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 second time.

As I’ve said before, our Government believes that the welfare system should be a safety net for those who need it most. It should be there to support people when they generally need assistance, while encouraging those who can support themselves or who can reasonably be supported by their families to do so. New Zealanders deserve a welfare system that is firm, fair, and simple, and that’s what this bill does.

The Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill amends the Social Security Act of 2018 to support fiscal sustainability in the welfare system by better targeting financial assistance to those most in need. As I outlined in the first reading, the bill has two policy components. 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 one of those benefits. The initiative will reinforce the expectation that young people who are not in employment, education, or training should be financially supported by their parents instead of relying on the welfare system.

There has been an increase in benefit dependency among young people. As of 2017, modelling has indicated that 18- and 19-year-olds on jobseeker support were projected to spend an average of 12 future years on a main benefit. However, more recent modelling indicates that this estimate has income. However, more recent modelling indicates that this estimate has increased to an average of 21 future years supported by a main benefit. That is why our Government is building a more active welfare system that supports more young people into work. Going on welfare when you’re young is a trap, and it’s not the future our Government wants for young people.

To meet the parental assistance test criteria, a young person will need to demonstrate that they have a support gap with their parents, meaning they cannot reasonably be expected to rely on their parents for financial support and/or their parents’ incomes fall below the income limit. The support will be there for those who need it under this test.

Secondly, the bill targets 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.

I would like to thank the Social Services and Community Committee for its careful consideration of the bill and to those members of the public and organisations who provided both written and oral submissions. The select committee received a number of submissions that commented on the parental support gap for jobseeker support. To be clear, the parental support gap test has been designed as a safety net to ensure that where parental support is not available or cannot reasonably be relied on, those young people will remain eligible for support. This test allows for a young person to provide relevant evidence to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to determine a parental support gap.

Some submitters raised concerns about the lack of details in the bill around the parental support gap test, and I acknowledge those concerns. The detail will be set out in secondary legislation, as provided for in the Social Security Act. This will be gazetted and published in the House to set clear and consistent guidelines for verification of parental support gaps. The secondary legislation will include the types of evidence that MSD can accept, criteria for who can verify a supporting statement, and the circumstances when MSD can nominate someone to verify a parental support gap.

There were concerns about the impacts of the policy on those with disabilities. Firstly, impacted young people will continue to have access to supplementary payments from MSD, such as a disability allowance, where they are eligible for support. I want to make it clear that the Supported Living Payment is not in scope of this policy. This means no parental assistance test is required for young people who have a health condition, injury, or disability that permanently and severely restricts them in their ability to work.

Rather than being on the jobseeker support, young people will have better future outcomes if they remain close to the labour market. To do this, the parental assistance test will apply to all grounds of jobseeker support to encourage young people into employment, education, or training.

For the accommodation supplement entry threshold change, many submitters were concerned that older and low-income homeowners may be impacted. I want to reassure the public that the entry threshold increase is not applied to New Zealand superannuation, the veterans pension, the Supported Living Payment and emergency benefit equivalent recipients or their partners. Our Government acknowledges that the circumstances of these recipients are less likely to change and they are likely to require longer-term social assistance. Generally, homeowners with the highest accommodation costs and those with the most support will not be affected by the entry threshold change.

Several technical amendments were agreed through the select committee stage, and these provide greater clarity and ensure the legislation operates as intended. After its consideration of the bill, the Social Services and Community Committee has recommended the bill proceed.

This bill ensures that financial support is targeted to where it is needed most. It encourages young people to move into work, study, or training. 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, not other taxpayers. I’m confident that these changes will lead to better long-term outcomes for 18- and 19-year-olds and to support being provided to homeowners who need it the most. I look forward to seeing this bill through the remaining stages of the parliamentary process, and I recommend and commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. The Minister for Social Development and Employment in her contribution talked about it being firm and fair, and statements like “a more active … system that supports young people into work.” Labour opposes the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill. This bill is yet another attack on people who are doing their best but are struggling to get by because of this Government’s choices and that this Government is doing nothing to help them. Every day this Government is in power, their choices make it harder for people. Instead of helping New Zealanders get ahead, we’ve got Christopher Luxon promising to fix the cost of living while his Government continuously makes choices that are making it worse, and this bill is one of those bad choices. We’ve already seen National slash temporary additional support and make it harder for emergency housing, and this week we learnt that thousands of pensioners and veterans lost access to their winter energy payment because the Minister was in such a rush to put through that legislation and make life harder for people. Now we have this bill.

