job market at present.

The second point that I want to raise in Part 3 is that, given the nature of the economic climate matters, given the ability to demonstrate the education and skills required for the jobs available, and given that the third issue we know that affects the ability to fulfil work-test obligations is childcare arrangements, I am interested as to whether or not the Minister for Social Development considered the extension of the subsidy for childcare, which she has—I think rightly—extended for teen parents. So the subsidy now sits at $6, which we are told by the Ministry of Education should substantively cover the cost of childcare for those teen parents. Did she consider extending that to a wider range of domestic purposes benefit recipients? I do commend the Government for that subsidy increase, but there are a large number of DPB recipients who would have benefited enormously from that extension being applied to them also. Was it simply a fiscal consideration? Was it not considered necessary for the over 90,000 who have sole parent obligations? I would be interested in that from the Minister.

I also have a question for the Minister around the discretion used by Work and Income when it is making a decision over a part-time work-test obligation versus plans establishing planning for employment, and whether or not there is a hierarchy between the two. I would like to give an example. I recently had a case brought to my attention where a DPB recipient wanted to enter into training in order to complete a nursing diploma. She needed to seek some assistance from Work and Income in order to enter into that programme. The information she received from Work and Income was that it was not interested in assisting with that because she was already in part-time work, and as far as it was concerned that was the goal that it had for her as a welfare recipient. She was still dependent on the domestic purposes benefit. She had only 10 hours of work per week and it was not enough to sustain her and her child. She felt that without getting the training required to move her into a higher-wage job, she would for ever remain dependent while her child was of school age at least. Minister, I would be interested to see whether or not—

As a former police officer I rise to take a call on Part 3 of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill with a degree of pride in the way the Minister for Social Development has gone about addressing some of the substantive issues that our welfare system has brought upon our communities in recent decades.

Part 3 largely deals with work testing and obligations, and there are some very positive changes being made in this bill in this particular space. Essentially it goes to the core of what this bill is really about—that is, if you can work, you should work. In particular with young teen mothers, when the work is suitable and available, then that is exactly what should be happening. We have heard very much from the other side during the Social Services Committee’s hearing of submissions—not surprisingly—about poor young mothers being forced into work because of this bill. We have also heard about how harmful this will be to their children and to the mother and that being forced into work against their will is something counter-productive to both. That would be fine if that mother did not expect the taxpayer to pick up the bill for her lifestyle on an ongoing basis. It also asserts a somewhat romantic notion that these teen mothers are all model parents and always act in the best interests of their children. That may be one end of the continuum, but I can tell you now as a former police officer, the other end—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Sorry, Mr Chair. I can tell members, as a former police officer, that the other end of the continuum is not nearly as rosy. Far beyond that, the sad reality is that many young 15-year-old girls at school now see having a child and a taxpayer-funded benefit as a legitimate career option. Just as many will go on to think that having subsequent children is a means to perpetuate that particular lifestyle. This end of the continuum is where children are having children, and is where so much of the child abuse and neglect that this country has developed a reputation for occurs. If the members on the other side of the Chamber making noise now do not agree with what I am saying, then I would suggest that they should hop in a patrol car every now and then and take a ride-along and see what they see out there. The quicker we can get these young mothers into work and their children into childcare the better they will be and we all will be.

Part 3 deals with the obligations and a far stronger work focus for these young people, with 100,000 sole parents on the DPB, with 50 percent having a child over 5, with some 11,000 children over the age of 14, and 29 percent of women having second and subsequent children while on the benefit. This bill introduces work testing for part-time work for mothers on the DPB with children aged 5 and over. It also brings in full-time work-testing for those with children 14 and over. This part of the bill also requires sole parents who have a second and subsequent child while on the benefit to be available for work after 1 year. That caused some degree of concern from those on the other side, as it did with some submitters. It was almost inhumane, we heard, and terribly damaging to both child and mother. Well, how is that any different from a mother who returns to work after a year of maternity leave and goes back into the workforce? How is that any different? Are those mothers abandoning their children? Are they poor mothers because of those decisions? Or is it that they are just getting on with what they do and earning their way in this world?

An expectation to be preparing for work, to be ready for work, and of being work tested, and providing obligations and a better balance between the rights and responsibilities, are all things that I believe are long overdue, and I support and applaud the Minister on her effort in this bill in that regard. These are steps that send the right signals that help change the culture. This bill has been about the first substantive move that has been made in welfare for a significant amount of time, and the smiles from the other side of the Chamber really indicate to me that there is a party that would have done exactly the same thing had they had—

Mr Chairman, thank you for a wise decision—another one. Well, I think Mr Sabin is right. I think he is absolutely right, and I think he spills the beans. He spills the beans on the perspective of this Government that is driving this bill, the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill.

I want the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Social Development, to tell Mr Sabin and tell this Committee how many 15-year-olds have had babies. How many, Mr Sabin? How many does that member know of—just quickly? I wonder how many there are, but he applies his prejudice. He applies his prejudice; he gives the lie to this Government’s perspective. I just wonder whether he has really thought about this, because this is really the evidence that what drives this measure is not a better outcome for our children, a better outcome for our young people, or a better outcome for our mothers.

What drives this measure is the punitive attitude that Mr Sabin personifies in this House. If the Minister for Social Development does not agree with it, I invite her to comment on that speech—that that speech, indeed, is not a speech that the Minister would endorse. The Minister should, in this Chamber, now, dissociate herself and her Government from that pathetic speech—because it is actually quite damaging. However, that is his prejudice and his bias.

Let us start with the comments of the Minister for Social Development. The Minister quoted figures last night and she started with them again today. This also, in a sense, is an anchoring evidence base that the Minister speaks so much about for some of the provisions of Part 3, around work testing, when the child is of a particular age. The Minister said that 68 percent of sole mothers with children aged 14 currently work, and it is 83 percent in respect of those in partner relationships.

