Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Mr Chairperson, for the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. We have made it very clear from the outset that Labour does not support this bill, but it was, indeed, our focus and our intention through the select committee stage to make the best of a bad lot, as it were. Even though we were not in agreement with what the Government’s drivers were in respect of particular aspects—like, for instance, the punitive, sanction-based nature of these changes—we did want to ensure that we could reduce the negative impacts as much as we were able. I want to speak to some of those changes today.

Before I begin I want to thank all of those who made submissions on this bill. It is fair to say that probably the most significant viewpoint that we heard—just in terms of the size, the scale of submissions—was from those parents in particular who wanted the ability to home school their children. That is something we will probably each individually canvass when we talk about this bill. But I think it is fair to say that the point the Social Services Committee reached was to add within the bill—it is technically covered by section 1A, amended by clause 5, which sets out the social obligations, but it is also referenced later on in the bill—the provision that, basically, if you are able to get an exemption from the Ministry of Education to home school your children, that will then allow you to be exempt from being sanctioned by the Ministry of Social Development if they are not enrolled in school. Or—my understanding is—if that parent is using the correspondence curriculum for early childhood education, then that will also have some application.

We may need some clarification from the Minister for Social Development on that because although that is certainly my understanding—that an exemption allows that distance learning curriculum to be used—some of our submitters believed that that has not been the final outcome. It probably would be very useful for us to clarify that here and now for those submitters, because I know that this is an area they feel very, very passionate about. So that is my understanding—that for anyone who has that exemption, be it across early childhood education and the specific curriculum there for distance learning, or an exemption for any other form of schooling, it will apply for the purposes of Work and Income. That is a really important point to make, because I know that for all members of the select committee, I think that was a good outcome on that particular issue, and we want to make it very clear to submitters what the resolution was there.

Coming back, though, to some of the wider context of the bill, it is important for me, from Labour’s perspective, to again reiterate that it has always been our belief that the social security system in New Zealand should be dignified, it should be active, and, of course, it should be work focused for those who are in a position to be able to work. We hold some differences of opinion from the Government as to whether or not that is actually what this bill achieves. When you look at those criteria within the context of the environment we are in at the moment—the 170,000 unemployed people seeking work—obviously it is a tough environment in which to be seeking work. In our view, that means that we should be looking to ensure that our active social security system is focused on upskilling and is less focused on being overly punitive for people who are trying to find work but are not having success in that search in this particular environment.

In that regard, I would like to touch on some of Part 1, specifically new sections 11E and 11H in clause 9, which set out the new pre-benefit activity requirements. It is unfortunate that in this country there is probably an assumption that if you lose your job, you just walk into Work and Income and from day one you are granted a benefit. That is not how it works. Of course, depending on the way that you lose your job, there may be a stand-down period, you will go through an extensive process with a Work and Income case manager, and you may be required to undertake pre-benefit activity. If you are in hardship, you can access emergency assistance directly—I should highlight that—but, ultimately, the majority of people will undergo some kind of pre-benefit activity. This bill further clarifies the range of pre-benefit activities that can be required of those on jobseeker support, sole parent support, or an emergency benefit.

Some of our concerns exist around the fact that we have never really analysed to much of a degree how useful and how tailored some of this pre-benefit activity is. Let us be specific. Subsection 3 of new section 11E states that it could include “attending and participating in an employment related seminar”. That could be a CV-writing course for a graduate. I have had graduates who have come into my office and said: “I was required to go on a long CV-writing course—I already had a CV. I knew how to write a CV. I’ve been required to go on computing courses—I’ve just finished an honours degree.” We must be more tailored in our approach to working alongside those job seekers to make sure that we are actually being useful in our engagement with them. None of that really was discussed at the select committee.

The pre-benefit activity, I have to say, is a broad-brush approach and is being misused currently. A young person who wants to go on a benefit at the moment is being told by Work and Income brokers that they have to go on a Limited Service Volunteer course. Technically, you could call that a pre-benefit activity, but it is not meant to be a compulsory course. Yet I know of young people who have been told that if they do not do the course, they will not access a benefit. That is not right.

It may also require them to undergo any other course that Work and Income feels is necessary. I know that some of our job seekers, for instance, cannot read or write, yet Work and Income’s contracting now with service providers means that some of those courses, which used to be quite lengthy courses, as you would expect for that degree of education, are now being chopped back, sometimes to 6 to 12 weeks. You cannot make a real difference in someone’s life with such short, sharp shocks, yet that is some of the pre-benefit activity we are talking about.

Our point is that of course we want an active system, but make sure it is tailored to the individual and not the benefit category. Make sure it is not a course for a course’s sake so you can fill in some kind of number and make everyone feel jolly that you are doing the right thing by someone. We have to make sure that these are useful interventions, particularly when there are sanctions attached to the back of them.

There are also a number of changes around the benefit categories via this bill, which I am sure a number of my colleagues will traverse today. They include the fact that anyone who is currently on an unemployment benefit, anyone who is currently on a sickness benefit, and anyone who is currently on a domestic purposes benefit with a child over the age of 14 will now go on to a job-seeker benefit. I can understand that this is a system that at the moment is overly complicated, is difficult to administer, and could have used some simplification, but by creating broad benefit categories and then overlaying on top of them some crude rules about what you can and cannot do when on those benefits, we again risk treating individuals as categories rather than tailoring our response to them—or, to use the Minister’s language, taking the truly individualised investment approach that she continually tells us about.

One of our biggest concerns is the limitations that now exist for people on jobseeker support to train, educate themselves, and get into a position of long-term sustainable employment. I have raised in the House before concerns that, for instance, someone who wants to do a longer-term course, say nursing, is now being told that they cannot engage in even part-time study, because they must be available and ready for work, and not necessarily full-time work. I have had cases of individuals who have been told to stop studying so that they can become available for part-time work, which would still render them reliant on the social security system. If our goal ultimately, as a Parliament, is to see people in sustainable, dignified, non-precarious work, then surely we should be setting people out on trajectories that allow them to get off the welfare system in the longer term, rather than the short-term approach that this bill, I am sad to say, further entrenches because of the oversimplification—the way we have lumped everyone in together in benefit categories.

The same could be said now for the lack of a true investment approach around particularly those who are seeking wellness to work. I mean specifically those who are currently on a sickness benefit or those who might be on an invalids benefit, but are soon to move on to supported living payments. There will be a subset of people within the current invalids benefit who will be job seekers, absolutely, who are looking for work.

I am talking to Part 1 of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, which really contains the nub of the Government’s arguments and the bulk of the provisions that this side of the Chamber has major difficulties with. When one considers those sanctions in particular and what Part 1 does, one has to start asking some very, very deliberate questions about the morality and the ethics of this approach to the most vulnerable in our society. This Minister for Social Development and this Government have taken a particularly punitive approach in the provisions in Part 1 of this bill. They are trying to couch that in the language of caring and the language of backing our most vulnerable. But in fact that does not wash with us at all. Underneath that, what this Minister and this bill produce is a far more complex system and far more hoops for our vulnerable to go through in order for them just to get enough resources to live by until their situation improves. I think that that is the centre of our criticism of this particular approach—the ethics and the morality that are contained in these particular provisions.

The Government had other ways of doing this. These are the people who are excluded in our society, by and large. What the Government is doing with its social sanctions is precluding them even more from participating in our society, preparing for work in our society, and preparing to lead their lives. That is objectionable. It is objectionable to us. Again, ethically and morally it has got holes in it. But what is also worrying is how we got to this point. How did this Minister make the argument—how did this Government make the argument—that this is what society needed? There certainly are no big savings from the bottom line of the Government’s budget in these provisions. I think it makes about a $20 million difference in the initial period in its budget. So it does not save a lot of money.

