Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The welfare system has not been working as it should and as it could. It has allowed too many to become trapped in an intergenerational cycle of dependence. There are more than 317,000 people on welfare right now. Add to that the 220,000 children living in welfare-dependent homes, and that adds up to more than half a million New Zealanders reliant on welfare in any given week.

This Government is transforming the welfare system into one that is modern, active, and responsible, because currently it is passive, out of date, and, quite frankly, it is failing too many. We started this work with Future Focus changes in 2012, and we continue with the major reforms now before the House. We have had some successes in that time, and in the last month alone we saw the unemployment benefit numbers drop to 49,219, after the peak in January 2010 when 68,000 were on this benefit due to the economic downturn. We never hit the projected highs of 95,000 on the unemployment benefit, as forecasted, and as the economy improves and other measures set in we are seeing a reduction on unemployment benefits.

At this point the Greens, Labour, and New Zealand First would say that their point is made: leave those on welfare alone, and it will take care of itself. But factually that is not true. Although the unemployment benefit figures dropped significantly from 2003 to 2007, the sickness and invalids benefits increased by nearly 20,000 people. We have managed to stabilise that trend in the last 2 years, and in fact the invalids benefit numbers have decreased slightly. Because of the policy changes we made through Future Focus in 2010, we now have Work and Income working better than it ever has, but more needs to be done. We could leave it as it is, sure, and, yes, the unemployment benefit numbers would decrease significantly as the economy bounces back, but that would mean ignoring the other 270,000 people on welfare. That would mean wiping them off as not worthy of support into work and independence from the State. I will not do that.

I understand completely how frightening change can be. I get how debilitated and worthless some feel on welfare, and the left would say that is a strong enough reason to leave well enough alone, to feel sympathy for those on welfare. They would pat them on the head and feel sorry for them. How condescending, how patronising, and how meaningless. I will not do that. Although I understand how frightening change can be, although I acknowledge that upskilling, gaining confidence, and getting into paid employment is not easy, as Minister for Social Development I will continue to push, cajole, incentivise, obligate, and at the end of the day put all my belief in those people who are on welfare. I will take some of the anger that comes from those most unsure and often most frightened, because to ignore the benefits of work, to look only at what they can do, instead of at what they cannot, is a failure of the previous Labour Government—a failure that I will not preside over.

Long overdue change is on its way, and this is the first stage of this second-term Government’s welfare reforms. It is with good reason we start with our youth. Our next bill will include a change of category for all benefit types, increased work obligations for those on the current sickness benefit, penalties for recreational drug users who do not pass a drug test to get a job, and cancellations of benefits for some with outstanding warrants for their arrest, to name a few of the changes on their way. But this bill is really about our youth, and it is also about making some changes for women living alone, widows, and work testing on the DPB.

To come to this policy change we looked at who was coming on to welfare and why, and any of the reasons around that are complex. Of the approximately 10,000 people who go on to welfare at the age of 18 or younger, their backgrounds are often complex and varied. Education has not really worked for them. They often lack strong role models and the life skills to get them ahead in life. Of the estimated 14,000 young people not in employment, education, or training, we know that up to 90 percent of them will go on a benefit by the time they are adults. We have to stop that flow. This is a group that Labour and the Greens do a lot of hand-wringing about. They use them to gain political points. But the Opposition made absolutely no difference to this group while it was in Government.

This group of at-risk young people who are disengaged now have a National Government that is standing up and backing them. We will give them the kind of support that they need by contracting with an external non-Government provider. These providers will have the flexibility on how they work with these 16 and 17-year-olds, but will be very clear on the outcomes that the Government is purchasing. The emphasis, without apology, is on education and training and life skills. Some young people will need intensive and expensive support; others not so much. We are actively targeting these young people because we believe that with the right support they can get the education and training they need to work, keeping them out of the welfare system, and stopping that cycle of dependence.