This is the evidence that says that therefore it is OK to apply that same test to sole mums in every case. That is the test in every case. But by the Minister’s own figures, 32 percent, or one in three sole parents, find it necessary to stay home and look after their children. Possibly, the percentage of others may be even greater—I do not know. But at least 32 percent, or one in three sole mothers, decide, on the basis of their knowledge of their children, their knowledge of the needs of their own young adolescents, and their knowledge of what is available in the communities in which they live, that they ought to be at home with their young children.

What this Government is doing is actually taking away that option from people who for a period rely on benefits to live. For somebody with a child who is 14, it is probably not too long before they get into full-time work, anyway. So 32 percent actually find it necessary to stay at home to look after their children. The Minister ought to know that, because her ministry has done the figures. Who are these people? What are the conditions in which they find it necessary to stay home and be with their 14-year-olds? That needs some explanation as well.

You see, what is wrong with this particular approach, which is reflected in the provisions of Part 3, is that there is no sustained logic as to how this can be applied in a way that will achieve the kinds of results the Minister wants to achieve. The Minister talks a lot about evidence—about evidence-based work and evidence-based policy. But at a critical time in a young person’s development, age 14, one can expect, or guess at least, that for some of these parents—and I use the Minister’s figure of 32 percent—their children would have developmental needs, and those parents are meeting those needs by being there.

The Minister is saying, no, that option is not available any more under the provisions of Part 3 of this bill. I think that is something that is particularly worrying to this side of the Chamber. It is not only worrying but it is why we are not supporting these provisions with a lot of passion, I tell Mr Sabin—because our experiences are quite different. I want to talk a little bit more about the Government’s approach—

Thank you for the opportunity, Mr Chair, to speak a little bit further to Supplementary Order Paper 77, which has been such a point of contention so far in the debate. I want to thank the member Jacinda Ardern for her contribution earlier and for her suggestion about splitting the amendment into two separate Supplementary Order Papers, which I have done and will table in the Committee at the conclusion of my call. The reason for doing that, as outlined by Jacinda Ardern, relates to the justification given by the Minister for Social Employment for the financial veto. It seemed to me that a large emphasis was placed in that justification on the changes relating to what would be new clause 35A in respect of the recovery of debts, so I have separated that amendment into a separate Supplementary Order Paper. If the Minister would like to use her discretion, as we would like to offer the same discretion to the Chief Executive of Work and Income, to take into account the impact on children, then she is able to do so in considering these two amendments separately.

I just want to speak a little bit to the implications of what it means if the Government decides to apply its financial veto to both of these amendments, and to extrapolate out, and perhaps tease out a little bit for the benefit of the Committee and those listening, what exactly the Government has conceded in choosing to apply the financial veto to the amendments. As we have heard from the Minister, she believes that, I think in relation to both the recovery of debt and the imposition of sanctions, if Work and Income was not able do those things—to recover those debts or to impose those sanctions—there would be a financial cost to the department. That is true, and I accept the Minister’s rationale on that, but I think it is very important that we tease out the conditions in which sanctions or that debt recovery would not be applied.

If we look at the Supplementary Order Paper, it refers to situations when a sanction “may deprive the child of food and shelter, or would otherwise be detrimental to the wellbeing of the child.” The Minister has assumed that this Supplementary Order Paper would not allow Work and Income to apply sanctions or recover debt in any situation, ever. She has assumed that it would rule out all circumstances of Work and Income being able to do that. What that means is that the Government has effectively acknowledged, in exercising its financial veto, that to do so would deprive the child of food and shelter and would be detrimental to the well-being of the child.

What the Government has basically admitted is that the provisions in the bill, as it is currently drafted before the Committee—the sanctions that it would impose on sole parents—would be detrimental to the well-being of children, because if we had an amendment that gave Work and Income the discretion not to do it, the Government has assumed that it would not do it. Let us think about that for a minute. If we gave Work and Income the discretion not to apply sanctions because it might be harmful to children, the Government has assumed that Work and Income would take that discretion and not apply those sanctions. Well, what does that tell you about the sanctions in the bill? It tells you that they would deprive children of food and shelter and would be detrimental to the well-being of children. That is what the Government has admitted in choosing to use its financial veto on these provisions.

That is significant. That means the Government, despite using the rationale of trying to improve outcomes for children as part of the rationale for even making these welfare reforms in the first place, has acknowledged by way of this financial veto that, in fact, the sanctions are detrimental to children and would deprive them of such basics as food and shelter. That is extremely concerning, both from a child’s perspective and, as I mentioned earlier, from the perspective of making sure that we meet our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states that the affected citizen in need of social security needs to be able to support themselves and their children.

What we have effectively had from the Government is an admission that the sanctions in this bill deprive people of the ability to supply the basics for their children. That is very concerning. That means that when the sanctions regime outlined in this bill is applied, parents will no longer be able to supply their children with the basics—with food, with shelter, with a warm, dry home, with clothes, with shoes, with raincoats.

I am looking forward later on tonight to hearing from Julie Chapman, née Helson, who is the Chief Executive of KidsCan, who is coming to speak to a cross-party group of MPs.

I wanted to speak to a couple of things that have come up in the debate so far, and just sort of see where we are. In response to Mr Prasad I just want to say that, actually, there is an exemption for high-needs children. It does not answer all of his questions, but there actually is. There is an absolute exemption there that does acknowledge those who are over 14 who are at home and need a parent there; they can get that.