I focus on the impacts of this bill on young people, but I want to note how detrimental the changes to the accommodation supplement will be for low-income earners in a cost of living crisis as well. But turning to young people, young people are suffering because there are no jobs for them. According to the Salvation Army, in the year to September 2025, the number of young people not in education, training, or employment was higher than it has been in 20 years. Many of these young people need jobseeker support to get by, and this Government wants to take that support away.

So what does this bill do? This bill makes it harder for rangatahi aged 18 to 19 years to access jobseeker. These are young adults stepping out into the world and trying to make independent lives for themselves, but this bill cuts them off at their knees and undermines their ability to exercise their own agency and develop as adults. Many have already had a lot of negative experiences in their lives. Moving into independence is a crucial step, but this bill undermines it.

I want to point out for the House the Government’s own document that summarises this situation well, and I want to read into the Hansard because I think that every member of the House should hear this. The regulatory impact statement says, “In terms of impact on young people and their families, the costs will significantly outweigh the benefits.” That’s not the Labour Party saying this; this is the Ministry of Social Development that is saying this, and the Government proceeds anyway. We oppose this bill.

The Minister for Social Development and Employment acknowledged those that had taken the time to make submissions and highlighted some of the issues and concerns in those submissions. Well, I note for the House today that 933 submissions were in scope and received by the select committee; only one supported the bill—one. That’s not a close call; that’s a verdict.

Let me tell the House what some of those submissions said, because they deserve to be heard, even if this Government chose not to listen and to dismiss those concerns. The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, who represent over 370,000—

Tim Costley: Ha, ha!

Hon James Meager: Ha, ha!

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Oh, look at the laughs and the eye rolls on the other side because I mentioned that dirty word “union” to the other side. Well, they represent over 370,000 workers, and told the committee plainly that the bill will not achieve the stated intention of reducing benefit dependency among young people. In fact, they highlighted that youth unemployment has risen significantly. Oh, Minister for Youth over there—maybe you might want to listen to this. But what they were at pains to point out is that this is not because young people have suddenly become lazy or uninterested in working; it’s because they are trying to find work and there are just no jobs.

On top of this, young people generally have fewer skills and less experience simply because of their age, and the work that they are trying to find is concentrated in industries like hospitality and retail. Well, what’s happened in hospitality since this Government came into power? They have been some of the most hardest hit industries in the economic downturns.

I want to turn to the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, who also detailed the changes for young people finding work. Like we’ve heard across the submissions, they pointed out that this bill will lead to increased financial hardship among whānau who become financially responsible for young people unable to access work. Their first recommendation was simply this: do not proceed with it. Did the Minister listen? No.

What about the Salvation Army? They have worked for over 140 years, supporting around 130,000 people every year. They told the committee that this will only add complexity into what is already a highly complex system for vulnerable people to have to navigate and will make life harder. They also pointed out that this will reduce young peoples’ access to the very services they need to get jobs—that is employment support and training, things like helping with literacy and getting a driver’s licence, which we know are the reasons that stop young people from getting work in the first place. So the Minister in her contribution said that this will be about a more active system that supports young people into work, but what submitters told us is that if they are not on the jobseeker benefit, then they have no access those very supports that they need to help them get into these jobs or “ghost jobs”, because where are all the jobs, Minister?

Then we have the Citizens Advice Bureau. In their submission, they referred to the Government’s stated aims, which are to reduce benefit dependency, and they showed how this is at odds with the reality. Most young people who receive jobseeker support are already actively seeking work. They gave an example of Maia: “Maia had a job she enjoyed in hospitality, but the business closed due to the recession and she lost her job. She has been looking for work, but due to limited opportunities, she has enrolled to study. She has run out of funds and with no work needs to apply for support.” So the Citizens Advice Bureau emphasised what other submitters said: “The young people who come to CAB are not choosing benefits over employment. They are navigating insecure labour markets, rising housing costs, increasing food prices, transport barriers, mental health challenges, and limited opportunities.”