There is this promise that the Minister has talked about that, indeed, in time it will produce great wealth for our society. But it will not. Again, how much are we prepared to put our vulnerable through in order for them to receive the kind of assistance that our decent society ought to be giving our most vulnerable? The Government started by overstating the case for dependency. The Government has a view against those who rely on benefits for a period of time. So by overstating the case, designing its task forces to look at the dependency regime, it actually overstates it. It overstates welfare dependency to such an extent that it has created in our society this huge problem, which the provisions of Part 1 are now designed to help us get over. So the case for dependency has not been made. Yes, there are cases. Yes, there are a small number of cases of those who have gamed the system. But, as many people in this Chamber know, there are many, many more cases of people accessing the resources and the services provided under our benefit system that have given them the opportunity to get ahead with their lives, to look after their children, and to become great citizens of our society. There are many, many more examples of that, and yet by overstating the case we develop a punitive system.

That is, again, what the provisions of Part 1 are talking about. They are punitive. There will be, I predict, over time a whole army of people in Work and Income who will design a whole series of steps to monitor the small group of people who will learn even harder ways, even more entrenched ways, of gaming the system. That is where the game will be played out, and the most vulnerable will be caught in that. If the Government wanted to be sincere about addressing the needs of our most vulnerable, then it would actually develop a far more productive approach to what it considers to be the need to provide for our most vulnerable a pathway out of welfare and into work, and preparing for life independent of assistance from the State.

The other thing that the provisions of this bill do is underplay the complexities of our modern world and the complexities of what our vulnerable have to go through. Life is not easy for many of these mums, in particular, bringing up children. On top of that, what some of the sanctions do is make that life for them that much harder. Once children arrive in families, once children are there, there is not much point in being moralistic about how they got there. There are mums and dads who have to bring up these children and provide the best example possible. Yet what we find, for those who rely on assistance from the State in doing that job, which is a service to our society—I mean, these are our children. There are many leaders of our society who started life dependent on the State as children of sole parents. We ought to be supporting them better, but the provisions of Part 1 of this bill will actually make it more difficult for them. Even if the parents were the best people in the world to provide care for their children between 3 and 5, this bill says: “You’re not allowed to do that. You’ve got to be work-ready. You can’t do it on a full-time basis. You’ve got to go out and find at least a certain number of hours of work because that is good for you.” If you happen to be living as a couple where you are not dependent on the State, you have all the rights in the world to bring up your children in that way, but the provisions of Part 1 of this bill, when it comes to those sanctions around the compulsory use of childcare, actually are a travesty of that right that parents ought to have. We do not give up our rights to bring up our children in the way we want to, provided it meets certain basic standards, because the State tells us to do something else. So there is an absolute nanny State type of flavour to the provisions in this particular bill, and I, personally, object to this.

I know many of the people who have relied on the State to bring up children, and I object to this notion of tarring them all with the same brush because there are some cases of those who might not have used the resources particularly well. Life is complex enough for these families, yet these provisions will make it even more difficult for them.

So what are the provisions of Part 1 actually addressing? They are addressing some kind of bigotry that does exist in our society towards this group, and you hear talkback shows and talkback hosts, particularly in Auckland, pumping this up all the time—that here we are, these are the people who are taking away from us, as taxpayers, our wealth, so to speak, and therefore must be punished. We know enough from history that the pattern will repeat itself, because this is a punitive approach. This enables us to be negative towards our neighbours, because they draw their income from some other place. To then impose that on the most vulnerable, I think, is what is most objectionable in this particular bill and the provisions in this particular part, because we do know that if we did give them a decent opportunity to get started in life, things would be better.

I am convinced myself that there are enough provisions in the social security system at the moment to use a different approach—an approach that encourages people to prepare for work, to meet their childcare responsibilities, and to be guided, to the extent that they need to be guided, to provide the best environment. Yet here we are; we are maligning a whole group of people. We firstly malign them, then we subject them to denigration, we then call them bludgers, and then we put in place a punitive system. Later on in the calls I will take, I will talk more about those whom we respect in our society, who have come to the select committee and very, very unequivocally said that this is not the way to do things, because by doing it in this particular way, we will create an even worse environment down the road. If Governments think of just a short period of time, then we will come back and talk about those—

Fa‘afetai lava, Mr Chairperson. First, I would like to talk about clause 5 in Part 1 of this bill, the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Paula Bennett, the Minister for Social Development, concedes and accepts that some parents do not need to enrol their children in early childhood education. Although the provision in the new bill places emphasis on the need for beneficiaries to take all reasonable steps to ensure that their dependent child aged 3 years or over is enrolled at and attending an early childhood education centre until they start school, the Minister in the chair accepts that it may not be necessary for some—right? Thank you, Minister. I am glad that you are agreeing with me. So New Zealand First wants to know whether there will be subsidies for early childhood education. We also need to know whether early childhood education providers will be able to cope with the potential growth in enrolments.

Reports suggest that of the 220,000 children whose parents receive welfare, only 31,500 are 3 or 4 years old. Of this number the Minister has said that the test will apply to only, say, around about 20,000 to 25,000 children each year and that “The others we expect them to, but we won’t be checking up to see if they have.” So the honourable Minister has made it clear that the benefit payments may be halved if they fail to do this. Then later she said that “people who could not access early childhood education would not be sanctioned.”

Parents also have to enrol their children with a general practitioner to avoid sanctions. Implementing such a policy is problematic when the Government does not have the means to monitor all these children. I think recently there has been a case where screenings for children’s hearing have been recalled because of the lack of checks that had gone into that, and it just shows that there is a clear indication of a lack of resources being put into place to manage those kinds of situations.

It may mean a double standard within the system where only some beneficiaries are followed up while others are not, and it is obvious that if the Government does not have the resources, then the changes in this bill would not be cost-effective to administer. It is also evident that the Government is a little unsure about the direction it wants to take, because on the one hand it wants beneficiaries to comply with the rules, and on the other there seem to be loopholes where leniency may be granted on certain grounds.

More important, the Government is attempting to dictate to parents how to parent. This is the Government’s way of policing the way parents raise their children, and we do not think that that is necessary. How can the Government take away people’s freedom of choice when it comes to child rearing?

Ms Bennett, not every beneficiary is a bad parent, nor are they all drug users. I am sure there are a lot of parents out there who are good parents. Some families may not have the means to put their children through early childhood education, or maybe some providers do not have the space to allow more children to enrol. I know, being a parent myself, that when my children were young, even though there was availability of early childhood education, I felt more confident and very sure that my children were much better off with me than being sent to early childhood education.

New Zealand First is not trying to downplay the importance of removing drugs from the workplace, and especially from the home where young children live. I mean, that is a reason why I have introduced to the House a bill to address the issues of where children are exposed to criminal activities. What we want to see are some amendments to the proposed changes that will make them more practical if enforced into law.

This bill will contribute to draining more families across the Ditch. There is a variety of reasons as to why beneficiaries need State assistance. We believe that the State should be there in times of real need. We also expect beneficiaries to try to gain paid employment once they are capable of doing so.

This Government’s direction with social security sends out a clear signal to the rest of the country about its perception of beneficiaries. The Minister will foster greater difficulty for beneficiaries trying to make a better life for their families. She is deliberately shrinking the dreams and hopes of families who are receiving State assistance for the right reasons. The social obligations of this bill symbolise the dictating nature of this Government.

I now want to move on, in Part 1, to clauses 9, 11, 14, and 15—I am going to try to see whether I can fit them all in in 5 minutes. I wonder whether anyone in the Chamber remembers these words being spoken: “That is what I want for others—the feeling of being self-reliant in work and of saying to Work and Income: ‘Thanks, but I don’t need a benefit any more.’ ” I remember the Minister saying those words in her second reading speech on this social security bill. Although a dreamer can visualise the impossible at times with his or her dreams, a visionary can make these dreams come true. So I say to the Minister, does she know the difference between a dreamer and a visionary—does she know? On the jobs front, neither dreamer nor visionary is going to have any luck in this country.