In response to Holly Walker as well—and I will just get her Supplementary Order Paper so I am giving the wording correctly—she says: “the chief executive is satisfied that recovery of the sum may deprive the child of food or shelter, or would otherwise be detrimental to the wellbeing of the child.” The actual problem we have with that is a case manager cannot make that judgment, either sitting at the desk with the person in front of them or, many times, without them in front of them. They cannot make that kind of call, so they will eschew doing it. That is the truth of it. So you are quite right when you said they are likely to fall on the part of, but it is not because they are necessarily concerned about the deprivation; they just cannot make that judgment based on the information that they have. So as a consequence, they will not. I can go through the financial details if you like, but, to be fair, in terms of the sanctions, the estimate that they have is that it would cost between $200 million and $300 million over 4 years if they do not impose those sanctions. As I say, the practical effect of this change would be to largely prevent Work and Income from applying sanctions and undertaking debt recovery for anyone with dependent children.

I also wanted to go into other parts of this part, which are relatively substantial; we have been making our way through them, I think, very well. That is certainly so around having subsequent children while on benefit, which is a topic all in itself, as we know. To give some of the facts around having subsequent children while on benefit, data shows that 28 percent of those receiving the DPB included additional newborn children in their benefits. Actually, 5 percent had two subsequent children, 2 percent had three, and 5 percent had four or more children while on the DPB. As at November 2011, 26,000 women receiving DPB had included an additional newborn child in their benefit at least once since 1993. So looking at that, when we say there is not a problem, the reality—and I do not have this figure right in front of me—and from what I was seeing as well, is that there were about 5,000 births for those on DPB as well in recent months.

The effect we have here, and the reason for it, is that—like, I am sure, many members of this Committee—we are quite concerned about particularly those mothers and their children. I do not think anyone sits here and thinks that it is a life of luxury on the DPB and that those on it are doing incredibly well. I do not think that is the premise, and it is certainly not where I am coming from as Minister when I look at this. But the reality is that the longer they keep having children on benefit, staying there, the longer they are likely to be there and be living in that kind of hardship, tough as it can be. So the best thing we can actually do for them is see them getting ahead in life and having options other than just welfare. A big part of this is making sure that there is childcare available, and a significant amount of money—in fact, around $80 million—is going into making sure that there is additional childcare for those mothers, and certainly for those teen parents as well, which I think is going to make a significant difference in making sure we have the support around them.

I want to talk about that work expectation stuff too, and getting work-ready. I suppose I have this kind of vision of when it has gone through for a while, because the reality is it is going to take a lot of time for it all to go through. As you see, when someone’s youngest is 3 or 4 years old and in 20 hours’ free childcare, they are able to get that training and they will be able to get that upskilling so that when their child is actually 5 years old, they can go into that job, and they have got a skill that they can give. It is worthwhile, and it has given them time to get ready. So there are substantial changes in this part of the bill, but ones that we think give that balance back to work testing.

There are also the changes for widows and women alone. That certainly was not made lightly, but when you look at a modern welfare system—and, quite frankly, some of this, when I looked at how archaic I think our system can be—there was a call that the widows benefit and the women alone benefit be changed and be brought into the new benefit categories.

Thank you for this chance to speak to Part 3 of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Again, there is quite a lot to say. I would just also like to follow up on my colleague Holly Walker’s previous speech talking about the financial veto, the use of that, and the cost of the sanctions. Although the Minister for Social Development has responded quite constructively around the issues of the Work and Income workers not being able to make that assessment in terms of the well-being of the child, I think that does not undermine the point my colleague was making about the welfare of the child.

I think we need to recognise that the Regional Public Health survey around healthy food costs, which came out earlier this year, showed that somebody on the DPB with two children, after paying the average rent in eastern Porirua, and providing the very basics of a healthy food diet, would have $100 a week left. That was looking at an income of the DPB, the accommodation supplement, and other tax credits. A hundred dollars a week would be left. It is not hard to see that a cut to a benefit—any cut to a benefit, let alone a cut of 50 percent—is going to affect a parent’s ability to feed, clothe, and adequately care for their child. I think that the Government’s admission of seeking savings, combined with that response, is quite clear evidence of that, and I think all of us in the House who have a real concern in terms of child poverty should be taking that quite seriously.

I would also like to just address the statement that has been offered many times about parents and families being better off in work. I think we have to really question why that is, because we know that two out of five families living in poverty in this country are working families. We know that families on welfare are living in poverty. That is without a question. But the response to that is not necessarily to push people into work. Maybe the sensible response to that is actually to lift things up from our base, to improve welfare payments, and, by virtue of doing that, to improve work conditions. That may be a more sustainable way of addressing child poverty, rather than cutting the base and pushing more people into the job market when there are not extra jobs, a situation that will actually undermine people’s ability to negotiate for the better wages and better conditions that would enable them to stay in work for longer. This bill is setting up for people an unsustainable, vicious cycle, which is going to keep them trapped in poverty, and that should be of concern to every member in this House.

I would also just like to speak to how these changes are a furthering of the Future Focus amendments, in terms of work testing for parents on the DPB, and how that seems to have been creating a bit more of a culture of disentitlement within the department. We are seeing that through an increased number of cases that are going to appeal where the original decision has been overturned, and through the anecdotal stories that we are hearing from people who are not being told about the discretion, and not being told of their actual basic entitlements. We are just hearing far too many of those stories for that not to seem to be a symptom of a culture of work testing—this belief that people should be in work at all costs.

