Estimates Debate — Vote Social Development

I stand to speak about Vote Social Development. It was an interesting process to be there in front of the Social Services Committee. I expected a harsh examination, and that morning I had heard via Twitter that members were out to get me, and that I should be prepared for a fierce examination before the select committee. But there was not one question on unemployment benefits from the Opposition members—not one question on how Work and Income might be able to help those who were going on to benefits in such increasing numbers. There was not one question, I tell members, on youth employment or youth unemployment. Thank goodness for the Government, because that was where the questions came from on child abuse statistics, which we just heard the member before me, the Hon Tariana Turia, speak about.

At the select committee we talked about 12,116 children who had been assessed as abused or neglected—a number that was up from 9,654—and that figure is our nation’s shame. But our nation’s shame should also be that 1,356 of those children were abused again within a 6-month period. Yet there were no questions from the Opposition on that issue. Actually, Ms Dyson did ask a question about unallocated cases. To be clear about this Government’s priorities, I tell the Committee that in June 2005, under Labour, there were 1,054 unallocated cases with Child, Youth and Family. This year on 30 June we had 254 unallocated cases. That is the lowest number of unallocated cases in the history of Child, Youth and Family. That is where this Government’s priorities lie.

This is a Government of action. For three consecutive quarters under the previous Labour Government the number of people on the unemployment benefit rose, but did we see anything done? No. As this country went into recession, Labour, quite frankly, hid its head in the sand. But this Government is a Government of action. Within weeks we had introduced Restart, a package that thousands of New Zealanders have benefited from. This is a Government of action.

Within weeks we had turned the focus of Work and Income into one that was about jobs, jobs, and more jobs. We asked how we could open up those opportunities for people who were coming through our doors, and how we could focus our people who were there working to help those coming in to go the right way. This week alone we have had 1,123 new jobs come into Work and Income. That is more than ever before—1,123 new jobs coming into Work and Income. That is because we have people who are solely focused on working with employers and people who are on benefits, to match them up, and to get people back into the workforce. When we talk about action, we mean that within weeks of the Job Summit we had introduced the Job Support Scheme, with the help of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and Business New Zealand.

We heard the call from community organisations. They were facing a decrease in funding from non-Government sources, but an increase in demand in many places where people were asking for more of their services. We spoke to the community, got representatives in, put them around the same table, and discussed the best way forward. What we came up with was the Community Response Fund. It has already had its first meeting. It has taken 293 applications. Decisions are very close to being signed off. I have heard there has been a very robust discussion into where that money will go within our communities, and those decisions will be announced within the next couple of weeks. It will deliver $104 million to the sector over the next 2 years. We heard what the community sector was saying.

As I heard the honourable member before me say, we heard that young people were going on to the unemployment benefit at a rate of nearly one in three of all those who were then on the benefit. One in five young people were already on that benefit so, quite frankly, we had to open up opportunities, and we had to see other things coming in, to make sure that our initiatives worked. Currently, 590 jobs through Job Ops have come through our door. Over 270 organisations are stepping up with Community Max. This is quite clearly a Government of action.

It is incontrovertible that the unemployment rate is going up more rapidly now than it has for decades. At the time of the estimates hearings 2 months ago, over 45,000 people were on the unemployment benefit, but the number has gone up substantially since then. Just over 300,000 New Zealanders were on some kind of benefit at that time, and the net number of people going on to the benefit each week was 1,100. The Social Services Committee politely reported to the House, in something of an understatement, that the decrease in vacancies was becoming an issue. Having heard the various forecasts made by Treasury at the time of this year’s Budget about the possible unemployment rates in the next few years, it was interesting to hear the Minister for Social Development and Employment, Paula Bennett, say that the number of people on the unemployment benefit was expected to reach 80,000 in 2010, with a peak of around 90,000 in 2011. The chief executive of the Ministry for Social Development, Peter Hughes, then said that in fact those forecasts were already too low, and that the Ministry for Social Development expected the figures to be higher than that.

