Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I want to begin by reiterating the core purpose of the bill. It amends the Social Security Act to better target financial assistance to those most in need. The bill enables the Ministry of Social Development to implement two initiatives that were announced in Budget 2025. Taken together, these two initiatives are expected to support financial sustainability of the welfare system and reflect the Government’s vision for a firm, fair, and simple welfare system.

In my final remarks, I want to touch briefly on the purpose of these two changes. Firstly, the bill tightens the eligibility criteria for jobseeker support and the equivalent emergency benefit for 18- and 19-year-olds by introducing a parental assistance test. When this initiative is implemented, young people will need to meet the parental assistance test criteria before they can access or continue to access either of these benefits. This initiative will reinforce the expectation that young people who are not in employment, education, or training should be financially supported by their parents, not relying on taxpayers through the welfare system. Several OECD countries place tighter eligibility criteria on young people seeking welfare, some of which have age restrictions much higher for their equivalent jobseeker benefit. Young people will have better future outcomes if they remain close to the labour market or enter study rather than being on the jobseeker benefit.

Secondly, the bill supports the accommodation supplement more tightly for some homeowners. It increases the minimum weekly contribution some homeowners must make before they are eligible to receive the accommodation supplement. The change increases the entry threshold from 30 to 40 percent of their income. Homeowners who are receiving New Zealand superannuation, veterans pension, supported living payment, or the emergency benefit, if that is the equivalent to the supported living payment, will not be impacted by this change. Their circumstances are less likely to change, and they are likely to require longer-term social assistance. The partner or spouse of a recipient of one of these benefits will also not be impacted by this change.

Finally, I want to note that these changes will come into force on two different dates. The jobseeker support changes will come into force on 2 November this year, and the accommodation supplement changes will come into force on 1 April 2027.

These changes will deliver on the commitments made in Budget 2025 and support the fiscal sustainability of the welfare system by targeting support to those most in need. We will continue to support New Zealanders who have no other means of support available to them, but when individuals or their parents are able to provide that support, our expectation is that they should do so. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call in the third reading of the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill. This bill is here for the last time, and our opposition to it has not moved since we spoke against it in the first reading. In fact, everything we have heard since strengthens the case against it.

I want to talk about the select committee process. Before I turn to the substance of the bill, I’d like to take us back to the select committee process. The Social Services and Community Committee received 933 submissions in scope, and only one supported it. If the Minister was listening—which, it’s clear from that committee stage that we’ve just had, she wasn’t—that result should have prompted a rethink. But, as we know from previous pieces of legislation that the Minister has brought into the House under urgency or through normal proceedings, no changes are made as a result of efforts, putting in amendments, asking questions, and seeking clarification.

Then, “nek minnit”, we have two apologies in one week over mistakes that have been made through either the legislation, the policy settings behind it, or the implementation of it. This Government promised that when they made cuts to the Public Service, it wasn’t going to impact on the front line, but what we have seen this week is that those back-office cuts have impacted on the front line, and it has meant that beneficiaries have not received what they are entitled to. The Minister is ploughing ahead with another piece of legislation in a cost of living crisis and making it harder for 18- and 19-year-olds and their whānau.

I did put some amendments on the Table. The Minister didn’t accept any of those.

I want to point out again to the House that the regulatory impact statement was very clear. They said that in terms of the impact on young people and their families, the costs will significantly outweigh the benefits—the costs will significantly outweigh the benefits. If that is not a reason to abandon this bill before it was even introduced, I don’t know what is.

It undermines young adults. Here we have 18- and 19-year-olds. They’re going to be able to vote. They’re going to be able to sign a residential tenancy in their own name. But now, because this Government basically wants to make some savings, they’re making them the responsibility of their parents for longer, which is not mana-enhancing for these young adults.