I have raised it before and I am going to continue to raise the issue of discretion and domestic violence. There is a work-test exemption that is available for victims of violence. In February, I think it was, 22 people had been given that exemption. I know there are more than that—

Malo le soifua. I just want to address Part 3, clause 29 of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Clause 29 amends some definitions in section 3 of the Social Security Act and brings changes to introduce work availability expectation, essentially work testing. It provides the range of 10 to 20 hours a week for part-time work, or the range of 20 to 40 hours a week for full-time work. Sole parents must now, after their youngest child reaches the age of 5, find work within those ranges of hours. I want to ask the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Social Development, whether she believes that a sole parent working 10 hours part-time would be able to sustain that sole parent’s family on working those hours. You see, I have a problem with that. I maintain that families who are on the benefit want to work, and they want to work in a job where the pay enables them to sustain their families. And that is not what we are getting. I reiterate the report from the Inland Revenue Department yesterday, which said that 66 percent of women are looking for work but cannot find work that enables them to receive a pay that sustains their families. So when a range of working hours of 20 to 40 hours is regarded as full-time work, that causes me concern, and would cause many sole parents concern, because 20 hours at the minimum wage at the moment just would not be able to help that family meet their obligations with rent and electricity—and we all know that the increase in electricity prices is at the point where families are just not able to meet them.

The other concern I have is the number of employers out there who are prepared to provide that so-called flexibility to enable sole parents to be able to work those flexible hours. I suppose the question has to be—and this is a question that came from many submitters—whether the Government, if it is going to obligate those sole parents to find work in order to sustain themselves, should be obligated to guarantee those jobs, and to guarantee an income to enable a parent to sustain themselves.

You know, I suspiciously think, despite the Minister’s sincerity that we have heard, that the focus on this small group of people just begs the question of dog-whistle politics again. When you make a comparison of the costs that surround sole parents with the cost of superannuation, you see that superannuation takes about 50 percent of the total social spending, whereas the domestic purposes benefit takes only about 7.9 percent of social spending. So the Minister’s Government is deciding to turn a blind eye to the increasing superannuation costs, and is, instead, focusing on the cost of solo parents—and, by the way, in December 2011 only 2.8 percent of those receiving the domestic purposes benefit were under 20 years of age, so the argument about more and more young people going on the domestic purposes benefit just does not fit for the many submitters who have made submissions.

But I come back to clause 29. The number of hours that sole parents would be required to work just does not make me confident that a sole parent working 20 or 30 hours a week is going to be able to sustain that particular family, when you recognise the high cost of rent, the high cost of electricity, petrol costs, and the number of available jobs.

Just before I call the next member, I need to make a ruling, because a point of order was raised regarding the true validity of the certificates of financial veto that were tabled by the Government. Two points have been raised. Firstly, the certificates cite the wrong Standing Order in the text. Although this typographical error does not invalidate the certificates, I understand that the Minister has lodged replacement certificates correcting this error.

The second point is that the certificates have not satisfied the requirement to state with some particularity the nature of the impact on the fiscal aggregates and the reason why the Government does not concur with the amendment. I note that Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, by David McGee, states at page 450: “Provided that the certificate complies with formal requirements by stating with some particularity the nature of the fiscal impact, the Speaker or chairperson will not permit the Government’s judgment to be contradicted on a point of order.” In this case the formal requirement has been satisfied. The impact on the fiscal aggregates is clearly stated. The reason for not concurring with the amendment is one and the same—that it increases the Crown’s total operating expenses. My ruling is that the formal requirement of particularity has been satisfied. The Government has calculated a figure.

It seems that on the other side of the Chamber there is a concern that this Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill will just be like a blunt instrument, and used in a way that could again cause concern for a number of our communities. But that, quite clearly, is not the intent of this Government and never has been. What this Government has focused on in this bill is introducing a new system, a system of support, obligations, and financial assistance for its young people, and the bill does these two things: it extends work availability requirements and work preparation obligations for sole parents, widows, women alone, partners, and people requiring a main benefit. So, in essence, it is increasing work expectations, because prior to National’s Future Focus changes, 79 percent of beneficiaries had no work-test obligations. This figure is now about 64 percent, and will reduce to 60 percent with the changes introduced in this bill.

Currently 12 percent of our working-age population is on the benefit. We know that right across this Chamber we share the common goal of wanting to help, support, and create opportunities. This bill is National’s attempt—our exercising as a Government—to do this. It is important, what we are doing here. National’s investment is based on its approach to the benefit system, and it is shifting the focus to what people can do, not what they cannot do. One hundred and seventy thousand New Zealanders spent the majority of the past decade on benefits. That is bad for our children, bad for our families, bad for individuals, and bad for our economy as well.

The things that are important are these. People have asked me what the results are, so here are some of the results, just to remind those here. There are 10,400 fewer New Zealanders on welfare; 2,300 more on the DPB took up part-time work, so there is work available. There are not a lot of jobs, and, yes, we are trying to stimulate the economy, but there is work. A total of 13,000 people went off the DPB and into work. Fifty percent of beneficiaries did not require a single hardship grant. We keep hearing: “Where are the jobs?”, and, again, we have to keep on doing this just to remind the other side of the Chamber. There are 11,500 jobs on TradeMe, and 15,000 jobs on SEEK. Work and Income receives 1,300 to 1,500 vacancies a week from employers. There are jobs available. This bill is focused on one thing—changing the opportunities. It is saying that these work-test obligations in Part 3 of this bill are simply to create better opportunities.

Finally, as I finish this short call, one of the concerns I have been hearing from the Greens is about children. Well, we care about children—absolutely. There are supplements available, such as the accommodation supplement. There is the community services card. That is there. There are a number of supplements. And can I just remind the Greens that in one sense a number of our practitioners on the front line working for Work and Income do have a care and concern for the children to ensure that their needs are met. They will have discretion. No child should actually enter into those situations that the members have talked about. Instead, the greatest example that you can give to your children is to be the best that you can be. This is encouraging parents and caregivers to take up those opportunities of training, and of employment as well. I commend this part of the bill.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My point of order refers to the Government’s application of the financial veto to the two amendments in the Green members’ names. It is a new point, so it in no way challenges your ruling. I just wonder whether you would be able to give us a definition of “more than a minor impact”.