The Government can try to fool us with the visage of good statistics and shed light on success stories that are meant to tug at our heartstrings. They are few and far between. The reality is that there is a lack of ears in the National Government to hear what we have said over the past year in regards to job creation.

When you rely on the economic might of Australia as an employment policy, you get the following results. A possible 1,500 job cut for information and communications technology specialists—what is going to happen? They move to Australia. A budget freeze on our front-line police—what is going to happen? They move to Australia. We have restructures happening within Government departments, forcing the expertise of many public servants to venture into overseas opportunities. They may as well take New Zealand’s wildlife with them. We have skilled workers being pushed out of their jobs, especially where the Department of Corrections actually needed to fit some of their prisoners into Release to Work schemes. What is going on here? An increase in the 50,000-plus annual exodus to Australia. A manufacturing sector under siege due to major Government procurement projects going to firms manufacturing overseas—I sure hope that this will not happen with our insulation industry.

Why is this Government working with a failed monetary policy approach, costing thousands of jobs in the export and manufacturing sectors? We cannot inflict these reforms under a new social policy when reality differs. Although National pays lip service to the country on its vision that the unemployment rate has gone down, this country’s reality states that we have an increase in the number of people going on to the benefit—we have.

New Zealanders have given up looking for jobs in this country. There has been no reflection on the fact that skilled workers are moving across the Ditch. They do not want to stay here and take on unskilled work. Furthermore, our tertiary and higher-education graduates are not sticking around to pay off their loans. The starting-out wage will see a fluctuation in job losses for older and experienced workers while employers seek to pay less for the same productivity rate.

Can I now also address Part 1, clause 39, amended section 88A, of this bill. This is about work-test obligations and drug testing. The bill before us today will attempt to make it compulsory for beneficiaries to undertake a drug test if they are considered to be at risk. The Government can sit there and play the pointing game and blame employers for wanting to drug test beneficiaries upon their taking up a paid job—and we do support the idea of drug testing—but, at the end of the day, responsibility needs to lie somewhere, and in this case it belongs with Paula Bennett and her bill.

New Zealand First considers drug testing to be important. We do recognise this. It is vital that employers feel comfortable to employ people who can be trusted to do the work. However, New Zealand First has concerns about how the Government intends to roll out this initiative, particularly with the way it will be administered and with the number of people involved.

I would like to focus my comments in the debate on Part 1 of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill in the Committee of the whole House stage on clause 25, new section 60RA, which concerns the social obligations of certain beneficiaries with dependent children. I would like to start by reminding the Committee of some documents that were tabled in the House last week by my co-leader Metiria Turei during question time. Those documents were advice from the Ministry of Health on the sanctions imposed in this bill and their likely impact on child health and well-being. If we listened to the rhetoric of the Minister for Social Development about this bill, I think we could be forgiven for thinking that that advice was very favourable. The Minister repeatedly contends that by making Well Child / Tāmariki Ora checks compulsory and a sanctionable social obligation under this bill, the health outcomes of children will be improved. Indeed, that is her stated motivation for including meeting Well Child check obligations as one of the social obligations introduced in this bill.

With the Minister so adamant about improved outcomes for children, we might assume that she had heard from officials that the policy would actually achieve better outcomes for children. But, sadly, we would be very wrong to assume so. Actually, the documents that were tabled in the House last week by my co-leader show that advice from Ministry of Health officials in fact showed the exact opposite of that. Health officials were so concerned about the policy to sanction parents for not getting Well Child checks for their children that they repeatedly warned the Minister that such sanctions would cause “substantial negative impacts on families and vulnerable children, including risks of increased maltreatment and neglect”. It is clear from this advice that officials were concerned that the integrity and the effectiveness of the Well Child checks programme would be compromised and undermined if Well Child checks were to be seen by parents as a sanction or a punishment, as they indeed would be if they were made compulsory for a section of population under clause 25 in Part 1 of this bill.

Ministry officials were also concerned that there was no strong evidence that health-related social obligations are needed. They gave clear advice to the Minister that the best way to reach families who are not receiving Well Child checks at the moment is by improving the delivery mechanisms for Well Child checks, not by imposing financial sanctions on beneficiary parents, which is likely to simply lead to further harm to the child. They repeatedly gave this advice to the Minister as part of interdepartmental consultation on the development of this legislation, but they did not get anywhere, so they also wrote to the Minister of Health. They pleaded with the Minister of Health to ask this Minister to investigate alternatives to sanctions for non-compliance with Well Child checks, because of their concerns about the potential negative health and well-being impact that this could have on children. But to no avail—sadly, sanctions remain in this bill for parents who do not meet the requirements of Well Child checks, as well as other social obligations listed in clause 25 in Part 1. Those sanctions could, and in some cases will, mean that parents see a loss of their benefit of up to 50 percent. I think that these sanctions represent a punitive, ideological approach by this Minister, who is unwilling to listen to advice or, indeed, evidence about the likely impact of the policies, but has committed to them none the less.

What the Ministry of Health advice that was tabled by my co-leader in the House last week highlights, I think, is the potentially harmful impact of the sanctions in this bill on children, because children will be even less likely to access the health care that they need, and to get the benefit of the Well Child checks programme, if they are made compulsory for beneficiaries as proposed in this bill.

But the other obvious way in which sanctions will harm children is the impact that the loss of income will have on children whose parents—who for whatever reason are failing to meet their social obligations—are sanctioned under this bill. The base-level payment of the DPB, depending on the circumstances of the person receiving it, is $293 per week. So if you were to lose 50 percent of that payment of $293 per week, it is $146.50 per week. I defy any parent to be able to provide the necessities of life for their children on $146.50 per week. It is very important that we think about what we are actually condemning children to live on—children whose parents are sanctioned under this legislation—and what that means for their well-being in their daily lives and the ability of their parents to meet their children’s needs.

Children have the same needs whatever the circumstances that their parents are in. Whether their parents are in paid work, whether their parents are in receipt of a benefit, and whether or not their parents are compliant with the social obligations introduced by this legislation, children have the same needs. Those are needs like a warm, safe, secure home, adequate food and nutrition, clothing—shoes, raincoats, and warm clothes—and the ability to participate in their education and to take part in school trips, school camps, and so on, all of which parents will find very difficult to provide if they have their income cut by 50 percent for non-compliance with the social obligations introduced in Part 1 of this bill. Children have these needs, and they do not control their parents’ circumstances, yet their parents need income to be able to provide them with these necessities of life. We in the Green Party are very concerned that many children will be deprived of these necessities if their parents are sanctioned under this bill.

That is why I have proposed an amendment, which is set out on Supplementary Order Paper 197. It states: “A beneficiary’s failure to comply with a social obligation cannot be the subject of a sanction under section 117 if—(a) the beneficiary has 1 or more dependent children; and (b) the chief executive is satisfied that the sanction may deprive the child of food or shelter, or would otherwise be detrimental to the wellbeing of the child.” It would be my contention that prioritising children, which is something that the Minister often says she wants to do, means that we must give consideration to a dependent child who is supported by a parent against whom sanctions may be enforced under this bill. The impact on this child, on his or her basic rights to food, shelter, and safety, must be considered. To allow for this, which we allow for in this Supplementary Order Paper, discretion should be provided to the chief executive that when imposing sanctions they may take into account the interests of dependent children. It is our contention that this actually would bring us much more into line with our international obligations under articles 26 and 27 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which talk about the rights of children and citizens to social security to support themselves.

We hear a lot about prioritising children from this Minister and, indeed, from parties all across this Chamber. This Supplementary Order Paper gives the Committee the opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to prioritising children in our social security legislation by allowing that discretion to the chief executive to actually consider the impact on dependent children before imposing a sanction. We have heard from officials from the Ministry of Health who advised the Minister—and even begged their own Minister to intervene—that the specific sanction around Well Child checks is likely to actually lead to detrimental health outcomes for children. Beyond that, the simple fact of the loss of income represented by a 50 percent sanction for non-compliance with any of the social obligations introduced in Part 1 of this bill—the children who live in the households where parents will lose that income, through no fault of their own, and who have no control over their parents’ circumstances will find it very difficult to have their basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter met. We think, at the very minimum, that the chief executive should have the discretion to take that into account when deciding whether to impose a sanction, and that is why we have moved this Supplementary Order Paper 197.