The income test in this legislation is also very low. It sits close to the median household income, and, further, it takes no account of how many other children live in that household or how far that income actually stretches in that household. There were significant questions asked in the committee stage about this and just dismissed—carry on, push ahead. We know from the regulatory impact statement and we know from the communities that we live in that this bill will place significant hardship on whānau across the country, at a time when they are all really struggling to get by because of the Government’s choices. In fact, yesterday I was at the launch of the Child Poverty Action Group’s manifesto for this election, and they specifically talked about this change for 18- and 19-year-olds and the impact that it will have not only on those 18- and 19-year-olds but on their households, which will have younger children living in those households, making it harder for those families and pushing more into material hardship.

I want to come to the point that the Minister says this is all about getting young people into work, but she has not been paying attention to the fact that we have the highest unemployment rate in 11 years and our youth unemployment rate is the highest in 30 years.

We had submissions from the Council of Trade Unions. They represent 370—

Hon Matt Doocey: Oh! The old union mates.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Oh! Every time I mention the name “union”, the other side of the House starts making that sound: “Oh! Don’t wanna hear it.” But they said representing 370,000 workers, and they told the committee plainly that it will not achieve the aim of reducing dependency on jobseeker support. Young people are not staying out of work because they’ve lost interest in it; they are trying to find work and in a market that doesn’t have enough jobs for them. The jobs they are looking for are ones that are scarce in these economic times.

Joseph Mooney: Training and education.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: What’s that, sorry?

Joseph Mooney: With the training and education.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This isn’t a debate across the House.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Oh, appropriate for everybody, is it? Yeah, maybe you should have participated in the committee of the whole House stage.

I have given this example before: 1,200 applicants for one cleaning job in Auckland. There are not sufficient jobs for our young people. I was talking to AJ Hendry from Kick Back, who some of you may be familiar with for his advocacy on homelessness. Another issue that his young people have when they are coming through their doors is that they cannot find work. They are applying for jobs multiple times, not even getting a response to their applications. It is tough out there for our young people, but this Government doesn’t care. We also saw the impact that this will disproportionately have on Māori and disabled children. But the Government again ignored that evidence and that advice and are pushing on ahead.

I also want to turn briefly to the fact that by not having the jobseeker support, it means that these young people are not entitled to the programmes that help them get into work. That was made very clear in the submissions and so now that is a missing piece. In fact, in the officials’ advice, they said, in order to achieve the objectives, the policy outcomes of ensuring that we don’t have the young people coming on benefit and staying on for this long period of time that the Minister talks about, the best solution to that would actually be to provide more programmes supporting young people into employment, not cutting their benefit.

In the final minutes that I’ve got left, I just want to speak briefly to the accommodation supplement changes: raising the threshold from 30 percent to 40 percent. What is really sad to hear, and when you look at the advice that we’ve received from the officials, is that the people who are going to be impacted by this—even though the Minister was trying to say to us that nothing’s changed, no eligibility has changed. Well, actually, there’s a whole 10 percent change in the percentage in terms of the base rate. So the people that are going to be impacted by this, while some might benefit from this switching that she’s doing, the ones that are actually going to be suffering as a result of this are low to medium income households. The change in this threshold is going to make it harder for them.

In summary, this Government has a habit of making choices that make life harder for people already under pressure. This is another bad choice. It will not create jobs. It will put more pressure on young people and their families. It will push more families into hardship and push young people further from the support that they rely on.

I will close by acknowledging the over 900 people who wrote to our select committee, sharing what they believe the impact of this bill will be on those young people, advocating, pleading for the Minister and this Government to listen to what it is that they have got to say. But the Government hasn’t listened. They haven’t made any of those suggested changes and they are pushing ahead, which just goes to show what this Government really thinks about our young people. We do not commend this bill to the House.

You would think that when this lot sees over 1,000 young people applying for the same job that the problem isn’t that young people aren’t trying to get a job, but perhaps, just maybe, that there’s not enough jobs out there. And perhaps, just maybe, the fact that this Government cut thousands of jobs and graduate programmes for young people is contributing to the very same conditions that is leading to over 1,000 people applying for a single job out there. Cutting benefits for 18- and 19-year-olds will not suddenly address the youth unemployment crisis. For all the National MPs who talk about getting young people off the couch, get off your bloody comfortable seats, get out on the streets, and actually talk.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Just keep it parliamentary, please—keep it parliamentary.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Well, go out more and go talk to people out there more, because, unlike you, I actually have worked on the front lines with people on the benefit and have seen the very same families and the faces of the thousands of people that this is impacting. If you have, then you don’t care.

