Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Mr Speaker—well done. I rise to oppose this bill at its second reading, as we did at the first reading and as we did at the select committee. I personally was not at the Social Services and Community Committee, but I’ve read a number of the submissions, I’ve listened to my colleagues, and I am absolutely convinced this is a callous and mistaken bill.

It cuts jobseeker support eligibility for 18- and 19-year-olds, including those who are sick, injured, or disabled, and it reduces the accommodation supplement for low-income homeowners. As of June this year, Minister Upston confirmed 2,733 people were receiving jobseeker support due to a health condition, injury, or disability. Almost 70 percent of those people have a psychiatric or psychological condition. That’s going to make it really hard to get a job; that’s going to make it really hard to go into further education. It’s going to make it really hard to go into an apprenticeship in this country. By definition, someone on that support has already been assessed by Work and Income as unable to work full-time, and media reports at the moment show hundreds of applicants for job vacancies. Cutting income support does not create a single job. The parental income test threshold in this bill is $67,225 a year for a couple, for two parents. By comparison, a backbench MP salary is over $180,000.

That’s almost three times more for one of us than what we’re expecting two parents to be able to pay for their 18- and 19-year-olds. In my experience, 18- and 19-year-olds eat quite a lot, let alone everything else. With the increasing unaffordability of kai, this is a really brutal change to our benefit system.

The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU) made an excellent submission. They represent over 370,000 working New Zealanders, probably more than any of the parties’ membership in this House. When we were last speaking to this bill, people on the other side of the House laughed at our reference to the NZCTU. That is just not acceptable. They know a lot more about how working families actually have to manage looking after their teenagers.

These are still teenagers. They might be old enough to vote—if Minister Goldsmith encouraged them, rather than rolled back and disenfranchised people who might be wanting to enrol to vote. But they are still teenagers. In particular, for those teenagers who have disabilities, those households will have extra stress and extra costs. It might be transport-related costs for getting people with disabilities around, whether it’s to job interviews, or going to university interviews, or summer schools or whatever. There are also costs for physically changing the house so that those young people can get around there. These are the very people that should be supported, not have this Government punching down upon them.

I just want to refer briefly to Pou Tangata’s submission, because they pointed out how hard it is for Māori, in particular. Māori unemployment is more than double the rate for New Zealand Europeans, and, amongst young Māori, 21.8 percent of young Māori wāhine and 19.1 percent of young Māori tāne are not in employment, education, or training. This is against a general youth rate of 14.4 percent.

This Government should be funding Mayors Taskforce for Jobs, not cutting their funding. The mayors in the council offices are on the ground, connected with employers, and they can help youth much more than this Government.

I rise to speak on the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill at the second reading, as chair of the Social Services and Community Committee.

The bill intends to support the “fiscal sustainability in the welfare system by targeting [welfare] … assistance to those most in need of support”, by reducing benefit dependency among young people, by strengthening the incentives to enter employment, education, or training, and reducing reliance on the accommodation supplement for some homeowners while continuing to support vulnerable homeowners. We called for submissions on the bill and received submissions from 935 interested groups and individuals.

Interestingly, of the 935 submitters, 817 appeared to be generated from a website called Yeah, Nah—an online submission tool. That left only 118 submissions that were independent of that website, of which 19 were from organisations. Maybe we’re seeing a change in the use of technology. We made some recommendations for some technical amendments and recommended by majority that it be passed. With that, I recommend it to the House.

New Zealanders really cannot afford three more years of National, and this bill really demonstrates that. It goes and makes two main changes: it implements two of the Budget 2025 initiatives, and both are primarily ways of saving the Crown money, but really only in the short term. They’re not very long-term ways. The two ways they do that is by applying a parental assistance test to 18- and 19-year-olds on the jobseeker or equivalent emergency benefit, and there are also changes to accommodation supplements.

Essentially, there was a better option. If you read the regulatory impact statement—often some of the most interesting work is in those, from my point of view—the Ministry of Social Development actually identified a preferred option that the Government chose not to adopt. That was investing in education, investing in training and employment for young people. That would also be consistent with the Social Security Act 2018, but instead, the Minister chose to cut those services. Not only does this legislation remove that ability for 18- and 19-year-olds to get jobseeker support, and instead of that saved money being put into initiatives such as training, education, and employment initiatives, they’ve also cut those initiatives at the same time.