Particularly looking at Jan Logie’s proposed amendments, the Government states that this will impact the total operating expenses by between $5.9 million and $15 million per annum. Those are figures that can be underspent, overspent, or shifted in Budget documents without so much as any explanation as to why. I would think that by that definition it would be minor changes to the Government’s fiscal aggregates. I wonder, Mr Chair—and you may want to take some time about this—whether you could give the Committee some indication as to what the definition of “more than a minor impact” in reference to Standing Order 322 would be.

Thank you for your reference to Standing Order 322. Can I inform the Committee and the member that it is not for the Chairman to make that deliberation as to what the actual number or amount should be. It is a matter for the Government. In this case the Government has made that decision.

When I sat down earlier, the question I had asked the Minister for Social Development was in terms of her projections and how many sole parents she expects, through work testing, will receive part-time work, and how many sole mothers will receive full-time work within the range of hours that her bill, the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, identifies—10 to 20 hours for part-time work, and 20 to 40 hours for full-time work—as noted in clause 29. I want to also ask her about clauses 31, 33, and 36, which talk about the pre-benefit requirements. Sole parents will now be required to undertake activities prior to receiving the benefit. This is what we were advised by the officials as to pre-benefit activities. One was to undertake one or more of the stated pre-benefit activities—for example, firstly, attend and participate in an employment-related seminar or planning session; and, secondly, at any time before the benefit commences, attend and participate in interviews to which they are referred by Work and Income, and to accept any offer of suitable employment. It seems to me that if the Government is going to require people to do those sorts of things, then the public has the right to be asking this Minister how many sole parents will be guaranteed jobs that they can enter into. At the moment, if this is the pre-benefit activity that is designed, it simply means that they are being coerced, bullied, and pushed into it, without any guarantee that a job is going to be available.

The experience of some beneficiaries whom I have encountered is that they simply go from employer to employer, and ask those employers: “Can you sign that you don’t have a job, or that you will not accept myself applying for the job?”. To me, that does not provide any hope for people who want to work, who want to get off the benefit, and they are being pushed into jobs by this Government. There is nothing in the bill that says these sole parents or these people will get a job that will pay them a wage that can sustain their families. The fear is that if they go through this process but cannot get a job, then there is a strong possibility under this bill that they would be sanctioned and they would lose the benefit that they should receive.

Members on the other side seem to believe that a benefit for a sole mum, a sole parent, is a bad thing. Yet, if you look again at the fundamental purpose of the Social Security Act, the fundamental purpose of that Act is to provide support and help to those people who have care responsibilities. In this case, sole parents have care responsibilities to children—to children whom I consider to be the future leaders of this country. But, obviously, if a young mum or sole mum does not have a job, does not have an income, how on earth are we expecting them to live and to provide for their families? We are already seeing the ramifications of the austerity measures of this Government on people who do not have homes, who are living in caravans, who are living in poor, squalid conditions, and who even live in cars, I say to the Minister, but who do not qualify for any Government support under this particular Government. If this Government is going to push people into jobs, why does it not then obligate itself by ensuring that the jobs are there and by ensuring that if a mother is to find part-time work, she will be guaranteed an income?

Tēnā koutou katoa. Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I am delighted to have this opportunity to talk about Part 3 of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, because I feel like there is something missing and there is an education that obviously whoever drafted it missed out on. Where are the men? Do the people who drafted this bill know how children are conceived? The responsibility has not been clearly explained in the bill. All we hear is “bad woman, bad woman, bad beneficiary, bad mother”. That is the mien that is around the bill.

Whatever the intention, what Part 3 has achieved with the sanctions and the work testing is “bad mother”, because dad was not anything to do with it. There is no father in this picture. She conceived immaculately. She must take responsibility for having more than one child on the DPB, and that all by herself she got pregnant. There are no two people in this story. There is one, and she will pay.

Having worked with beneficiaries on a regular basis, with sole mothers, I would just like to say to the women out there who are listening that the Green Party does not hate you for having more than one child while on the benefit. Nor do we think that you did it by yourself, nor do we think that if you are not in work you are failing your children, nor do we think that staying at home with your children is a waste of time, and nor do we think that breastfeeding a child over the age of 1 is a bad thing. In fact, the World Health Organization says it is a really good thing. We would like to support you mothers to do just that. We do not happen to think that because you do not have a partner who can support you, you are a bad mother if you do not want to go out to work when you have a 1-year-old, a 3-year-old, a 6-year-old, or a 7-year-old and you are a sole parent.

I know hundreds of women who are being mum and dad. Everyone in this House knows them. They are doing double the work. [Interruption] Exactly. They are doing the work that two-parent families do. They are doing twice the work. If they have got an extended family or whānau who can back them up, maybe going to work is a great option for them, if they can find a job. That is fabulous. I have lived in Tai Rāwhiti and have seen woman after woman coming to our benefit service. All they want is to do a good job as a parent but they cannot afford to feed their kids, because not only is the benefit system too low but they are being work tested, and there is no work.

I invite the members who think it is easy to go and walk down the street of many of our small towns and ask for a job that is going to fit with your four or five kids if you are a sole parent. Go and ask for it, because that is what they are doing when they are work tested. They are going door to door, they are asking for a job, and they are ticking the box. But they are not getting a job, because there are only so many that fit neatly with the actual responsibility of being a good parent. If you decide that you will be home at 3 o’clock for your children, is that a failure? If you decide that your baby is going to be fed past 1 year old, are you a bad parent? And if you cannot get a job and you get sanctioned, who is going to benefit? No one is going to benefit at all.