Tell me that you care about the cancer patients, Vanessa Weenink. Tell me that you care about the people with psychiatric and psychological conditions that will be left without an income support. If any members here have a medical degree, tell me that they were taught that cutting income support improves mental health outcomes. Tell me what evidence they’ve ever seen in their degrees that tells you that someone who’s facing a psychological or psychiatric condition—which makes up almost 70 percent of the jobseekers injury, health conditions, or disability—will have their lives improved as a result of welfare cuts.

Somehow the issue with people who are sick, injured, and disabled, apparently according to these members, is that they’re not trying hard enough. If the members on the other side are going to be talking about young people not getting off the couch and disrespecting them, they need to own up to the fact that they perhaps are the ones who need to get out more and talk to young people who are struggling to get a job themselves, the very same families they’re about to cut support from. I find it unparliamentary and disrespectful that, throughout all this debate, the Minister for Social Development and Employment has claimed that it is the parents’ responsibility of looking after a cancer patient or someone with a serious health condition who may be about to lose their benefit as a result of these policies.

This bill has nothing to do with actually addressing our youth unemployment crisis. It all has to do with saving money through welfare cuts on the poorest and most vulnerable, to pay for the tax cuts that disproportionately support high-income families. You don’t even have to believe me. Look at the Ministry of Social Development’s latest incomes report, that shows that beneficiaries are literally worse off after this term of Government. You don’t have to believe me. In fact, you don’t even need to get out more; you just need to read your own Government’s reports. The families who this bill is affecting are not just the lowest of the lowest-income families; it includes everyday working families who may be struggling to put food on the table. The settings for the parental income tests have been set so low that families with a combined income of, say, $80,000 will not be adequately supported to ensure that their young adult child—18- to 19-year-old—actually is supported as they enter in transition into employment.

Because if the members on the other side of the House claim to believe that a family with a combined income of $80,000 is doing it well enough to be able to support multiple young adults, they’re completely out of touch, and I urge them to spend perhaps a week in the life of young people and their families, or serving them, just even maybe respecting them, for a change.

The cuts to the accommodation supplement are also inexcusable. Imagine justifying taking from a group of people that are struggling to set up—but don’t worry, we’ll give it to another group that is struggling. Imagine claiming that perhaps the only group you had to find money from was families who were struggling. Imagine a Minister who claims over $50,000 each year on taxpayer subsidies for a home that she owns and has no debt on, but that perhaps it was low-income homeowners who should have to foot the bill. This is exactly the narrative, the agenda, that this Government is pushing for.

It is always the people on welfare who have to foot the bill if there are cuts. It is always the people who are doing it the toughest and most affected by the job cuts that have to foot the bill for the tax cuts that mostly benefit people who are on high incomes. These families are not just numbers, and no matter how much the Minister for Social Development and Employment will claim that she’s taking a firm and fair approach, it doesn’t make it true. You cannot just conjure up good lawmaking by repeating the same buzzwords time and time again. We’ve been proven right. The fact that we have been highlighting concerns throughout the whole of this term about the implementation of welfare policies, including this one, only to then be shown that, yeah, in fact, all of these agendas from the Government are not necessarily resulting in better outcomes for young people. It is instead an overwhelmed Ministry of Social Development (MSD) frontline who has not been able to keep up to date with the processing delays that they’re experiencing with other policies this Government has introduced that have led to countless benefits being wrongfully cut.

So when we asked the Minister in this debate whether she has actually done any due diligence to ensure that she can implement these changes, to ensure that there’s positive outcomes for young people, all she has to say is, “Well, I expect MSD to do as I say.” That is not a responsible Minister or a responsible lawmaker. Just saying that she expects her ministry to do as she says without guaranteeing the resources or equipping the front line to do so will not make it happen. This takes me back to the fact that the Minister, in my view, has no regard for the lives of beneficiaries. She has no regard for the lives of beneficiaries, and I see them saying, “Oh my god, no.”, but listen to how your Minister and the Prime Minister referred to people on the benefit—with no dignity nor respect.