Over that last period of time, we’ve seen Apprenticeship Boost being cut back, Māori and Pasifika Trades Training being cut back, and also Fees Free as well. There’s really been a double whammy here, for a cohort of young people who are really struggling to get jobs. We hear loud and clear many examples of young people going for job application after job application, and the answer I hear is that there are no jobs out there for young people.

It is such a tough time for a young person to find work. This really makes life a lot harder for those New Zealanders who were already struggling under the economic conditions that have been made worse by the cuts. The cuts to Government services, the cuts to jobs, the cuts to our community services are biting at that end harder than ever before. It is the people directly impacted by this legislation which will be hurt more.

Yes, at select committee, it was right that the last speaker pointed out there were 933 submitters, and, of those, 930 opposed the bill. Only three submitters were in favour, and submissions largely highlighted the significant detrimental impact that this bill will have on people, particularly the reduction of access for 18- and 19-year-olds. An interesting point that was made, both in the regulatory impact statement and also through the select committee process, was that in the long-term the costs will actually be greater to the State, to the taxpayer, because while the Government has made this initiative of cutting costs in the short term, much of the analysis demonstrated that in the long term you’ll have more costs—whether that be additional investment in those support services, longer-term detrimental impacts on young people, all of the pressures on young people who may have to stay in a home that is not safe, for a variety of reasons, whether it’s family violence or other issues—all of the compounding impacts will actually end up being more costly.

That’s the sad thing. In balancing the benefits versus the cost, the regulatory impact statement states that for young people and their families, the cost will outweigh the benefits, significantly. In terms of the impact on young people and their families, that will be hugely detrimental. Many of those services that those young people will now be leaning on have already been cut, whether it’s the cuts to Oranga Tamariki, our social service providers, our family violence providers, budgeting services—all of those extra connections within our community that have felt the full brunt of the cuts of this Government—those are the services that these young people will now be looking to, and the Government is cutting off service after service. All of those abilities for connections for these people are being severed. It is not a good bill for New Zealand at all. A short-term saving is going to have a long-term detrimental impact in this space.

I’d just like to close by touching on what it does to the accommodation supplement changes. It adjusts the calculation of the accommodation supplement for homeowners based on the homeowner contributing 40 percent, not 30 percent, of their income to housing costs before being eligible for a subsidy. People with unsubsidised housing costs now generally pay a higher proportion of their income towards housing. It’s important to note that these changes do not apply to renters and boarders, nor homeowners who are likely to require longer-term social assistance, including those on superannuation, veterans pension, supported living payment, or even the emergency benefit.

These changes are short term. They save the Government money in the short term, but they cost our communities dearly. They cost the State more in the long run, and they are a very short-term way of thinking. It clearly demonstrates why New Zealand, quite simply, cannot afford another three years of National.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The most dejecting message I’m hearing from the other side of the House is that 18- and 19-year-olds that are fit and able to work should, basically, just stay at home if they feel like it. On this side of the House, what we promote is aspiration in our young people. I commend this bill to the House.

This is another rotten bill from this Government. Tomorrow, we launch the Māori campaign for Labour in Wainuiōmata.

Hon Tama Potaka: Better start tomorrow.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Tama Potaka, he’s not been invited, because we would have to escort him off the marae because of some of the terrible things he’s been doing for Māori lately, particularly supporting this rotten bill that attacks young people again. Tomorrow, Willow-Jean Prime will talk about how useless Tama Potaka is and his Māori caucus—well, they don’t have a Māori caucus, do they? Do they have a Māori caucus? I think it’s Tama Potaka—not quite sure about that.

Tomorrow, Willow-Jean Prime will talk about this—this attack on young people again, basically being exited—and she will speak about some of the wonderful programmes that we funded, Willow and myself and our Māori caucus, in our six years: Mana in Mahi, He Poutama Rangatahi. These are programmes that this Government have carried on, but they have reduced the funding significantly. That’s the sad part of this: these young people—Māori trades training—need support. They don’t need to be part of the National Party’s “look tough” strategy, because that’s what it’s always about. Louise Upston has to look tough, and Paul Goldsmith has got to look tough, in terms of what’s happening out there. Now we’re talking about not giving assistance to 18- and 19-year-olds. There are reasons why they’re at home. There are reasons why they need support. They don’t need to be kicked off and booted out to tick another box for the National Party in terms of how they’re dealing with young people.