I also turn to the submissions that we received for the impact that this will have on Māori. That was from Te Hunga Roia Māori—the Māori Law Society—and Pou Tangata on behalf of the National Iwi Chairs Forum. In Te Hunga Roia Māori’s submission, they talked about how this had been developed once again without any meaningful engagement with Māori, despite the foreseeable impacts on Māori communities. As they state, this is “inconsistent with the Crown’s obligations under Te Tiriti … Meaningful engagement requires Māori participation at a formative stage of policy development”, not after things have already been settled. They submitted that the bill should be withdrawn. We agree with that—the Government didn’t.

Pou Tangata also said that forcing rangatahi to legally declare their parents cannot support them places an undue burden on whānau relationships, creating internal friction and shame within households already under financial duress, and ignores the reality that Māori communities face under the national employment rate, which is that the Māori unemployment rate is double that of the rest of New Zealand—the general unemployment rate.

The Minister talked briefly about the impact on people with disabilities, and that came through again strongly in the submissions. Just like she ignored the submissions in the previous bill, she’s ignored them here too. These are some of the reasons why submitters and Labour oppose this bill. The most effective way to support young people into employment is education, training, and tailored employment services; not punitive income tests, not parental means testing. We would invest in young people on this side of the House. This Government is divesting from them. So 930 submitters told this committee the bill should not proceed. Labour agrees with them, but that side of the House just ignored it.

The National Party is all about breaking the basics and ruining the future for young people. This bill is just the latest example of their ongoing beneficiary bashing attacks on the poor, while they cut thousands of jobs and leave children growing up in poverty with worsening material conditions. That is not my view; that is a fact. The Government has been told that as a result of decisions that they have made, more children are growing up in households where they do not have enough to meet their basic essentials.

Tell me how cutting benefits for thousands of sick, injured, and disabled young people fixes the basics. Tell me how pretending that sick and injured and disabled young people who have been deemed by Work and Income to not be able to work full time will just magically be able to transition into training or education. Tell me how a young person who is seeing a hiring freeze on our public healthcare system will be wanting to go into a healthcare profession, only to find themselves with a massive student loan and no job to go into. None of the provisions of this bill help address the basics, which is that we’ve got a Government that has been focused on cutting jobs, rather than creating them; that has been focused on worsening material conditions for students, rather than improving them; that has been focused on stripping the sick and injured and disabled people of the support that they need, instead of improving it.

The Minister, in her previous speech on the previous bill, conceded that disabled people have it hard. Well, then, why cut thousands of sick and injured and disabled peoples’ income support as part of this bill? Thousands of people on jobseeker, health, injury, and disability benefits will be affected as part of this bill. For any member of the Government who will say, “Oh, they can just go on the supported living payment.”, I urge you to go out to the streets. Talk to a single bloody beneficiary for once. Talk to them about the challenges that they face getting on the supported living payment. Talk to them about the fact that they face humongous hurdles trying to get into a benefit that has huge barriers, not just because it requires you to be able to afford the cost of going to a GP—it requires you to go to a GP that, for example, will actually be cognisant and competent on disability issues. And it requires Work and Income to choose to not challenge a doctor—a trained medical professional—with a board that can often have people who haven’t practised for years to, basically, decline the comments from a doctor. It should come as no surprise that we’ve got members from the ACT Party, for example, further wanting to restrict access to the supported living payment.

I’ll tell you who exactly is having their incomes taken away from them. This is coming off the select committee’s own documents. We’ve got people who are facing psychological or psychiatric conditions—that’s almost 70 percent of the people who are on jobseeker, injury, health condition, or disability benefits. So much for a Government that cares about our youth mental health crisis. We’ve got people who are facing cardiovascular disorders, who have faced accidents that have left them unable to work, complications of trauma, pregnancy-related issues, congenital conditions including cancer, infectious and parasitic diseases, muscular skeletal system disorder, respiratory disorders, genitourinary disorders, blood and blood forming organs, skin disorders, digesting system disorders, nervous system disorders, immune system disorders, metabolic and endocrine disorders, intellectual disability sensory disorders, and other conditions.