Talofa lava, Mr Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity. I want to make some remarks about the objectives of the bill, the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, before I get on to Part 1, which is the substantive part of this particular bill.

I am reminded of the building of a fale in Samoa. When you begin the building of the fale, you have got to make sure that the posts of that fale are on a solid foundation and that they stand firm and straight. If they do not stand firm and straight, what happens is the rest of the house is all over the place. I make reference to that because this bill here significantly changes the Social Security Act, which we have had for quite a long time. The Government presented to the Social Services Committee the objectives of this bill, which I will read out. It: “reduces benefit dependency: is work focused, and [encourages] independence: supports an investment approach that focuses resources where they will be most effective:”—in reducing benefit dependency—“is able to work with a greater number of beneficiaries to support them into work: reinforces social norms and improves social outcomes through the introduction of social obligations for parents, and encouraging beneficiaries with warrants to arrest to clear them.”

On the surface of that, those objectives seem—on the surface—to be OK. But when you really dig deep into them, why is it that we are condemning those who are reliant and dependent on support? Why is that? Why is it that we are condemning mothers, beneficiaries, and those who are in unemployment through no fault of their own? When we consider this, why should we not be considering that a child dependent on their mother is just as important? Why is it that we consider that the dependency of employers on our education system to provide a skilled workforce is OK, yet we cannot accept the dependency of a solo mother who requires our collective support? Why is it OK for us to accept that businesses can depend on tax-funded roads for the distribution of their goods and services? Why is it that we cannot accept the fact that there is a group of people in our community who, through no fault of their own, end up being dependent on the collective support of the country because either they are unemployed, they are sick, their husband has left them, or they are on their own because of death in the family? Why is it? Because of the flawed foundation of this bill—the flawed purpose—everything else is flawed, as far as I am concerned.

One cannot help—and this was raised by one of the submitters—but think that this second round of welfare reform is based in part on flawed United Kingdom laws. That raises more questions because not only does it look like New Zealand is about to repeat the mistakes of another country but the select committee considering the bill, the Social Services Committee, has been left in the dark over how the new rules for those currently on a sickness or invalids benefit will work.

I want to draw your attention to the regulatory impact statement, particularly with reference to children, because, at the end of the day, many, many submitters said that the group of people who will be detrimentally affected by this bill is children. At the end of the day, when you sanction mothers, when you sanction solo parents, when you force them to work test, who suffers? The submitters who came to the select committee said that it would be children. Here is what the regulatory impact statement said: “the home environment remains by far the most important domain for child development …”—by far the most important domain for child development. And here we have got clauses in this bill that say that a mother must find full-time work or part-time work. Therefore, a mother is compelled to place a young child into long-term childcare facilities. And yet in the regulatory impact statement, which was given to this Government, it says that “by far the most important domain for child”—[Bell rung] Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call Su’a William Sio.

Thank you very, very much, Mr Chair. What a wonderful Chair you are. It says that, by far, the home environment is the most important domain for child development. The regulatory impact statement then says that long-duration childcare from birth is harmful—long-duration childcare from birth is harmful. But this is what this bill is going to place a lot of children into, because mums—solo parents—are going to be forced to place their children into long-duration childcare because of the work testing and the sanctions that are going to be imposed upon them. Long-duration childcare is required when a mother is required to work full-time or substantial part-time, as is in the bill.

Furthermore, the regulatory impact statement says that the OECD found, regarding child development, that “a return to work of the mother before the child is 6 months old may have more negative than positive effects.” on the development of that child. There is so much evidence—there is a huge body of evidence—that says that the most critical period in the child’s development is from birth to 7 years, and I think that has not been given consideration by the Government in implementing this bill.

I want to say that the submission from the public that stood out for me the most was from a solo mother by the name of Charlotte Murray, who gave her own experience as a single mother with two children, aged 2 years and 5 years. Her submission was that mothers with young children who are forced into work are going to be under extreme stress and they are going to pass that stress on, and she submitted that, in turn, that is going to be harmful to the children. I do not know how the Minister and the members of her Government cannot really recognise that there is an issue here that has not yet been addressed.

I want to also point to the fact that there were many submissions from the disability community. I want to quote what they said, because it is more powerful in their words. Darren Kemp says that it is costly being disabled. It is costly living on a benefit. It is costlier living on a benefit when one is disabled, and no one should be worse off than they already are. Darren Kemp says that his solution is job creation, and job creation on a large scale, not forcing sick people to look for jobs. He said that the Government bill should really be called the “Forcing the Sick and Solo Parents to Look for Work with No Support Bill.”

I want to go on because I think it is important. Darren Kemp says there is a lot of anxiety for beneficiaries with neurological illnesses who get taken off the benefit and then put on again. He opposes these reforms because this is the practical implication he sees for people with neurological illnesses. The submission was that Work and Income case managers, including receptionists, require a major attitudinal change in order to support people with dual disorders and to stop the ignorance. The point he was making was that this was going to create havoc for people with disabilities, and particularly so when even the managers and those who are dealing with them from Work and Income themselves have difficulty understanding the disabilities. So welfare changes will result in endless medical certificates and loads of paperwork by doctors with no knowledge of the impact it will have on people, particularly on people with dual disorders. Many with dual disorders are denied Work and Income support to enable them to attend interviews, and they said: “No interview, no job.” This is another submission, by Robin Williams. He said that more than 70 percent of patients with attention deficit disorder will have dual disorders. These disabilities are permanent; they remain for ever. Their point is that there is a high rate of unemployment for those with disorders. There is a high rate of unemployment for blind people. Blind people want to work, but unemployment for blind people is at 60 percent.

The point I am making is that people, whether they are a solo parent, whether they are unemployed, or whether they have disabilities, want to work, but the foundation of this bill—

Talofa lava and thank you for the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of this Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Mr Prasad got it right. He asked in his earlier statement what the policy intent is for this bill. It is quite clear—it is quite clear—what this Government is trying to do with this welfare bill: to change the mind-set of our country towards encouraging independence, towards encouraging people into work, and towards encouraging people to have self-reliance in order for them to look after their families. This bill is transformative for our country. It will encourage those who can work to work, and it will encourage people off benefits and into work. Despite the scaremongering from members opposite, this bill actually protects the vulnerable, it protects those who are unable to work, it protects those who have disabilities, and it gives them benefits.

All we on this side of the Chamber are saying is that those who can work should work. It is an investment approach because there will be more funding upfront in terms of case management. There will be more funding upfront in terms of work testing, to get people prepared and into jobs. Members opposite have asked where the jobs are.

💬 Carol Beaumont: Where are those jobs?

Oh, Miss Beaumont will ask where the jobs are, having been unemployed from this institution for the last 15½ months. I will tell her where the jobs are. If that member had looked on the website SEEK this afternoon, at 3 p.m. 12,500 full-time jobs were on SEEK, 1,000 part-time jobs were on SEEK, 2,000 contract jobs were on SEEK, and 150 casual jobs—that is 16,000 jobs that are on SEEK this afternoon, waiting for people to work. Members opposite continue to ask where the jobs are. We know that, as the Prime Minister stated quite clearly this afternoon, the manufacturing sector is growing, and that most sectors across this economy grew in the December quarter of 2012—1.5 percentage growth in our GDP. This economy is growing. We know that jobs are being created. Some have been lost, but some have been created, and we know that the jobs are out there.

But what does the bill do? What is the problem that we are trying to solve? We know that around $8 billion per annum is spent on welfare. We know that. The Opposition members know that, but they do not want to hear how we can progress people out of work and into jobs. It is a lifetime cost of paying benefits to our population. It is estimated at $78 billion dollars.