In respect of teen parents, this Government is the first to truly support teen parents on welfare. In 9 years under Labour these teens got nothing but a weekly lump sum of cash to spend however they liked. These are teenagers and they need help to learn the skills to be good parents, to manage a budget, to pay the bills, and to live well. They also need someone to believe in them and help them see a brighter future than the one that they will get on welfare. This Government will do that. We are providing the budgeting and parenting courses. We will ensure they finish their education and get training so they have the skills to one day work in a decent job. Remember, these are teenage parents and we have a responsibility for them. We are providing $80 million extra in childcare for these teen parents to allow them to do these things, because we understand that that is the kind of practical support they need. We are providing the right incentives and obligations within the welfare system and removing the barriers to them gaining independence. That is what we mean by an active system.

As a result of the select committee process there have been some changes to the bill. They are largely technical but worthwhile, and I welcome them. I thank the chair of the Social Services Committee, Sam Lotu-Iiga, who has done an outstanding job as chair. He will discuss more of the detail of this bill in his speech tonight.

There are those who will say that the right talk about welfare only when we want to polarise the nation or draw attention away from someone else. I say that is rubbish, absolute rubbish. Every day as Minister I have worked to better the lot of those on benefits, and this Government will continue to do so. We can and will make a positive difference for beneficiaries in this country.

I hear much criticism of National’s stance on welfare dependence. I am yet to hear an alternative from the Opposition, except to give them more money each week. I ask Opposition members to tell us in their speeches whether they will reverse these changes. Will they take away that support from teen parents and young people, which is so desperately needed? These changes will lead to better lives for thousands of New Zealanders, and I commend them to the House.

Members, I have to confess that there has been an error on behalf of the presiding officer. I read the drill sheet verbatim, and those who were vigilant would have noticed that after sending the previous bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee, I then, reading the drill sheet, said: “This bill is set down for Committee stage next sitting day.”, and that cannot happen. I will rule that the comment I made about setting the bill down for Committee stage will be set aside from the record of the House. Much in all as the presiding officer has some powers, they simply cannot do that. But to save confusion, that will be removed.

Anyone listening to that speech by the Minister for Social Development might be under some misconception that this bill, the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, actually does more than it does in reality. If this bill was indeed about removing barriers for the large number of New Zealanders who find themselves in need of Government support right now, I might be inclined to agree with the Minister, but that is not what this bill does. In fact, the Minister even referenced in her speech the number of New Zealanders on the sickness benefit, in particular, and said that unlike the Labour Party, she was not patting these people on the head. Not only do I take personal offence to that statement but there is nothing in this bill that assists anyone on a sickness benefit from illness into wellness and into work. This bill does not even refer to people on a sickness or an invalids benefit. It barely touches them.

So who does this bill affect? The Minister rightly pointed out that she is targeting young people. “Targeting” is the right word. We have 87,000 young people not in employment, education, or training—87,000. This bill tackles 1,500 of those young people. I applaud the Minister. Those are the 1,500 teen parents.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: That’s not true. Don’t make up the numbers. You are better than that. Don’t make up the numbers.

I applaud the Minister for extending childcare payments for those teen parents, but there are 1,500 of them.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Come on. You read the facts, and you know it.

If the Minister thinks there are more than 1,500, I would welcome her tabling that evidence, because that is the evidence we have received. But there are 112,000 parents on the domestic purposes benefit. Now I am coming to the extra 1,000 on the independent youth benefit—

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: 14,000; you know it works for that many.

—the extra 1,000. Those young people are being put on a plastic payment card, and are a number of the select few who will get additional services from this bill. But there are a vast number more who are locked out by this bill, because 18 and 19-year-olds will no longer be picked up by services that used to exist for them. Those are the 14,000 whom the Minister is speaking about. That is vastly fewer than the number that Youth Transition Services is currently eligible to pick up. I am not mixing up the numbers on this bill, Minister. It is just a fact that there are small subsets of people who will benefit from it, and not the vast numbers that she refers to.

There used to be a time when we referred not to “welfare” but to “social security”, and there was a reason for that. In 1938 the unemployment benefit was brought into New Zealand with the criteria that a person must be 16 years of age and over, have been in New Zealand for at least 12 months, is unemployed, is capable and willing to undertake suitable work, and has taken reasonable steps to secure employment. Not a lot has changed from that criteria, but neither has much changed about New Zealanders’ desire to work—their absolute desire to be in work. We acknowledge on this side of the House that whenever you bring in a universal system, there will be a small minority of people who will abuse it. It is exactly the same for the tax system in New Zealand. It is a universal system that is abused by a minority of people, and just like we must deal with those who abuse the tax system, we must deal with those who abuse the welfare system. But we must never allow ourselves to be guided by the minority when we legislate around the majority. That is where I want to bring a few facts into the discussion.