Tell me how cutting the benefits of people who are facing those conditions does anything to fix the basics rather than ruining their lives. Cutting income support for people who are sick, injured, and disabled worsens their health conditions. I find it so galling and telling that the Minister, when I’ve asked her in question time about this very same serious issue, she goes, “Oh, well, people can still access hardship grants for food”. You’re telling families that they should go and line up at food banks and Work and Income to continue to survive while their kids are sick, injured, or disabled? What kind of safety net is that? What kind of future are we trying to provide for young people who are unwell? Their health conditions and their injuries will not improve as a result of cutting that very same income support. You will worsen them.

It doesn’t take an expert to know that if you’re injured or sick and you deprive people of that support, you’ll be leaving them worse off. Then the Minister talked about “Oh, well, don’t worry, there’s a parental income test”. How much is the parental income test? It’s $67,000 total as a household. That means that if you’re deemed to earn as a household over $67,000—that means, for example, two parents’ combined incomes—you won’t be eligible for a benefit. Tell me what family in this cost of greed crisis can actually afford their basic essentials with two parents, perhaps two children, with a total combined income of $67,000. Not many. It just shows that this Government is completely out of touch with the lived realities of working families. Putting more pressure on parents who are simply trying their best while also stripping those parents of the support that their children would have been eligible for before they turn 18—it just does not make sense.

If we look at some other components of the bill that cut the accommodation supplement for low-income homeowners, it tells you exactly who this Government is serving. They have rushed legislation to support property investors, but when it comes to low-income people who have maybe finally saved enough for their first home—yep, we’re stripping them of support. How much? On average, $40 a week. That $40 a week for a low-income family is actually the difference between being able to keep the lights on or put food on the table. The people who they’re cutting support from include people who are in work—in fact, the large majority of people who are affected by this, of a single group, are non-beneficiaries. They’re not just targeting people on the benefit: they’re targeting working families.

It also includes solo parents, who perhaps finally managed to build a life, to get a home, and are just trying to pay the mortgage off. It includes people who have become injured or sick as well and have had to go on a benefit temporarily. We’re not talking about the 18- and 19-year-olds who the Minister continuously and erroneously claims that they’re going to be—she kind of presents it as 20 years continuously on the benefit. We’re talking about people who may just need support for a handful of months while they get better. But I guess it’s OK because, at the end of the day, the Minister says that she’s targeting support to those who need it while claiming $50,000-plus of accommodation benefits herself. That is not serious. You can’t take a Minister seriously when she says, “We’re targeting support to those who need it the most.” while she cuts income support for those who actually needed it, and she claims tens of thousands of dollars to pay for a property that she does not have debt on.

Shame on this Government for showing us who they’re serving, which is not everyday working families. Those 18- and 19-year-olds on a benefit, yeah, they’re supported by and large by working parents—working parents whose lives this Government is choosing to make harder. Again, I just cannot see how Government members on the other side can give us their 10-second contribution telling us that this is a bill about fixing the basics and building the future, as though it was a ChatGPT-produced speech, when they’re doing the exact opposite. They cannot even tell us how exactly this bill will reduce the number of years that someone spends on a benefit, other than by just simply taking that benefit away. It’s not because they’ve created better employment outcomes, and we know that. Young people are applying for countless jobs; we’ve got news stories of jobs that have had hundreds, if not over a thousand applicants.

We know that in this economic system, unemployment is baked in by design. No matter whether it’s Labour or National in Government, unemployment has been a fixture of the economy. You will not tell us that you’ve got a National Party that wants to reduce unemployment to zero. It’s not correct. They don’t want to—they never wanted to. They have never, ever stated that their intention is to reduce unemployment to as close to zero percent as is possible. They have always intended to have a group unemployed, living below the poverty line, and desperate to take any job no matter how poor the conditions are. When you compound that with a legislative agenda that has worsened conditions for low-income workers, it tells you that this isn’t a Government that is ruling for working families but instead for their mates, who are actually benefiting from the policies that they’re putting forward—whether it’s people in the fossil fuel industry, or whether it’s property investors.