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: It’s all about dollars.

That is more than the Government spends every year, Mr Prasad. You know that; I know that. So that is a lifetime cost, and that is why it is not just the fiscal implications that this bill brings about; it is also the social implications. Mr Prasad did not know where welfare dependency was. Well, I can tell you, Mr Prasad. I have welfare dependency in my family and in my electorate. I have seen it—from mother to daughter to granddaughter. It happens, and that is sad. It is a sad indictment. We all know in this Committee that some members of our society need help when required, but we also know that work is really important to get people off welfare and into jobs. When you have welfare dependency, you set boundaries around having very low or no expectations and you have very low or no aspiration. The worst thing that we can give them is having very low or no hope in life, and that is why it is important that our kids are incentivised and promoted into getting jobs.

We know that the changes are around introducing benefit categories. We know that work-test obligations are critical. We heard Mr Sio saying that they must find work. No, they are being work tested into work, and if they are able to work and a job presents itself, then they should work, because the money that they get from working is actually quite beneficial to their families. It is good for—

This is truly a sad day, having this debate. This is truly a very flawed bill, the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. It is an ideological bill. It is not a bill that is built on common sense. It is extremely unfortunate that we are having to debate it in this manner. We object absolutely to the underlying assumption in this bill, and in all of the provisions in this bill, that those on Government support do not want to work. I do not know where the Government gets this assumption from. I do not know, in particular, whether that member who spoke previously, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, actually meets with constituents who are suffering from not being able to find jobs, from not being able to get the support that they need to get to find jobs.

In my electorate I have countless examples every single day of people who are having more and more barriers put in their way in order for them to find work. I particularly want to mention and reiterate what my colleague Su’a William Sio said earlier about people with disabilities. I recently had 10 people sitting round a table in my office—people with disabilities—telling me about the barriers that are being put in their way to being able to find jobs. They cannot even get to the point where they get an interview, because of the barriers that are there, and because this Government has taken away the mainstream funding that was providing support for them.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: That’s not true.

Yes, it has gone. These people implored me to do something about this and to try to work out how it is that they could even get an interview and get to employers who were willing to interview them, when there were so many other people standing in line for each of these jobs.

This is a bill that we cannot support, because it does nothing to address those barriers to work, the availability of work, the childcare costs, and whether the individual has the necessary skills required. It is pushing the buttons of negativity. That is what it is doing—pushing the buttons of negativity and blame. It is targeting and demonising good people in our community who want to work and who cannot find work. The Government is punishing the most vulnerable members of our society for its own lack of ability to improve the economy. As I said, my office is overwhelmed by increasing numbers of needy constituents who seek help to simply access their entitlements under our current social security regime, and those barriers are just making it harder for them to move out of the poverty cycle. There is no carrot in this bill. It is like using the stick when a person is already cornered.

Recently my office has had four cases of people approaching me when their benefits have been cut for non-compliance with job-seeking, including a family with a very young baby. These are people who find it difficult to regularly report their situation to their case manager to state, for instance, the jobs that they applied for, or that they have moved, and they are getting into difficulty with these things. These are the ones who have already been let down by our education system and who are having difficulties with the regime that is providing more barriers for them. These are the people whom social welfare was designed to support into a better situation, not to penalise them for their lack of skills. I do not think that members on any side of this Chamber will try to convince you, Mr Chair, that we do not need to decrease the number of people who are reliant on State support, but what we do disagree on is how we go about achieving this. This Government is playing into the stereotypes of bludging, of putting everybody into the same basket of—

The Green Party opposes this bill, the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. We have many concerns with the whole, fundamental approach, and we are particularly concerned about the impact that it may have on disabled people. I am constantly amazed when I hear people say: “Oh, this bill is all about encouraging people to get off the benefit and into work.”, and yet I cannot see how this bill will do that for people with disabilities.

Everywhere I have gone across the country, one of the No. 1 issues that people with disabilities raise with me is their concern around not being able to get work. They share with me their stories about how they cannot get work. The barriers to employment are not because of their own lack of willingness to get work; the barriers to employment are out there in society. It may be the attitude of employers.

One example I would like to give is of a woman called Judith, who is deaf. When she saw a job in the paper that she thought she could apply for, she rang the number that was available for an application form. Because she was deaf she used the relay service, and she was told that the job was already filled. When her friend rang—her friend with hearing—the employer said: “No problem. We will send you the application form.” So she could not even get an application form sent to her, because she was ruled out right from the start on the basis of being deaf.

There are endless stories like this of the kinds of day-to-day challenges of trying to even get a foot in the door for people with disabilities. This is why there is so much concern around the focus on the work assessment model. We know that in the UK the work assessment model has not worked and that it is causing constant litigation, huge suffering for people in the UK and, indeed, a spike in suicides as a result. People with mental health issues are particularly vulnerable to the kinds of assessment models that might focus on whether they can lift something—it does not look at what the real barriers to employment are and what they can really do. It should not be part of this bill. Assessment models can work if the sole focus of assessment is to help the person identify what they can do best, identify their strengths and abilities, and find work that matches these strengths and abilities. It will not work if it is focused on what they cannot do and tries to boil that down to a series of mechanistic tests.

The other major concern that we have about the bill is around the social obligations for parents. I have already spoken in the second reading about how many parents have simply decided their children are simply not ready to attend an early childhood learning education centre. But a huge proportion of solo parents, in particular, with a child on a benefit—about 26 percent of them—have a child with a disability, and certain disabilities are actively discriminated against in access to early childhood education.

I have just been contacted by a mother of two young children with very severe disabilities. The early childhood education centre said they cannot take both of them together at the same time. It cannot provide for that and the most that it can do is to provide for one of them for 9 hours a week. These are the kinds of real challenges that parents of children with disabilities are facing. Some early childhood education centres have been petitioned by other parents to remove children with disabilities from their centres because the other parents do not like having these children there.

There is more discrimination at the early childhood education centres than there is at secondary or primary school level, where there is an obligation—

I just want to address some of the concerns that have come through from Opposition members. First of all, I would like to thank all of those who submitted. I would like to thank the Social Services Committee for all of the work that it has done and for some of the changes that it has made.

As I said, I will now just go through some of the things that have been addressed. One of them was around home-schooling, and it went right back to the first call that Ms Ardern made. I just want to be quite clear. In two parts she kind of said that if you are enrolled for home-schooling and you have met the criteria, then you will not have social obligations put against you for early childhood education. That is not quite correct. However, the second part of what she said, which is that if you have enrolled for the equivalent of home-schooling, which is Te Kura, and which is the curriculum for early childhood education, then you will not have social obligations put against you. So you cannot just say: “I’m going to home school my child when they turn 5 and, as such, I do not have to reach that social obligation.” However, if you have enrolled with home-schooling and you are doing the curriculum, then you will be fine. So that will address that for them.

Look, there was a lot that was talked about as far as individuals and targeting to individuals is concerned. I know that the bill itself—as it is in the legislation—is relatively broad and the proof will be in the pudding, which will come about when it is put into place. But the whole theory behind this, the whole motivation for it, is that we are looking at individuals and what they can do, and then getting them support to get them up to speed. It certainly plays on what Ms Mathers was talking about as far as people with disabilities are concerned, and certainly on what other members have raised throughout their calls as well.

I always think that when you look at it, we have, you know, 320,000-odd individuals who are receiving welfare. You know, we can block them into courses, as the investment approach does, or you can look at it from the macro-perspective and from the micro-perspective, but really it is once you get down to the individual. What that will do, and certainly through the work assessments that were raised by the previous member, and through other assessments that we do—and I am just going to detour slightly now and just talk about those assessments, because for many of them they are a self-assessment.