Our whole society, when we attack mothers and children, fails. This afternoon I went to a seminar with KidsCan, which is an independent charity that says that one in 11 children is living in poverty. The organisation says that 15,000 children do not get enough food. Many of their parents are not bad people; they are people who do not have enough money, and job creation does not exist to help them get out of poverty. Instead of the Government focusing on how it can make Holly Walker’s Supplementary Order Paper too expensive, it would be really good if the Government recognised that there are many situations in the benefit system where the word “discretion” is very important.

When we had the special benefit—when case managers were encouraged to be human, rather than punitive—there was room to acknowledge the situation. I have probably spent more time in the Work and Income office than many people in this Chamber. I have spent a lot of time there advocating alongside people who found it really difficult to say: “I am not a bad mother. I want to stay home with my children and I need to stay home with them because one of them has asthma every third week, another one has a learning disability, and I’m feeding a baby.”

I do not know what world people come from when they think that motherhood, when you are a sole parent and you have got more than one child, is somehow a lifestyle. A lifestyle—that is one of the most offensive things I have ever heard, when I know the struggles of these women to try to live and to try to provide their kids with what I am glad to have provided for my daughter. I am a fortunate one, I am a blessed one, that I was able to get an education and to work. I have met so many women just as committed to being a parent as me who are now being punished.

It is an honour to speak in this Chamber. That speech from Catherine Delahunty about this legislation, the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, attacking women, coming from a woman, totally misrepresents the intent of this legislation and totally misrepresents the intent of the National Government to actually help those who are in need. I encourage that member to actually read the bill, to participate in the process—as she leaves the Chamber—and see what this is about. Work testing is about obligations.

💬 Holly Walker: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I believe that it is a convention of the House not to refer to the absence of a member, and the member just did that in his speech.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sure the member will take that into account.

I said “as she leaves the Chamber.” I did not note her absence. She was on her way out.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I have ruled, and the member cannot refer to the ruling once I have ruled. The member must withdraw and apologise for that.

Speaking to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, I have ruled. Just withdraw and apologise.

I apologise and withdraw. May I continue?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I asked him to withdraw and apologise, and he did.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, he did it backwards, and there is a required format.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That does not matter. The intent was clear.

Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr Mallard. What we heard was an attack on women, which this bill does not actually do. This bill has work testing as an obligation, because we know the evidence shows that work is good, that work can be good, and that work actually leads to better outcomes—not just for those women but also for the children those women support. We have heard today where the jobs are. Before I came to the Chamber I looked on SEEK and saw that there are 16,364 jobs out there.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: How many jobs?

There are 16,364 jobs.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: How many full time?

Full time—Mr Cosgrove wants full time: 13,149. Mr Cosgrove might want part time: 1,028. Mr Cosgrove might then ask about temporary jobs: 2,038. The fact is, those jobs are there. They are there, but some of those jobs require skills and that is why in this bill we require, as an aspirational goal, National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Where did you get the info, Sam?

It is also clear from the statistics—and I encourage the member to look at Statistics New Zealand—that 2,135,000 people are working, as at 31 March. More people are working in this country than at any time in our history—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Ha, ha!

—and Mr Cosgrove knows that. He laughs about it. He knows it. He knows that this Government has grown the economy 1.1 percent in the first quarter. He knows that historically we have got some of the lowest interest rates in our history. He knows that the inflation figures released this week have shown one of the lowest inflation rates. He knows that this Government is doing a great job of looking after our people.

We heard the arguments from Mr Sio around rent and electricity, but what we did not hear is that people also receive other benefits like Working for Families. There are—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have not been in the Chamber, and I acknowledge that in my absence there might have been an agreement to have a broader debate, but my understanding is that we are on Part 3 of the bill. I am just waiting for a reference to it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am monitoring it very closely, yes.

We were talking about work testing. Debate has been robust in terms of jobs. We have had members opposite ask where the jobs are. I have had to help them with some information and help them with some facts, because—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Who made these numbers up?

Those numbers are real, Mr Mallard. They are as real as “Charlie” block at Pāremoremo, where you and your mate might end up. They are real numbers, and I suggest that those members go to Statistics New Zealand and actually read what is going on in this country. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): It is inappropriate to call a member “chicken”. I will ask the member to withdraw that comment.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I apologise and withdraw.

I did not hear the comment. I did not see how I was abused. I am going to move along.

I am very happy to take a call in this Committee stage on Part 3 of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Specifically, I want to talk to clause 35 of this bill, and I want to talk about what it is that Work and Income is going to require sole parents on the domestic purposes benefit to do. What we have is a bill that introduces tougher obligations for sole parents to be in work, on the basis of there being outdated views of what people can and should do. We are being told that this is just a change to the system. We are seeing very much in this legislation the Welfare Working Group’s premise that sole parents have low rates of employment compared with the norms in other countries. That is reflected in this legislation. Well, what we do have—let us have a look at the reality of it—is more than 65 percent of those people who are on the domestic purposes benefit staying on that benefit for less than 4 years. Most people do not want to be on this benefit, and most people do not choose to stay on this benefit. Most people, contrary to what some members opposite think, do not see this as a lifestyle in which to revel in.

So let us actually have a look at what the reality of the problem is here and what it is that this legislation seeks to do. We in Labour are opposing this legislation, because we maintain that if employment opportunities are to be promoted for single parents, there are major issues that we need to confront and that we need to have a really real and realistic conversation about. Those issues are around the quality of the part-time work that is being offered, whether or not the flexible work options really do exist in reality, affordable access to early childhood education—and quality early childhood education—and, importantly, access to education and training opportunities for people who find themselves on this benefit.