The Green Party is committed to repealing this legislation and building a safety net that actually provides tailored support for young people who want to go into education, who want to go into training, who want to get a job—and a safety need that honours the dignity of people who are injured, who are sick, and who are disabled, rather than taking those very benefits away. I dare for those members of the other side to justify taking benefits away from cancer patients or people who are struggling with psychiatric conditions. Justify it. Look at the select committee report and tell me that you don’t know that you’re actually taking the benefits of thousands of people who are sick, injured, or disabled away. Tell me that you don’t know. Justify it—I dare you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, in response to the previous member Ricardo Menéndez March’s comments, this bill does not take away the supported living payment for those with the likes of cancer and a lot of the conditions that the previous member spoke about, or the disability support. There were submitters that came to us who had been whipped up in a fear that this would happen by, quite honestly, members from that side of the House. That is not what is happening with this piece of legislation.

We cannot unlock the potential of the next generation if we say that it’s OK to be at home and not in education or work. That is completely not acceptable. This side of the House and the ACT Party has way bigger ambitions and goals for our young people, and we will not allow them to just sit at home. If you’re a student and you’re in education, your parents’ income is tested before you get student allowance. How is it fair that an 18-year-old could get the jobseeker payment and that not be income tested?

We are not saying that you can’t go on jobseeker if you don’t have parental support; we are merely saying that if you do, and you’re living at home, and you’re with your parents, you have to have that income tested. I think that is actually fair and reasonable, because we can’t have people not in education and not in work. They still have the other supports that the Ministry of Social Development offer around helping getting young people into work, which I think is a really important thing to note: CV help, matching them with employers—all of that still exists under this legislation.

When it comes to the accommodation support, yes, the criteria has changed, and that means that some people who own their own home may have a reduction or will have a reduction in the amount that they get for their accommodation support. But think about the people who don’t own their own home—the ones that are way far behind. They’re going to be receiving an extra $30 a week, I think it is.

Ricardo Menéndez March: No, it’s like $12.

LAURA McCLURE: Well, I think it’s between $10 and $30, depending on who they are.

Ricardo Menéndez March: You’re taking $40 away.

LAURA McCLURE: Well, we can clarify that. But they will be receiving an additional payment in the next coming months. I think that is really important to acknowledge that nothing has been cut here. We’re actually redistributing money to those that really desperately need it, and we are not going to incentivise staying on a benefit if you’re 18, because we actually care about the next generation. We want to unlock their potential, and we’re not going to do that if they’re sitting on the couch and playing PlayStation at home with mum and dad. I commend this bill to the House.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table pages 12 and 13 of the advice given to us by the Ministry of Social Development that shows that there are thousands of people with health conditions affected by this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): As a select committee document, that is readily available to all members.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Not to ACT, by the sounds of it.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I’m not aware if it’s been published, but it seems like they’re not aware of it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?

Hon Members: Yes.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): There is.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill. One of the first priorities for New Zealand First is the employment of New Zealanders. That is, in our planning, a priority and one of the first things we think about as a party in this Government.

I was able to sit on the Social Services and Community Committee for this. We heard 87 oral submissions, and over 935 submissions in total. I do agree with the Minister: the welfare system is a safety net, and the first priority here is looking at the jobseeker—it’s about the eligibility criteria for jobseeker support and the emergency benefits for those aged 18 and 19 years old. In the first reading speech, I talked about our young people being our future, and they are the people that we want to see, firstly, in work, or education or training. That’s the principle here—that we want to see our young people either in work and, if they can’t find work, in education and training. We do not want to see our young people on jobseeker benefits and becoming dependent on benefits. What we learnt and have learnt is that if young people start on benefits at a young age, their dependency can be up to decades. As a country, we want to be a productive country, and to be a productive country we need our youngest and brightest people to be in training, education, or they need to be in work. So it’s a very simple process from this side of the House.