When has the Prime Minister or the Minister ever actually owned up to the fact that people on welfare are trying their best, and are trying their best often in circumstances that I think would break many of us? I know this because, having worked at Auckland Action Against Poverty prior to coming here, I saw the families that this bill is affecting. I saw who they were, I saw their faces, and I saw so many families during that time that, if I am being truthful, I cannot remember every single one of them, but there are stories that stay with me. The families who are begging to Work and Income for enough assistance so that they can put on weight for a lifesaving surgery, only to be questioned about whether they should be getting takeaways despite living in emergency accommodation even without cooking facilities. These are the realities of the families on low incomes that bills like this are touching and affecting and that are changing their livelihoods.

You cannot just present this bill as if it is an abstract construct devoid of affecting people’s everyday realities and are potentially life-ruining for parents who are on low to middle incomes. This bill could wreck people’s lives. It will not actually push more people into employment, and I find it unparliamentary and offensive that members across the House support the Minister’s remarks claiming that cutting welfare for sick, injured, and disabled people will bring them closer to the labour market. If you’re sick, injured, or disabled, you need support to get to a position where you, potentially, if what you’re looking for is employment, that you can actually achieve it. If you’re injured, I do not see how cutting income support will get you any closer to the labour market. I’d love for the members to actually explain that to me. Tell me how an injured person having their welfare cut actually gets them anywhere closer to a job. Tell me how parents earning $80,000 combined will adequately support a cancer patient who’s having their welfare cut. I don’t think they can.

The worst thing is that, across the other side of the House, there are people with medical degrees. They should know better. They know, and they well know that incomes are directly tied to health outcomes. They know that incomes are directly tied to health outcomes, and if you take those incomes away, you’re making those health outcomes worse.

Hon James Meager: Did your dad teach you that?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Yeah, they do teach—you don’t even need a medical degree to know this; all it takes is for you to get outside, James Meager.

Hon James Meager: Did your dad teach you that?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Yeah, my dad taught me that.

Hon James Meager: Ah, because he’s a—

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Yeah, he’s a doctor, and it turns out that, yeah, actually, it does help to have people in your family who understand how things work. It turns out that maybe you should have learnt better from your own environment. Yeah. Because it seems to me that if you’re going to conjure my family to justify whether you understand welfare policies, you ought to actually realise the harm that you are doing. If all you have, James Meager, are references to my dad as to my understanding of welfare policy, shame on you for your disregard of the lives that this bill is affecting. Shame on you for even trying to conjure people’s families into this debate.

Hon James Meager: Point of order. I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Hon James Meager: I’d just like to make an apology to the member for raising his family in the debate.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Apology accepted.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of ACT to support the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill’s third reading. Government must make choices, and a Government’s choices should be such that they are fair for all hard-working New Zealanders, and also fair for people who are receiving any kind of benefit—it should be fair for both. The ACT Party’s approach is very simple and very straightforward, that people who need support should be getting the support, but it should not encourage dependency on the system. We should encourage people to get off the benefit and become independent.

In this bill, there are two things which are quite straightforward and quite simple, and this is the parental assistance test for 18- and 19-year-olds. I say to the member who spoke before that he needs to understand how to interpret the parental assistance test. That will be applied for 18- and 19-year-olds, those who will be seeking jobseeker support. It’s a fair expectation, because if parents can support these young people, then why should they rely on taxpayers? The responsibility should first settle on the parents if parents are able to provide that assistance. The second point in this bill is about the accommodation supplement. Again, it’s important that resources are directed where they are needed the most.

It’s a very straightforward bill. It’s about ensuring that we are fair to people who are on the benefit, and also fair to people who are contributing to the revenue that Government spends, so the ACT Party is pleased to support this bill. Thank you.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill. I heard the impassioned speech from the member from the Green Party, and I understand what you’re talking about, but just to back up to what the member Parmjeet Parmar was talking about in terms of the parental assistance test, the median wage in New Zealand is $74,000, so the anecdote that you gave me is probably a little bit on the extreme, but, OK, I heard you.