We have actually worked incredibly closely, intensively, and over a long period of time with the health and disability sector itself. We have purposely gone out and held open forums and we have gone through paperwork. We have not just given them the theory but we have literally sat down with them and talked about the wording that we use, and about how we actually make it accessible for people with literacy problems or with disabilities that mean that they are unable to have physical access, let alone those who might have other incapacities that mean that they are unable to understand the information that is in front of them. We have then really been keenly interested in how they can do those assessments that really address what they can do, and then, if there are gaps that mean there are barriers there, we can put more money in up front and get them that level of support. The disability sector has said to me: “We are optimistic, but nervous.” and I think that is entirely fair. I can say, as I have said it 100 times and I will continue to say it, that I am also equally aware that the proof will be when they get into place with what we are doing.

What I would say to members is, yes, we have been making changes to welfare over the last 4 years. At each point it has been said that this is the end of welfare as we know it, that people will be thrown out, and that we will be treating people appallingly. The only times I hear the word “bludgers” and other horrible words are, quite frankly, from people who are trying to scaremonger. It is never from us and, actually, for all the changes we have made the world has not fallen apart. People have not been able to not get access to what they need and what they deserve and what their are entitlements are. In fact I get criticised for the number being too high and for me letting too many people be on welfare. Well, I just ask you to look at past performance. I think it stacks up for itself, and so does New Zealand.

I hope you see these changes for what they are truly intended to be, which is getting the right support for the right individuals with the right assessments and making sure that, actually, at the end of the day, we will be paying more. You will see that through the Budget process, just as you saw it through the youth services, that this is about investing in people up front and earlier.

I rise to speak to the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. This is, as I understand it, the second part of a move to reform our social security system and to fundamentally shift the focus of the benefit system towards encouraging and supporting beneficiaries to move into paid work. Well, that is all very good if there is some paid work for them to move into. I know that some members opposite seem to think that growth in our economy has meant more jobs. Well, actually, this is jobless growth—the growth that there has been recently. We still have exceptionally high unemployment in this country. Many, many New Zealanders are absolutely desperate to get work, and as somebody who has been out in the community full-time for the last 12 months or so, I can assure you that I have talked to many people who are really desperate about their work situation. People want to work, but that would not be the message you would get from looking at legislation like this.

As I understand it, this legislation is going to do some things like extend work-test and work preparation obligations, replace seven current benefit categories with three new main categories, and have all sorts of provisions around social obligations, and, of course, sitting alongside all of that are some very nice sanctions. And what are the underlying assumptions with that? Well, I think it absolutely says loud and clear that the Government believes that most people who are on benefits do not want to work, and that parents who are on benefits are not good parents. That is why we supposedly need this legislation. I think that that is particularly and utterly galling in this situation with the current levels of unemployment.

What are the facts? How many people on benefits do not actually want to work? How many of the parents who are receiving benefits are not good parents? My colleague Dr Prasad talked about very small numbers of people who are probably in those kinds of categories. The facts are that people want to work. They want decent jobs. They want to be able to manage bringing up their children if they have got them, to have a job that pays them fairly, and to be able to look after themselves. The fact of the matter is there ain’t those jobs there for them. That is the fact.

What this is about is beneficiary bashing, headline grabbing, and the Government’s typical spin. This is a Government of spin. It is short on real actions and solutions, but big on spinning. I think it is pretty rich for the Minister for Social Development to say that this is not about beneficiary bashing. As I heard the Hon Phil Goff say, this is dog whistle politics, this is knowing that there is a constituency out there who thinks that everybody receiving a benefit is a bludger. I believe, honestly, that most people in this Chamber know that not to be true. But despite that, there is this sort of legislation, which, actually, is not the most important thing that the Government should be addressing by a long way. The most important thing, or one of the most important things, is actually our economy and ensuring that the economy grows and provides decent jobs for people to work in. If those decent jobs were there, then people would be working.

I thought it was absolutely disgusting in question time today when the Prime Minister joked about unemployment. I cannot believe that the Prime Minister of New Zealand thinks that unemployment is a joke. There are 163,000 New Zealanders who are registered as unemployed. There are 111,000 other New Zealanders who want more work, who are underemployed. They want more hours. They cannot live with a decent standard of living on the hours that they have got. These are real people: real people who are hurting, and real people who want work. Our unemployment rate is staying very, very high, and the Government is sitting on its hands in the face of wave after wave of massive job losses. We have got the Telecom ones coming up, we have had Solid Energy, and there are the Department of Conservation job losses today. Those are just three out of a massive great list of wave after wave of job losses. Again, these are real people. Two hundred people waited for seven jobs in a Carter Holt Harvey workplace in Māngere. There were 200 people for seven jobs. In my own circumstances—in my own family—my niece who is a graduate is desperately seeking work. She rang me the other night and she said—

If the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill is, as the Minister for Social Development would have us believe, about dealing with welfare dependency, let us look for a moment at the record. The record is that since she became Minister, unemployment is up 82 percent. Those on the DPB are up 13 percent. The first question we should ask you, Minister, is whether this is because 82 percent more people suddenly do not want to work. Is this because the nation has suddenly lost its morals, and a lot more people are on a domestic purposes benefit because of that? The Minister knows that that is arrant nonsense. She knows that the reason why there are more people unemployed has very little to do with lacking the will to work and a hell of a lot to do with the jobs being lost under her Government’s management and the jobs not being available.

I want to ask the Minister why it was that, when I opened a New World supermarket, for the jobs that were available there—I think there were 200—there were over 3,000 people seeking those jobs. More recently, I opened The Warehouse store in Stoddard Road. There were 80 jobs, and there were 1,500 people seeking out relatively low-paid employment. Most recently, I opened a Countdown supermarket. There were 150 jobs there; there were 2,600 people queuing up for those jobs.

It is not about people lacking the will to work, Minister, and it is not about people wanting to be welfare dependent; it is about the fact that in the last quarter under this Government something like 20,000 to 30,000 jobs have disappeared and not been replaced. It is about the fact that this Government has not focused on the need of those out of work to be upskilled in order to get employment—things like the training incentive allowance. You, Minister, know about that. You took advantage of it. So why is it, Minister, that you have taken it away from people today who want to upskill in order to get into the workforce, to get a job?

If you want to reduce welfare dependency, make sure the jobs are there, make sure that people are skilled to take up those jobs, and make sure that people have affordable early education assistance so that their kids can be looked after. Because for most parents out there, their first obligation is to their children. They must look after their children. They must ensure their children have a stable background and every assistance those kids can get. That comes even before finding a job if you are a solo mum or dad. So let us make sure that the prerequisites to getting people off welfare and into jobs are there: jobs, skills, and affordable early childhood education. This bill is very strong on rhetoric; it is very weak on making any real difference in practice.

I want you to tell the Committee, Minister, how it will work if you cut the benefit by 50 percent. Who do you think, Minister, is going to be the first victim of that? Is this another case of visiting the sins of the parents on the kids? The kids are already ill-clothed, ill-fed, ill-housed, and disadvantaged, and will never have the same opportunities as your kids or mine. Are you going to cut the benefit to punish the parent? Yeah, come on.

What is our social security system about? It is about a social contract. People do have an obligation, if they are able to work, to go out there and find the work. But you can do that with strong case management. You know that, Minister. You know that to be the truth. If somebody is not working who should be, you look at their drug or alcohol problem, for example. Do not increase the pokies at Skycity. That will not help. Do not be gutless about your alcohol legislation and reducing dependency. That will not help. It is about addressing the problems. If they are unskilled, do not cut $53 million out of the skills budget, as you did 2 years ago. Do not cut the training incentive allowance, because you will only make the problem worse.

I believe that people have obligations to their community, that there is a social contract, and that our community has the responsibility to make sure that those in need and those who are most vulnerable get support, and each of us has the obligation back to our community to contribute as much as we can, to get out there and work when we can. Most people want to do this. This bill—

Kia ora, Mr Chair. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will not be supporting the bill, but that is not because we do not believe that the Minister for Social Development truly has the intention described inside this bill. It is merely because we have grave fears that some of the measures inside the bill will have a negative downstream impact that has not been appropriately addressed at this time.