The second part of this bill was the entry threshold for the accommodation supplement. Again, it was very clear that this hadn’t been reviewed since 1993. Obviously, the threshold here is increasing from 30 percent to 40 percent, but, proudly, New Zealand First want to highlight that it will not impact New Zealand superannuation and it will not impact those on the veterans pension.

This is a very common-sense update to this bill, getting our young people into work. That’s what we strive for in this country and on this side of the Government. Hearing from the Opposition, it sounds like they want everybody on the couch and going to the ATM every week to get their money. On that, I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): A five-minute split call—Oriini Kaipara.

I give rise to the voices of those who are looking after rangatahi on the front lines, especially in Tāmaki-makau-rau. The question is, where do they go? The Minister and their Government still cannot answer that. When an 18-year-old has no job, no income, this Government is asking, “How much do your parents earn? How much do mum and dad earn?” I’m asking something very different: “Are you OK? Are you safe? How can I help, and what can we do right now to stop you from being homeless?”

That’s the difference between this bill and my youth homelessness prevention bill. At first reading, I warned this House about the assumption sitting underneath this very policy: that every rangatahi has parents who can support them, that every home is safe, that every whānau has money to spare. Well, guess what! They don’t. A parent’s income on paper isn’t a home, it doesn’t mean there’s a spare bedroom, and it doesn’t mean that relationship is safe. In Tāmaki-makau-rau, where whānau are already stretched by rent, food, power, transport, medical and dental bills, even school costs, it certainly doesn’t mean that there’s money left over to support another adult.

When you take income away from one rangatahi, where are they supposed to go? If they end up on nan’s couch, you haven’t solved benefit dependency. If they end up sleeping in a car, you haven’t created independence. If they end up in emergency housing or, worse, out on the streets, you have not saved the Crown money. If they end up on the street, every single one of us in this House has failed them.

That’s why I introduced my youth homelessness prevention bill, because I refuse to accept that we have to wait until our rangatahi is homeless before the State acts. My bill starts earlier. See the warning signs, step in, keep them housed, connect them to community, and then help them into education and into training, and then into mahi—into work. That is prevention. That is what social investment should actually look like, not removing a young person from one Government spreadsheet and declaring success, because getting someone off a benefit isn’t the same thing as getting somebody into a job, and it sure as hell isn’t success if we get them into homelessness.

I’m putting this Government on notice. At committee stage, I will ask this House to remove the parental income regime and, if the Government refuses, I will move amendments to protect our rangatahi. If taking away their income puts them at risk of homelessness, they should keep their support. If the Government says they can go home, prove that home exists; prove that it is safe, prove that it is actually available to them. And if the Minister genuinely believes that that this policy will improve young people’s lives, measure what happens to them. Tell us how many enter into work and how many leave work. Tell us how many enter into education and leave successfully, and tell us how many end up needing emergency housing or homeless, because there’s something seriously wrong with the direction that we are heading in. This Parliament is considering laws that make it harder for some rangatahi to access income when they bloody need it, and laws that make it easier to move people on once homelessness becomes visible in our public places. You think about that: make it harder to stay afloat and then, if they end up on the street, move them on. That’s not a pathway forward.

We offer one. It exists in this House right now. Don’t wait for homelessness; prevent it. House our rangatahi, back our whānau, and intervene early. Give our rangatahi, our young people, enough stability to get back into mahi—to get a mahi—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Now, the member’s got one minute left. She should refer what happened at select committee, which is the real purpose of the second reading.

ORIINI KAIPARA: I’m nearly done, Mr Speaker, thank you. Get them into mahi, education, and training, and stop measuring success by how many people we can remove from a benefit. Measure success by how many rangatahi never become homeless in the first place. And to every member preparing to vote this bill in, when a rangatahi loses their income, when home isn’t safe, when mum and dad aren’t an option, where do they go? If you can’t answer that question, you have no business taking their safety net away.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Just reminding that member that a second reading speech is required to make reference to what happened at select committee, as well as other contextual matters. Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day, and the House is adjourned until 2.00 p.m. today.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 12.58 p.m. (Thursday)