On the jobseeker support, New Zealand First supports the fact that young people get into work, training, or education. As for the accommodation supplement, we’re very pleased that superannuitants and veterans are not impacted by these changes. Thank you, Madam Speaker. We commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Celia Wade-Brown. This is the second of the split call.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We continue to oppose this bill at the third reading, as we have consistently done for very good reason. As I said not very long ago in my speech in the second reading, cutting income support does not create a single job.

Let’s be clear about the level at which parents are expected to support their children. This is not one person earning $67,000; this is a combined income of two people that is expected, however many other children they’ve got, whether they’ve got twin teenagers, whether they’ve got people who need special food because they’ve got some particular illness, and that is so little for them to be able to look after their 18- and 19-year-olds who would probably rather be independent. They may not be able to have jobs because there are no jobs, or they may not be able to apply because they don’t have the health to be able to do those jobs.

I was really disappointed that our members opposite not only dissed the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, but they actually dissed a website that is trying to help people connect with our democracy. Now, members in this House, whether they’re lawyers or engineers or whatever, are perfectly competent at writing a whole, long submission. But I’m not sure it’s always the erudite professorial submissions that make a difference. I want to hear from people who are doing it tough, who actually don’t have time, or potentially education, to write a huge long submission. If the yeahnah website helps people express themselves to this House through the select committee, I think we should welcome it, rather than dismiss it, because it actually helps people to have a say.

If we believe in honest democracy and open politics, we should be encouraging people who have potentially disabilities, potentially not very good education, and a number of other disadvantages, to have their say. But it’s all of a piece! If they can’t write something that’s NCEA level 3 English, then we’re not going to listen because it came through from yeahnah. I have to say that’s been one of the English language challenges, coming across from the other hemisphere, to learn what “yeah, nah” means, and I still have my doubts about it.

I just want to expand on one area that would help people who are not in education, employment, or training. It’s resourcing tailored services, and in particular, it’s resourcing them in rural and provincial areas. If you’re living in a town, there is perhaps the opportunity for more support—if you’re living in a big town or city.

I am so impressed by what Dale Williams, who was then Mayor of Ōtorohanga, set up. He then became a Carterton District councillor, but he set up Mayors Taskforce for Jobs, and it connects rangatahi with employers that local government knows—frankly, better than most electorate MPs, because they’ve got smaller areas, because they spend all their time there rather than staying in this House till midnight.

There are 36 rural and provincial councils actively working with the Ministry of Social Development, so it is a good local and central government partnership, or should I say it’s potentially a good partnership because this Government cut their budget. It was a pretty minimal budget of $11 million a year, and they cut it down. I think it’s now $8 million, and that’s got to support—80 percent of their cases have to be job seekers. I just want to finish by saying the Green Party will repeal this legislation and create a supportive safety net for our rangatahi.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak at the third reading of this bill. This Government believes that we need to target support to those most in need. This Government also knows that young people under the age of 25 on a benefit will spend up to 20 years of their lifetime on a benefit. We believe 18- and 19-year-olds need to be either in training, in education, or in employment. The Opposition has focused just on the employment in most of their speeches. If they’re not in employment, they need to be in education or training. This will set them up for a lifetime. I support this bill, I commend it to the House.

Thank you Madam Speaker. I’m also on the Social Services and Community Committee, and I accept that there is a real issue with just ignoring submissions that you don’t like the sound of, and it was resounding that the submitters did not like this bill.

Now, I just want to take the average New Zealander through what we’re doing here tonight, because they were promised something by the people who are now in Government. They were promised there was going to be a reduction in the costs they faced out there. They were promised this—meanwhile, this Government shelled out money to landlords, and it shelled out money to tobacco companies, and it has to pay for it somehow. This is who’s paying for it.