New Zealand First believes that the welfare system of our country is a safety net, not a hammock. I remember the first time I met the Hon Paula Bennett. We were both speaking at a political engagement in 2008 at Te Atatū. It was one of the most volatile political engagements I have had during any campaign that I have been part of, partly because the Hon Tau Henare was in the crowd, rarking it up. But where we made a point of contact, I say to Minister Bennett, was when I spoke of my great-grandmother, the loss of my great-grandfather and their small child through the influenza epidemic here in New Zealand, and the fact that my great-grandmother then had to put her two small daughters in with the nuns down in Wellington while she went to find herself a husband. There was no support. There was no way she could look after her two small daughters—aged 5 and 3, if I recall correctly—while she sorted her finances.

You and I both agree that that is not a place we want to go back to. That is nowhere near where this bill, the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, is trying to go; that is not the point. However, when I read the parts of this bill that deal with and merge the widow’s benefit, for example, with the work-ready benefit or the work-focus benefit, I have concerns about women, such as my great-grandmother, who lose their husbands, and about small children who lose their fathers.

Then there is a subjective process about when they are ready to come back. It concerns me and it concerns New Zealand First in terms of some of the subjectivity that can be inside what is outside your control, Minister. This is going to be at the front line. So that is something, as you say, where the proof will be in the pudding, but New Zealand First is concerned that it has not been addressed appropriately, or the safety net has not been addressed appropriately here.

We also agree that there is a social contract in this country. Nobody gets something for nothing. We all work hard, and we should all work hard for the benefit of our country. But that is different from the term “social obligation”. The social obligations that have been placed inside this bill start to direct and impact on a parent’s ability to make choices and decisions for their children. It is of concern to New Zealand First that the social obligations start to push people who have found themselves in a place of requiring support from their country to start to lose the ability to make those choices for their own children.

Some of that concern is around the Well Child / Tāmariki Ora checks. New Zealand First has always been a proponent for Well Child / Tāmariki Ora checks. If I remember correctly, I think it was our policy that started it. But we were not asking for people to be forced into a situation of immunising their children. Yet again there is a requirement, a subjective requirement, that they make a fully informed decision that somebody on the front line can decide they have not made it fully informed and therefore they can penalise them. That is a concern to us.

💬 David Bennett: Who cares?

Mr Bennett, I think everybody here cares. There are reasons why a social obligation as opposed to a social contract is so important. New Zealand First has a policy that, again, is based on that concept—that if your country supports you, you should be doing something to support your country—and it is our community wage policy. There is a constant call: “Where is the work?”. I do not think that the Government, although we have all this political rhetoric, denies that we are in a time—let us say it is the global recession—where it is a very tight job market and a very tight labour market.

But we want people to continue to have that work ethic. We want our young people to continue to get up in the morning and believe that you have to go out and do for country and do for your community. That is why New Zealand First would have liked to see some sort of positive social contract engagement inside this bill, something built around our policy of the community wage. There are many, many organisations that require voluntary labour, and for 20 hours a week, to gain your community wage, or your work focus benefit, of whatever the title is, you should have to—

It is not a pleasure to stand and speak in the Committee stage of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, because, actually, this is a bill that shows—particularly in Part 1, with all of its punitive effects that it brings on people, on mothers in particular—that the Government has just given up. It really has given up on this idea of a brighter future. No longer is it prepared to make sure that there are jobs created and that we have a society where people actually feel like they can contribute in a positive way to their society. Instead, it is using Part 1 of this bill to bring in a whole range of punitive measures—a whole range of punitive measures—to get people lining up for jobs. That is the demeaning situation that we actually face here in New Zealand today under the National Government. It is that demeaning prospect of people having to line up for jobs.

There were a couple of stories in the Waikato Times just in the last week that really paint this dismal picture that the National Government has got us into, that will not be rectified, and that will, in fact, be worsened by this bill, and Part 1 in particular. The first story was the front page of the Waikato Times on the 18th of this month. It had a big banner headline that read: “Jobless fight for work”. The jobless are having to fight for work in a city like Hamilton. That is the sort of brighter future that this Government has delivered to us. What the story detailed was situations like 1,013 people applying for 120 jobs at the Hamilton office of the Earthquake Commission—1,013. The burger chain Wendy’s had 100 applications for six management positions. And they were expecting more than 500 people to apply for 50 minimum wage crew jobs. The Mexico Group is also looking to recruit people, but these are not flash jobs; these are minimum wage jobs. Again, about 200 people had applied for 25 jobs at that restaurant. So this is the prospect: people lining up in queues to actually try to secure the dignity of work. The demeaning lining up and queuing for jobs for the dignity of work—that is what it has been reduced to.

The other story that I think is relevant to Part 1 of this bill, which was in the Waikato Times just a few days later, was a story where—it was quite demeaning, actually—this was the employers starting up. The employers were starting up to say: “We have these jobs. They are minimum rate jobs, and when people line up to apply for them they are really not worthy of these minimum wage jobs.” It was disgraceful, but tucked in there was a sentence where those employers were complaining that this piece of legislation was going to make matters worse. That was the employers complaining that it was going to make life worse for them. Never mind the people forced to line up because there are no jobs in this country, forced to line up in those queues and go through that demeaning exercise with a punitive approach that this Government is about to take through Part 1 of this bill. In that queue after this legislation passes will be the mother who has been forced to look for employment against her will and against the needs of her children. They will be the people who have been forced to put their children into early childhood education against their will. They will be the people forming these queues.

The employers in that story were already complaining about people lining up to be applicants who they said did not really want the job. I do not know how they have come to that conclusion, that people—

It is a great pleasure to rise in support of, and talk in, the first part of this legislation, the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. I would just like to address a couple of things that Opposition members have actually raised. I think Ms Moroney actually talked about what a shame it was that people are lining up for jobs. I say good on them. They are encouraged. They are actually out there looking for work. What does that member suggest those people do? Sit at home and do nothing? I do not think so.

It was Phil Goff who actually wanted to talk about the records of unemployment numbers. Can I actually quote numbers from 2000 to 2008, when the Labour Party was in Government? Sickness benefit numbers rose 51.6 percent, invalid’s benefit numbers rose 47.2 percent, and domestic purposes benefit numbers rose by 8.5 percent.

Guess what? The Minister of Social Development and Employment at the time said that the rise for the two quarters in unemployment numbers was “Not bad, actually”. I am sorry, but that was the best of New Zealand’s economic times, not during a recession or when we are recovering from the recession that globally the world is struggling with. In New Zealand, with the leadership of our Prime Minister, John Key, and the Ministers, we are actually growing. It is a very small number compared with Australia maybe. I think the recent number I saw was 3.1 percent growth in Australia. I think we lag just behind, on 3 percent. But Australia has mining. My goodness!

The Opposition asks: “Where are the jobs?”. Whenever this Government puts forward agendas for job growth and economic growth and policies to get people more jobs, the Opposition is completely against it. Opposition members stand in this House—the hypocrites stand in this House—asking: “Where are the jobs?”. Actually, my learned colleague Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga looked at 3 o’clock today on—what was it—

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: SEEK.

On seek.co.nz, there were 16,000 jobs available at 3 o’clock this afternoon. There are jobs if people want to go and get them.

Actually, I was walking around the businesses on Rosebank Road on Monday and I was talking to employers in manufacturing. They told me they struggle to find good workers with the right attitude who are willing to get up in the morning and actually work. Sometimes they have to get rid of some employees because they fail their drug tests. I wonder why they did that. They did that because their workers are dealing with laser cutters and heavy machinery. Of course these people have to be off drugs. I understand that there are times when people have to lose jobs, but we are creating more jobs, our manufacturers are creating more jobs, our employers are creating more jobs, and our farmers are creating more jobs. I looked at a website just before, when Opposition members were speaking. There are plenty of farming jobs available. I think one member opposite talked about the right kinds of jobs. What is “right”? There are 220,000 children growing up in benefit-dependent homes. I would have thought that when you provide for your child, the best example for your child is for the parents to be not at home on the benefit, but out working.