I welcome the chief executive’s honesty, but would also welcome more ongoing transparency and information from the Ministry of Social Development and the Department of Labour about both their forecasts, and about the information on which they have based their forecasts, including regular reporting of weekly net figures in regard to those going on and off the unemployment benefit. I would also like to know from the Ministry of Social Development, the Department of Labour, and Treasury—all of which engage in different forms of employment forecasting—on what basis they all think that unemployment will plateau in 2011 and then start falling after that. I am most curious as to what economic, financial, social, or other basis there is for that sanguine prophecy repeatedly propagated by different ministries and Ministers, but bearing no relation to reality—that I can find—other than a genesis in the “hope and pray” school of economics. Of course we are talking here not about numbers, but about actual people, whose lives and whose families’ lives are impacted on a daily basis by the fact that they cannot get paid work.

Talking about people’s lives, I am also most curious at present to discover what the Government has in store in the way of reforms for our benefit system. Not much was said during the estimates hearing about main benefits, apart from a passing reference to National’s decision to postpone for at least a year its election policy of requiring domestic purposes benefit recipients to take up work or training when their youngest children turn 6. There was not a word or whisper about other possible reforms, yet some of those have started emerging into public view in the last few weeks. Mr Key has raised the possibility of reforming the independent youth benefit in an unspecified way, despite the fact that it is a benefit of last resort, available to only 16 and 17-year-olds who have no other means of support and who have to meet very tough departmental criteria. I welcome the Minister’s answer on that issue that she gave late last week, however.

The Minister, it appears, is also carrying out several audits and reviews of so-called high-income beneficiaries and emergency special-needs grants, of which she thinks there are too many. The Green Party is concerned that all that may be part of a softening-up process preparatory to actually cutting some entitlements, and to reducing access to emergency assistance, which is often the only thing standing between a family and total destitution. I call on Ms Bennett to look at the situation a bit more closely. One of the main reasons why so many people are having to apply for emergency special-needs grants is that benefits were never restored to levels equivalent to what they were before the 1991 cuts, and also the discretionary special benefit was removed under the previous Labour Government. Those two factors have resulted in a situation in which many beneficiaries simply do not have enough income to meet their most basic costs, much less deal with debt or other commitments undertaken while they were still receiving income as employed workers.

The response of Government should not be further cuts to either benefit amounts or entitlements. Instead the Minister should be looking at how to increase core benefit levels and how to restore discretion to the benefit system, and at ensuring that the discriminatory in-work payment is changed into a means-tested but universal entitlement regardless of a parent’s employment status. To focus, as the Minister seems to have been doing lately, on a very small number of beneficiaries who have comparatively high entitlements for very specific and unusual reasons is to deliberately distract from the fact that for most people benefits are too low for survival.

It is a pleasure to take a call this afternoon. Let us be clear: these are tough economic times, and this Government is working on many different levels to combat the effects of this economic climate. We have to get the balance right in order to ensure that we have sensible financial management, and in doing this we need to preserve our core benefits and implement our key programmes through Restart and the Job Support Scheme. The Government is committed to supporting these core social services. We are maintaining investment in services that people need in these tough economic times, because the people of New Zealand are our priority.

But what is the Opposition’s take on this? What have we seen coming from those members? Labour has total disregard for the economic realities and deficits that we are facing, and it is just happy to rack up our debt. What is Labour’s answer? It is to spend more. That is great, but there is no more to spend. We are no longer experiencing surpluses. We need good financial management. But Labour’s big idea was to put hundreds of thousands of middle-class people on benefits, which is impractical, unaffordable, and unfair. It seems to be the case that Labour wants people to be on welfare. We want people in jobs. That is the distinction between a National Government and a Labour Government. A Labour Government wants people on welfare; it wants the Government to provide everything for them. The National Government wants to back people. It wants to back New Zealanders, it wants to back jobs, it wants to back independence, and it wants to back people to be responsible for themselves, which they desperately want to be.