A family that has an 18-year-old who might just want to go into work. “What’s wrong with that?”, we’d say. It’s a good thing—isn’t it?—that they want to go into work. They don’t want to go into study; they want to go into work. There might be reasons for that, but they also just might want to go into work, which is a perfectly legitimate thing to want—isn’t it?—and, in fact, where we’re supposed to be going. That family with that kid, they might have applied for a number of jobs, and given that there’s record high unemployment in this country for that group—30-year record high for unemployment—it’s not actually that easy to do. That mother or father, or both, that are on a combined income of just over $62,000 gross a year, they are now going to be responsible for their kid for the next couple of years while they try and find work.

Let’s just think about how many families are affected in New Zealand. When they did the analysis on this, they said that 68.8 percent of the people impacted by this piece of legislation were families. They were going to be our families. They might have lots of kids, they might have four kids—we actually need more children in this country. We are going to have a huge problem if we don’t have more children, but, apparently, we get punished for that right now. If you’ve got four children and you’re trying to divide your $62,000 and you’ve got an 18-year-old to support in that circumstance, there’s no help for you. If you own your own home, you’re in really big trouble then, because what you’re expected to do is go out there and use your choices—this is what the Minister called it tonight. Your choices are things like, refinancing your mortgage, etc.

What, again, the experts said when they were criticising and talking about this bill—they were critiquing it, they were trying to give us decent feedback. They said that’s not really good, that’s not a great thing because those families just simply—we’re not taking into account the fact that they’ve got, actually, a lot of bills to pay. I think we all know that, and I keep on being told off for mentioning the cost of butter, but it is actually a big deal in most New Zealand families.

We can be excited for the community that are making money out of that, which is the farming community, but it’s not actually that good if you are in Mt Albert on $62,000, and you have four kids, and you have an 18-year-old. It doesn’t help. You’ve still got to buy the butter, and it’s gone up considerably. Those families, well, they now have to pay. They’re going to be $42 worse off a week. Whereas, a group without children, with the same issue over that second part of the legislation, it’s only $37. So we’re actually, again, punishing our families. They are now much worse off than they were.

What this is, is a combined issue. That’s pointed out again by the experts, they say to take these two things together—the fact that you’ve got an 18-year-old, and you’ve got this issue over your support of your accommodation supplement being less. Take those two together and it’s pretty crushing. It causes real harm, and they call it financial stress—they say it’s a lot of financial stress. Well, it is—it’s a lot of financial stress.

This Government that promised people that they were going to help with the cost of living crisis, they’ve made the lives of the very families they should be looking after much worse tonight. That’s what we’re doing tonight: we’re making their lives harder—big money-harder.

Now, I know that if we look at that amount, it probably isn’t much for some of the people on the other side of the House, but it is for a lot of people in my area of Mt Albert. That’s going to really hurt them. I am not proud of this legislation and I do not commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I haven’t even managed to write her name down it was that fast! The Hon Willie Jackson.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. That type of speech just shows you how much respect the Government has for young people.

Tom Rutherford: Let’s see what you say in the next five.

Francisco Hernandez: Four seconds.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yeah, four seconds, that’s about it in terms of the Government’s respect, and how hard whānau are doing it at the moment. I would’ve thought more from that member would’ve been more forthcoming, but no, we don’t get it.

Here’s a question for her and that useless lot on the other side. Where are the jobs? That’s what the question is: where are the jobs that these young people are meant to be going to? I don’t understand. You’re getting hundreds, now, who are lining up for jobs they normally would have got, and they’re not getting there. But this lot doesn’t care, because we all know that this is all about saving money for their rich mates. That’s what it’s all about. They don’t care about young people. They don’t care about families.

As my colleagues have been saying, and people have been saying all the way through this debate, this is about looking after their priorities in terms of society—the oil and gas lobbyists, the tobacco companies, the landlords. This is what it’s all about.

We get regularly scrutinised—“Oh, where are you going with the money?” We’re going to take the money—

Tom Rutherford: You are a landlord.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, I’m not. No, I am not. I’m not a landlord—we’re going to take the money off their rich mates and give it to whānau and families who are in need. That’s what this is all about.