One other thing that really upset me during the debate on the whole social welfare reform issue was when people said women like me who leave children in early childhood education centres and work full time are bad mothers. I beg to differ, actually. I think I am providing good role modelling for my child. I think parents who work and are responsible for their children and for themselves and who are growing their businesses, growing the economy, and setting a good example for their children cannot be bad parents. So let me say this: please do not scare New Zealanders into thinking that getting a job is a bad thing.

💬 Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: They’re already scared.

I am sorry, but this bill is encouraging people. It says it is OK; social support is there from Government, social welfare has always been there, and we support it, but get a job.

I will not say it is a pleasure to follow that member, Melissa Lee, because her formula, her solution to the lack of jobs in New Zealand seems to be to send them all down to the farm, or perhaps even up the chimney. Perhaps that is what that member thinks we should be doing with this bill, the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. But this bill is not about you, Melissa Lee. This bill is about the people I talk to—that we all talk to—on a regular basis.

I want to talk about one woman in particular and what she goes through. She lost her job last March. She spends 3 or 4 days a week working at looking for work: filling in forms, surfing the internet—and she is lucky that she has got a computer at home, because so many people do not have computers at home; they cannot afford it—and going through pointless Work and Income seminars and training. They are pointless when, as we have already heard, many of the people applying for jobs, looking for work, are already trained and already have skills. She waits on the phone to talk to her work broker. Can you imagine anything less dignified than that? She is waiting on the phone to talk to someone, a job broker, who is apparently brokering a job for her and, you would have to say, has failed completely so far.

Occasionally, very occasionally, she gets to go to a job interview. This woman has applied for something like 75 jobs, and I think she has had three job interviews. She is absolutely devastated every time she applies for a job and gets a rejection slip. She is devastated every time she applies for a job and has to go back with her tail between her legs to Work and Income and say she did not get the job. She has to start over and over and over again. So I think that the members of the National Government have no idea about the realities of people looking for work in this country. They have no idea how absolutely undignified it is for people like this woman, who is really committed to finding a job and would do anything to get a job, and how humiliating it is for her.

Then we heard from the Minister the other day that what happens in Work and Income now is that they have got this new tradition: they ring the bell every time someone gets a job. I know that this woman would be delighted if the bell were rung for her, but it has not been since last March—March 2012. She is still looking for work, and now there is this bill that threatens sanctions and other punitive measures, as if life is not already difficult enough.

We know that there are no jobs. We know how difficult it is. We have heard the stories today about people lining up for minimum wage jobs. Sam Lotu-Iiga says there are 16,000 jobs on SEEK.

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: There are.

Has he had a look at any of them?

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Yes.

Have you looked them up?

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: I have, yes.

Ninety-day trial periods? Minimum wage jobs? Good jobs like that?

The other thing that worries me about this bill is that the Government is looking to contract out work testing. This is a UK idea, and we have seen the failure it has been. Just this week there was a story about a job centre that has been pinged for setting targets for benefit sanctions. So what we have in that job centre in the UK is league tables for staff, not to prove that people are getting jobs so that they can ring the bell, but to prove that they are sanctioning people. What the Government in the UK has had to do is launch an inquiry into this after it was forced to admit that job centres are setting targets and league tables to sanction benefit claimants.

That is the path we go down with this bill with the contracting out of work testing. It is based on a false premise that there are jobs out there, that unemployed people do not want to work, and that there are enough jobs around if you really try. It is an ugly piece of legislation, I have to say. It is an ugly piece of legislation. It is based on blaming those who have been unable to find work. It is putting pressure on those who are struggling. It is ignoring the problem that we have in this country of children growing up in poverty. Their parents want to work and want to do the right thing but are unable to. It says that—

I move, That the question be now put.

I am glad that I have an opportunity to speak on this bill, the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, because I have listened to a number of the comments that have been made on the other side of the Chamber and I have to say that I am very disappointed that there seems to be a complete misrepresentation, really, of the argument that we are making on this side of the Chamber. There is no question that every single person in this House is appalled when there are people who want to work and who cannot find a job—absolutely appalled that that is the case—because it must be a priority in any economy to ensure that those jobs are there. But I have listened to some very peculiar arguments, particularly the one about how important it was to get your child into early childhood education so that you could go back to work as quickly as possible, and that that was not an issue one way or the other.

Well, I just want to ask someone this question. In fact, the Minister in the chair could perhaps answer it the best. If one knows, through having read extensive literature on the impact on child development around certain features, that a child’s educational outcomes are best predicted by mum’s educational outcomes—by her qualifications; not dad’s, but mum’s—if that is the biggest predictor of how well a child will do at school and what qualifications that child will leave with, what would you do with somebody on a DPB, faced with the choice and with that knowledge? Would you send that woman out to work for a minimum-waged job—any job—just to get her into the workforce, or would you send her back to school? Which one would you choose?

The Government has made it absolutely crystal clear which one it would choose, because a few years ago it took away the training incentive allowance for tertiary education. The Government left it there for the basics, for the preliminary work that you would want to do just to get into a basic diploma course, but nothing more than that. It used to be available for somebody who wanted to bring themselves up to speed with a tertiary qualification to take them into nursing, to take them into teaching, to take them into a profession of some sort—maybe one day to even have the ambition to be the Minister for Social Development. That is what the training incentive allowance was for.

So I think that the Government has to seriously rethink its approach. It is starting from the wrong position. It looks at somebody on a benefit and it says that that person is dependent on the benefit. It looks and makes judgments about the individual. It starts from all the negatives, from all the deficits. It is a deficit model that this Government has adopted.

I want to talk about a strengths-based model, because I believe that is the way we should go. I heard the most inspiring speech at a conference I attended recently. This woman was running a company that helps people off welfare and into paid work. That is what the company does. But it certainly does not have the ambition of getting anyone into the minimum-waged jobs that we are hearing about in this debate this afternoon.

She described the company’s approach with a story. Here is the story. Two women go into the London office of this particular organisation. One has been living rough for 5 years. She has not showered. Her clothes are dirty. She is in her late 50s. She has become estranged from her family. She has had an anxiety disorder. She has faced some pretty tough times. She has a difficult condition. She wets herself while she is sitting in the waiting room. It is a difficult situation. The other woman who comes into the office has been out of work for a number of years, but she used to work for a major corporation, as the personal assistant to the general manager. So she has got great skills, but she has a skill that nobody learns these days. She knows shorthand. Shorthand is the most fantastic skill you could possibly have, and I know that many people value it. So this is a great opportunity for this woman to get herself back into work. She loves animals. That is her passion. She loves her grandchildren. So she has got a lot going for her; that is the way they see her. Of course, the woman then said that these two women are the same woman.

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be now put. Those who are of that opinion will say Aye—

💬 Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Labour has tabled, during the course of the Committee stage, several amendments that I, as the person who has put these amendments forward, have not had a chance to speak to. I request the opportunity of the Committee to speak to those amendments.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Look, I have listened very carefully to the debate. The member who raises the point of order has had two calls. We have had nearly 2 hours on this. I am going to put the closure motion.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Just further clarification. Those amendments—we were in the throes of ensuring that they were correct. At the time that I spoke they were not able to be tabled. We have since withdrawn and resubmitted one of those amendments. I would like the opportunity to be able to speak to them.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): And that refers to clause 2, which is further on in the debate. I am putting the question, which is with regard to the closure.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. During that vote I had the authority to cast a proxy vote for Brendan Horan, but the vote was not called by the Clerk.

That is a fair point. So the member is now casting that vote and—

💬 Holly Walker: One opposed.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): —it is one opposed, so that vote is now amended to Ayes 64, Noes 57. The result is the same.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 199 in the name of the Hon Paula Bennett to Part 1 be agreed to.