We were told by the person who had looked up the interweb and found all these thousands of jobs out there that there are all these jobs out there, but the only fish-hook is that you might need some skills and training because some of them required you to have some qualifications. What do we see about these jobs being offered out there on the internet on Seek.com and Trademe.co.nz, the now official site for New Zealand employment statistics according to the member opposite? What we have is a piece of legislation that does not have the commitment—the real commitment—to the training required and the opportunities required to get people into quality work, and into the quality work that will put them on the path of being able to provide a good income for their families into the future.

We have a whole lot of rhetoric around this from members opposite. But what we see when push comes to shove is what we saw yesterday, when I put up a very reasonable amendment to Part 1 of this legislation that simply asked to include, as one of the options that Work and Income could direct young New Zealanders to, some of the courses being offered under the Skills for Canterbury package. But, no, what we have are members opposite who stand there and say: “We’re committed to getting young people to National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2.” Well, actually, what do you mean in reality?

We put up an amendment that was going to offer people some real choice, some real opportunity, and the real option to get ahead, and what we are seeing under clause 35 in Part 3 of this legislation is a whole lot of rhetoric around people on the domestic purposes benefit being compelled, and there being obligations on these people within this clause, to go out and seek work and training opportunities. But what we are seeing when it is put to the test with members opposite is that there is not a commitment to real and meaningful—real and meaningful—training and work opportunities that will get these people back into work. It just does not stack up and the rhetoric does not meet it.

We also have within this clause “a general obligation [for people on the domestic purposes benefit] to take all steps that are reasonably practicable in his or her particular circumstances to prepare for employment …”. Part of taking those practical steps when you are a sole parent is having adequate access to early childhood education. This is adequate—

I would like to follow on a little bit from that last speech from Megan Woods, looking at that commitment to getting people into work and what we consider work. I would like to remind the Committee of an ex - National Party member of Parliament Marilyn Waring and a book she wrote in 1999 called Counting for Nothing, which looks at how we value work, and also how we look at setting up our Government accounts. I would like to read a quote from an interview with Marilyn: “Purchasing domestic services for a household is productive; doing them yourself is not. ‘It’s so ironic—no it’s not, it’s sick,’ she said. If a man marries his housekeeper the GDP goes down.”

I think it is worth noting, in the context of parenting and in the context of running a home, that parents on the DPB are working—they are working. I had this feedback directly from some young people who were in relationships and had children, who were very conscious that they were being disincentivised from co-parenting by our current system. The way our system is set up, they are better off being on the DPB than they are on the unemployment benefit and co-parenting. That is pretty bizarre, and that is a factor in this reform. I think we should as a country really think about going back to some of those basics about the things we value. I think parenting is something that we should value, and we should put the money behind it. To say that paid work is everything—I think, really, we need to review that a little bit.

I would also like to add my voice to the critique of the idea about how many jobs are available and the idea that anyone can get a job if they want. To give an example from Christchurch, earlier this year the Canterbury District Health Board had 345 jobs going that they advertised, and they had 6,500 applications for those jobs. When I asked how many of the people who got those jobs had come off benefits, I was told that one person had been referred to those jobs by Work and Income, and was not suitable. They did not have the qualifications.

I think that is a pretty clear example of how those figures that have been thrown out that there are jobs available actually hide the complexity of the situation. For some people, there are not jobs available, and particularly not jobs that support them to be good parents as well as be in employment. I think for us as a country and for the future welfare of our entire country, the priority should be looking after your children rather than getting paid work. I think if you can do both, fantastic. That is a really, really good thing. You do not need obligations to do that. People who are able to do that, and who choose to do that, do that of their own volition. Most people want to work, either in an unpaid capacity that has meaning and is valued or in paid work.

💬 Mike Sabin: We want to support them to work.

Well, obligations are not necessary to support that. We see people transition into paid work when they are ready. We have also been told by the Ministry of Social Development, when we look at childcare, that having standards around childcare would be patronising, because parents should be able to choose. Yet if they are choosing to stay at home and be around their children, that choice does not count. Where is the irony in that? It does not make sense; it is inconsistent.

I would like to also speak to the financial veto on my Supplementary Order Paper 78 to reinstate the training incentive allowance—$5 million to $15 million, we are being told it will cost.

I move, That the question be now put.

It was interesting to listen to some of the comments made by the latter speakers on the Government side. For Alfred Ngaro it was: “Do not worry, this is just a new system, and everything else is fine.” That is so simplistic—“It is just a new system and everything else is fine.” Of course, we all know that for Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga there are plenty of jobs out there, but I think he said there are only about 1,000 part-time jobs. If that is so, then, gosh, there is not much for 20 hours, is there?

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: They were casual.

Yes. Of course, “all is well” is the message, but when you look at this, this is social engineering. They are words that that side use. You know, it is what Mike Sabin has been saying. That is the kind of social engineering he wants, and the Minister for Social Development has not repudiated him yet. The moment she does, I will stop this criticism of Mike Sabin. But it is nanny State. It is like this: look, folks, if you are poor go out and get a job; if you have got children, tough, put them out somewhere else. That is what it is saying.

But, essentially, I think Jan Logie really said something that I want to develop a wee bit more, and she is absolutely right. What is the nature of work, and why is it so difficult for this Minister and members opposite to accept that bringing up children is work? It is difficult work. It is demanding, it is difficult, and we ought to support the people who are bringing up those kids. The fact that the children have been born is where we start. I say to Mr Sabin that there is no point punishing those children because their parents had them on their own, in the sense of having to rely on State support.

💬 Mike Sabin: How is going into childcare a punishment?