I think there are a lot of aspects to this that we’re going to enjoy telling our constituents tomorrow. We’ll certainly be making it clear that we can’t afford three more years of National, because they’re the “Cut, Cut, Cut” Party. Currently, they’re running a campaign of hysteria, where they’re actually spinning stories on TV and radio. They’ve got nothing else to say but spin stories about tax. We’ve been very clear—very clear—as a party: we only have one tax. It’s a capital gains tax, and that’s it—no more, no less. But the “Cut, Cut, Cut, Cut” Party wants to continually tell lies about what we’re doing in Labour.

This particular bill is something that we don’t support at all. I heard Joseph Mooney talking about the submissions and how people set up the submissions. Well, the National Party should know, because they’ve set up so many submissions through the years it’s not funny. The reality was that there were 933 submitters, as Joseph Mooney knows, and 930 opposed this terrible bill.

In terms of young people, what other options does this Government offer apart from trying to boot them off Jobseeker and push them to the side? Will they invest in the programmes that we put up? I heard one of the Ministers yesterday talking about the very programmes that we know uplift young people: Mana in Mahi. Mana in Mahi, believe it or not, was a programme that I named. It was actually “Working for the Dole”. I was employment Minister at the time, and I said, “No, that’s not a very good name. There is mana in mahi.” I gave that name, and their good friend Winston Peters asked me to give a translation on that, so that’s how ridiculous it all got. Winston Peters didn’t understand what Mana in Mahi was, so we had to put a translation by it. That’s the ridiculous type of perspective you get from—well, it’s got worse with Winston Peters now.

Mana in Mahi was about supporting and assisting young people. We need more of those programmes. We don’t need a heartless, cold Government that is attacking young people and attacking families. So shame on this Government and shame on this Minister for Social Development and Employment, Louise Upston. Kia ora tātou.

Point of order. Thank you. I understand that Ministers are required to correct their statements at the earliest available opportunity. On Tuesday, between 3 and 4 p.m. in the House, when I asked the Minister whether any benefits had been cut through the use of the “confirming your circumstances” policies triggered by mandatory reviews, the Minister said no. There has now been media reporting basically confirming the exact opposite. I’m just concerned that Ministers are not taking the earliest available opportunity to correct statements in the House that were incorrect at the time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I’ll just take some advice there. Here it is. This could be a matter of privilege, so this should be raised with the Speaker by letter if you feel that this is what has actually happened. OK, we’ll take the next call.

This bill is about fiscal sustainability for the welfare system, targeted to help the most in need. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you. We hear that word “sustainability” a lot these days, and it’s all about cutting things, isn’t it—cutting money. We can’t afford three more years of this kind of behaviour, and I want to just give one example from this bill.

We have here a bill that the people who I really rate on this stuff, the Ministry of Social Development, say is a bad idea. They said, in the regulatory impact statement, that they didn’t like the Minister’s preferred option. They said that what the Minister was doing was wrong. They were pretty compelling in terms of why they thought it would be and what they thought was an alternative. They suggested that we provide more education and training services to this very group and that what we’re doing is reprehensible, and that what we’re doing is we’re taking the group that aren’t getting work, and they are not able to do that because there is much, much less opportunity to do that, and we’re punishing them for the fact that there is no work—something that this Government has contributed to and now seeks to blame on the very group most affected.

Now, that is set out in the regulatory impact statement. It says it clearly. It talks about the economic conditions that affect this group. It says, “Economic conditions are a driver for the numbers of people in receipt of Jobseeker Support. Young people tend to be affected more by economic shocks and generally have large increases in benefit numbers [due to] economic slowdowns. This is because young people are more likely to have lower skill levels, more casual employment arrangements, and high levels of employment in sectors like the service industry, which are more exposed to the effects of economic downturns”.

This Government created that downturn. It absolutely created it. The very people impacted are now blamed for what is going on, and there isn’t even a help up. This is actually the cut-off of those people from the very services that will put them into employment and will avoid them becoming beneficiaries. What the Ministry of Social Development says is that, actually, as a consequence, we will see these people back in the dole queues at 20, when we could have fixed the problem when they came out of school. I do not commend this bill to the House.

This Government expects 18-and 19-years olds to be in further education or work, not on welfare. If they can’t support themselves, it should be their parents that support them. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Social Services and Community Committee by majority be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 40

New Zealand Labour 27; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): This bill is set down for committee stage immediately.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill.

Committee of the whole House

Part 1 Jobseeker support and equivalent emergency benefit: tightening eligibility, and Schedule 1

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill. We start with the debate on Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 12, “Jobseeker support and equivalent emergency benefit: tightening eligibility”, and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.