Despite a select committee being 99 percent against what this Government was doing—virtually nobody came to the select committee and supported the Government. They’ve ignored the select committee. They’ve ignored what the people are saying out there. So many people are opposed to this; families affected out there, but they just continue on with their cuts, cuts, cuts in terms of public services. I’m pleased that this side of the House stands up and reminds the other side, people on the other side who should know better—Dan Bidois, well, I’ve given up on Dan some time ago; James Meager over there—he’s too busy trying to blimmin’ plot his way to being the first Māori Prime Minister and he’s failed miserably so far; we all know he cares more about rugby than the Prime Minister.

The reality is that this is a serious kaupapa for us and that’s why we have extended the kōrero so much and so far. I’m really pleased to stand up and say, “Where is the mahi?” You see the Government had a choice; the Ministry of Social Development could have invested in many of the programmes that we put in place. They’ve still got He Poutama Rangatahi; they’ve still got Mana in Mahi, but they have severely reduced the funding in those areas; they’ve cut Māori trade training—these are programmes where we see real results for young people. We’ve got record youth unemployment at the moment. We’ve got record worst Māori unemployment in 10 years; worst youth employment in 30 years; unemployment at an all-time high. And here you have whānau being attacked by this uncaring Government, which is doomed over the next two months.

I’m pleased to stand up tonight and am proud to say that Labour absolutely opposes this bill. We’re disappointed in the Minister who should know more, but we’re particularly disappointed in this Government who continues to cut and cut and cut back on workers’ rights, on Māori rights, on women’s rights, and we’ve had enough. We’re going to oppose this Government all the way to when we break up at the end of September. They should try and understand that young people now are not only going to be looking for jobs, but they now have their parents having to carry the burden. It is not fair. This is not fair on their parents. This is not fair on whānau. This is not fair on communities. Shame on this Government. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It’s a pleasure to bring this debate back to the bill tonight, because this bill is all about strengthening our welfare system to target those most in need. It’s all about targeting those most in need and bringing to the fore the value of personal responsibility and strong families, which is what we are all about. That’s why I support and commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s always good to stand in this House and speak to the community that I live in and the realities that many people are facing. The previous member, Dan Bidois, just said that this is a bill that is strengthening social welfare. That is a ridiculous statement, because it does not do anything such as that. The reality of this is that this bill is really about a cost-savings exercise or a cut for this Government. They are taking money out of the system that currently supports 18- and 19-year-olds, young people in this country, who tend to be the most vulnerable throughout our communities across Aotearoa New Zealand.

One would say that “no, absolutely, we don’t want young people on benefits”. The statistics are correct to say that if a young person goes on a benefit, then yes, they are more likely to stay on there for longer. However, the reality is that there has to be an alternative and I believe absolutely, as Labour’s tertiary education spokesperson, that we have to have those alternatives in place. But I challenge that, as well, because under this Government and this particular Minister, putting this bill in front of us tonight, is a massive cut to things like the Apprenticeship Boost scheme. We’ve seen 17,000 less apprentices be active on the job since this Government took office—17,000. We’ve seen the highest unemployment rate that we’ve seen in decades at 5.5 percent, and the highest for young people in 30 years. If we look at young people not engaged in education, employment, or training, that has peaked under this Government at almost 100,000—100,000 young people aren’t engaged in employment, education, or training.

That’s where this bill does not make sense, because if this Government had a genuine commitment to training young people, then there wouldn’t be the cuts to the tertiary education sector or to initiatives that actually support young people into work or into training to get the qualifications that they need. The qualification, of course, is important because that leads to job security, that leads to higher wages, and that sets them up for a good life. And so my question, when we look at this particular legislation before the House, is I just don’t understand why—what’s the motivation for this Government to actually take away support, financial support, to our most vulnerable young people in this country? It does not make any sense whatsoever. I’ve never met anyone indoors, out on the street, or in my community that says, “You must take away the support to 17- and 18-year-olds because we want to get nephews off the couch”. That is not real. That is not a real statement. It’s not a real statement in Northcote, it’s not a real statement in Napier, it is not a real statement in Northland, and it’s not a real statement in Whanganui. Because New Zealanders believe that we should be investing in young people and supporting them into the right pathways.