We have had media commentators, political commentators, and former fellow caucus members comment about the Opposition’s “welfare for millionaires” policy. Paul Henry described Phil Goff’s welfare proposal as the biggest blunder he has made since becoming leader. Mr Goff then suggested that his recession package, once heralded as the solution to the recession, was just a casual interview with the New Zealand Herald. That is yet another case of “Visa-nomics”. We have seen in the papers that Labour’s deputy leader, Annette King, is saying that Labour is contemplating extending the in-work tax credit to beneficiaries, at a cost of $450 million. Whose taxes would those members increase to pay for this? Who can afford to pay more taxes? Which programmes would they cut instead? I ask those members to tell us which programmes they would cut to fund that. We are not experiencing surpluses; these are tough economic times. It seems as though the Opposition has no real policy to put forward for the country or for this area of need.

So what has the Minister done? The Minister is supporting redundant workers with a package called Restart. Nearly 4,000 people have received Restart since it was introduced—4,000. The package gives support to redundant workers who face adjustments to their financial situation. What else has the Minister done? There are job support schemes. We help firms work through the tough times so that they can keep the staff they have; 32 firms have signed up. Collectively, these employers are receiving support for nearly 3,000 employees, and this has saved 489 jobs.

What has the Minister done? She is going to support community organisations with the Community Response Fund. We recognise that non-governmental organisations face increased demand from New Zealanders who are suffering because of the recession. At the same time, those organisations are facing a decrease in funding. Over $40 million is to be invested in this sector in the next 2 years. We talked to the sector and introduced the Community Response Fund—another solution that Labour did not have. What else has the Minister done? She has supported the young people of New Zealand through Job Ops and Community Max. We have created new job and training opportunities for 16 to 24-year-olds through Job Ops. We will pump $20 million into funding.

I thank Mr Chairperson for giving me the opportunity to speak. He was quite correct when I rose to speak a short time ago; I thought I was speaking on Vote Social Development and was quite surprised that it was Vote Employment.

The Hon Tariana Turia said in the Chamber a short time ago that 12,000 children were subject to abuse and neglect, and that that should break our hearts. Yes, it should break our hearts. She talked about families being places that are resilient and safe to grow up in. I think it is time to look at the real causes of child abuse.

Over the weekend we had the results announced of the most recent citizens initiated referendum, which asked the very simple question: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”. In this debate we are discussing the cost of Vote Social Development, and I ask myself how much money has been spent by Child, Youth and Family investigating parents when complaints were lodged against them. I understand that out of close to 1,000 investigations, only 13 have followed through with a prosecution. But what is the cost of investigating parents? What is the cost of prosecuting parents?

If we are to address the real causes of child abuse, we need to act on the results of the referendum. The public of New Zealand spoke overwhelmingly over the last 3 weeks through that postal referendum: 88 percent of people do not believe that a light smack should be a criminal offence in New Zealand. The Prime Minister, I believe—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member is straying from the estimates debate. This is a very narrow debate. Although there is some latitude, what you are referring to is outside the scope of this debate. I invite the member to continue.

I thank you, Mr Chairman.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Stop misleading the public!

I am not misleading the public. Members need to look at The Yes Vote - NZ Referendum on Child Discipline 2009 website before talking about misleading the public. Child abuse has a real cost to New Zealand—a real, real cost. There is huge opportunity—

💬 Moana Mackey: Isn’t Barnardos terrible like that, the way they—

It is interesting that Moana Mackey talks about Barnardos. Barnardos was behind The Yes Vote website, and I wonder how much money is spent by Vote Social Development in supporting Barnardos. Barnardos is sponsoring a website and I, as a member of Parliament, have received many, many emails from people under the guise of that website. I note here that if I go to the website I can custom-make a letter to myself as a member of Parliament, and no doubt other members have received such letters.

I ask myself how much the Government is spending on Barnardos, and how much the Government is spending on other agencies that are promoting this misleading information. They argue, for example, that the referendum was very poorly worded and has produced a meaningless result, yet 88 percent of New Zealanders who voted did so to say that they do not believe that smacking for the purpose of correction should be illegal. I ask how much the Government has spent on supporting this website and supporting that misinformation. How much? How much has Child, Youth and Family spent in investigating families? What is the cost of parents being concerned that they will be investigated? What is the cost of parents not being able to raise their children as they would like? There is a very real cost and a very intangible cost. Thank you.

Vote agreed to.

Vote Youth Development