That is not the time to really punish those children. I will come back to that in a minute, Mr Sabin. That is where the approach is punitive and it actually has perverse effects. There is no leadership in all of this. This is not going to work. How do parents—

💬 Mike Sabin: Go back to Jan Logie; she made more sense.

Mr Sabin, how do parents parent? I want to talk about a family I know—in fact, my own grandchildren. My own grandchildren are 3½ and 9 months. My daughter is at home at the moment on maternity leave and looking after the two of them, and it takes her all her time. With a partner at work, it takes her all her time running, day and night almost, to keep those two kids, to give them the best that she can. Fortunately, they are doing particularly well. But to think that if a person like her was a solo parent, then she would have this work test. That work test would just be so punitive towards the great job she is doing at the moment and the children she is bringing up. Of course, the Minister said: “But we’ve got exemptions.” They are for high and complex needs. Minister, I want to remind you that this actually is a high test. It is a very high threshold for those high and complex needs tests, and if that is to be applied, then that is going to be a problem.

So here we are. This is a time when we know from all the studies that bonding is important, children’s brains develop so much, and parents being there gives them that opportunity. Anybody here who has had children knows that; knows that it was OK for us. It was OK for us, but because these children are, as Jan Logie says, the children of the poor, and because they are poor, then it is not good enough for them. I would just like to ask the members opposite to actually have a look inside your soul. Have a look inside your soul and do that.

But then, finally, the Minister—[Interruption] Have a good look, have a good look. But then I invite members to just take what the Minister has been saying. The Minister is saying she is into an investment approach. If this is an investment, then I do not know what kind of investment she is talking about. But if we did have an investment approach, let us get to these young people. Let us get to them sooner. Let us make an investment in them to understand about forming relationships, how to keep themselves safe, and how to do the kinds of things to prepare for a life of the type that you and I will all want for our children. Invest in that. That would be an investment and that would be giving our children the best start in life. But, no, the investment here in childcare is going to be in something like what the Minister said yesterday. She said: “Well, of course, the parents are in the best place to decide.” So, if the only option we can give them is, what is it, babysitting clubs—

I move, That the question be now put.

There are several clauses in Part 3. I now come to section 60P(c), in clause 35, which says the purpose of this section is “to improve social and economic outcomes for them and their dependent children.” I think we all agree in this Chamber that to improve social and economic outcomes you have to provide an income to families so that they can support themselves, first and foremost. Secondly, to improve social outcomes for sole parents with children you have got to have a parent who is available to young children, full stop. That is the argument that some of my colleagues have been putting forward. This Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill by this Government does not recognise, when it should recognise, that the role or the job of parenting, of looking after children, is critical. This Government does not recognise that. So that is the first point. It comes back to the argument we have advanced that for this Government to achieve an improvement in social and economic outcomes it has got to provide jobs. It is as simple as that. But not just any job; it has to be jobs that provide incomes for families to sustain themselves. That is the point that has to be made.

If you look at section 60Q(3), in clause 35, it lays out the list of activities that will be required of people on benefits—sole parents, in particular—and what the bill enables the chief executive to do to sole parents. The first point is “(a) to undertake planning for employment:”. Well, that is fine—planning for employment. But the big question is whether planning for employment will guarantee that a sole parent or a person on a benefit arrives at a job that will support their families. That is the question.

The second point—paragraph (b)—is that the chief executive will determine what activities the beneficiary should participate in, and the first activity listed is work assessment. All right; you assess the person for the kinds of skills they have, then try to match that person with a job. I submit that if it is true what the other side is saying about supposedly 60,000 vacancies being available online, then how come, if there are those opportunities, we still have got 160,000 people unemployed? How come women’s unemployment rate is 7.1 percent? I am referring to that particular activity of assessing people for work; it does not guarantee the person a job.

Paragraph (b) also suggests “a programme or seminar to increase particular skills or enhance motivation:”. That suggests to me that this Government does not think that sole parents, or the unemployed, are motivated enough to go and find work. Well, I do not accept that, and I think the Government is wrong. Another activity is “(iii) a work-experience or work-exploration activity:”. What does that mean—work experience or work exploration activity? Subparagraph (vi) allows “any other activity (including rehabilitation) …”. Why is that? Then subparagraph (v) provides for “an education programme:” and (iv) provides for “employment-related training:”. The question I would ask is whether the Government and the department will ensure that any sole parent who is wanting to progress themselves through an education programme that will lead to the achievement of a degree—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: A bit like the Minister.

Yes. Well, that is right. Once upon a time she was the beneficiary of support by the Government, by the State, of the education degree that she received. For any other sole parent wanting an education programme as stated in subsection (3)(b)(v), will the Government pay for it? Will the Government support a sole mother who wants a degree? Because if it will, then good—

I move, That the question be now put.

We now move to Holly Walker’s typescript amendments to insert new clauses 37A and 35A, as also set out on Supplementary Order Paper 77. These have been ruled out of order, as the Government has exercised its financial veto. We now move to Jan Logie’s amendment, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 78. This amendment is ruled out of order, as the Government has exercised its financial veto.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Moroney to clause 35 be agreed to:

after new section 60Q(3), insert:

(4) Where obligations under this section are placed on beneficiaries and their spouses and partners, the chief executive must make quality child care per subsection (5) and early childhood education per subsection (6) available to the beneficiary and/or their spouses and partners.

(5) Quality child care is defined as one that provides healthy environment that meet standards prescribed by regulation, the availability of registered professionals, and the appropriate ratio of caregivers to children prescribed.

(6) Where the child is 3 or over, the parent (beneficiary and their spouses and/or partners) must have access to registered early childhood education requiring services to be widely available in their area of residence prior to the obligations in section 60(Q) are applied to the beneficiary and their spouses and partners.