I absolutely believe that those pathways are training pathways, they are educational pathways.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Good. We agree, then.

SHANAN HALBERT: But that is not, Vanessa Weenink, what this Government is providing. You have to be responsible for the choices that your Government has made. That equates to 17,000 less apprentices in this country than three years ago; 100,000 young people are not engaged in education, employment, or training—that includes in Christchurch. That’s 35,000 young people more, under your watch, under a National - New Zealand First - ACT Government. And here you are tonight putting forward legislation that creates a worse outcome for young people and their families. And if you want to heckle me tonight, I’ve got statistic after statistic after statistic to actually tell you that the choices that you’re making, you’re going to be responsible for.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The Speaker’s not making them.

SHANAN HALBERT: Actually, the fact, tonight, that all of you sit there—laugh, heckle, mock—speaks to the arrogance of this Government. It absolutely reeks of the arrogance of this Government, because I believe you would never, ever walk into a panel in your own communities and say that you should be taking away the support that supports young people, no matter where you live. You wouldn’t do that. You do that here because you live in a bubble, you’re out of touch, and that’s why New Zealanders actually believe that you are one of the worst Governments that New Zealand has ever seen, with one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers that this country has ever had.

Hon James Meager: How’s yours going?

SHANAN HALBERT: Well, mine’s going good because the polls are much higher on my side. If we look back—

Hon Member: What about the apples? What happened to the apples?

SHANAN HALBERT: —two weeks and, Madam Speaker, they’re encouraging me so I can absolutely go there: while you were all distracted by changing your leadership in a failed coup—

Hon Member: Oh, look at him go.

SHANAN HALBERT: —and not focused on the needs of New Zealanders—yes, you, Mr Chief Whip—for the second time. So let’s get back to reality.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Let’s get back to the bill.

SHANAN HALBERT: I’m focused on the bill, because the reality is New Zealanders want us to be focused on the cost of living. They want us to support our most vulnerable; they want us to create jobs, and to be in employment, but that is not what this Government has done. If we’re talking to the bill, I go back to my opening argument: the narrative that this bill sets is that young people are doing nothing, that families should pay for their children, all of those things, and that would be a great narrative if there were actually training programmes in place for them, but the reality is that this Government has cut them, too. They’re cutting benefits, they’re taking away opportunities for young people, and that is why we’re seeing people go offshore. They’re leaving New Zealand and losing hope in New Zealand. We are going backwards in this country under this Government, and New Zealanders cannot afford another three years of this National Government.

One thing I know is that young people are talented and full of potential. At 18 and 19 years old, they should be building their future through education, employment, or training, not becoming dependent on welfare. Evidence shows that young people who enter the jobseeker benefit or support may spend, on average, 21 more years receiving a main benefit. We must break this cycle. This bill is an important step towards reducing long-term benefit dependency. I commend this bill to the House.

I commend the bill to the House.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Point of order—point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I am actually in the middle of something and I will deal to the point of order in a second.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Point of order, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I do apologise, but it was a clarification I sought with Madam Speaker previously, because the mic isn’t necessarily sometimes—I did seek the Speaker’s permission, previously as a Chair, that I am able to raise my voice, and the Chair at that stage said, “As long as it’s not louder than Tom Rutherford, it is fine.”

I just want to seek your clarification, Madam Speaker, that it’s the general convention that, yes, while we are looking at whoever got up first, I would like to go on the record that, in this particular case, I did get up—

Dr Carlos Cheung: Oh, Stuart was faster this time, I’m thinking.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN:Questionable—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Points of order are heard in silence.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: —we can review the video but I think, in addition to that, I would like to seek your clarification, Madam Speaker, that while anyone can get up to bid for that call, it is usually the convention that that being the Opposition call and the Opposition time that, in some ways, Opposition will be given preference when we’re looking at whoever is able to bid for that particular time. I just want to seek your clarification on that, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The call is given by the person in the Chair, at their discretion.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 38

New Zealand Labour 25; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill

Legislative Statement