The Minister is right to compare the difference in unemployment numbers that we have in this country. At the beginning of 2008 we had, roughly, almost 18,000 on an unemployment benefit. Now it is closer to 50,000. We have not had a sudden and dramatic change in attitude to work; we have had a recession.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: What’s happened in the last 2 years?

We have had an economic downturn, and I acknowledge that, Minister, but that is a reflection of the fact that New Zealanders have not made a choice to be on welfare and to be on unemployment benefits. That is why we must focus on the economy if we want to turn round welfare.

Secondly, let us actually use some of the evidence we have got from those who are on different forms of benefits. The Inland Revenue Department did a survey of those who have been on the benefit, and found that 64 percent said that they did not have the skills they needed to get into the jobs that they were trying to get themselves into. The Government, in this bill, has not done anything to address the fact that so many of those who are on Government support right now do not have the skills and education necessary to move into those jobs. Instead, it changed the criteria to the training incentive allowance. It cut out vast swathes of women, in particular, who were trying to access education to better themselves in the workplace.

I have an example of the kinds of policy that mean that people are not able to get into sustainable, long-term employment. I recently had a domestic purposes benefit recipient approach my office and tell me this story. She had been in work for a couple of years when she found herself pregnant. She had a toddler when her partner decided he did not want to be a father and left her. She managed to find work—10 hours a week in hospitality—but was still on Government support, and did not want that for her or her child. She went to Work and Income and asked whether there was any assistance available so she could get into foundation courses to become a nurse—the kind of job that would get her off the benefit in the longer term. And do you know what Work and Income told her? Work and Income told her that she would not be eligible under its criteria because she had work—because she had 10 hours’ work a week and was still reliant on Government support. That is the kind of system that leaves people trapped in our welfare system, rather than offering them the opportunity to get into sustainable, long-term work that gives them and their child a better future.

The Inland Revenue Department also found that 67 percent of those on welfare had a problem getting work that paid enough, and 66 percent could not get enough hours. That makes it sound like those parents, in particular, who are on the domestic purposes benefit, which is roughly 112,000 at the moment, are making a choice to stay on that benefit because they are better off. Let us just look at the facts. The average amount that someone on a domestic purposes benefit gets before an accommodation supplement is $288 a week for them and their child—$288 a week. If we have parents in this country who are finding themselves not better off going into work, when they are getting only $288 a week on the benefit, that suggests that there is something vastly wrong with our system—and there is. Actually, the Minister has acknowledged it in the bill, and that is childcare costs. The Minister has acknowledged that by saying that she is going to extend the child support payment for teen parents from the $3.91 they are currently eligible for, to $6.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Would you take away the $80 million?

I applaud the Minister for doing that. She does not want to hear praise. She is barracking across the other side of the House, rather than listening. I do applaud the Government for improving child support for those teen parents. But that is 1,500 young people. There are 112,000 DPB recipients who are not eligible for that extension and support and who therefore still struggle to find jobs that will cover the costs of caring for their child. This has to be about making it a viable option to get back into work. That means making sure our parents have the skills and education, and that we also look to the real barriers to them getting back into the workplace. And we cannot ignore the costs of childcare and support in looking at that basic issue.

But let us not forget the basic fact that 65 percent of people on the DPB come off it within 4 years. They come off it as soon as they are able to improve their childcare arrangements, and that is because, of course, 20 hours of early childhood education cuts in at about that point. If we could do more to improve that accessibility, what a vast difference we would make for the number of parents who are reliant on Government support at the moment. This has to be a debate based on fact and a debate based on the reality of what the people whom we are debating here are talking about in their day-to-day lives. That means it has got to be about work, and it has to be about addressing those real barriers.

I will acknowledge that there are one or two examples of that in this bill, but, by and large, there are not real examples that will make a major difference to the majority of New Zealanders who find themselves on social security in New Zealand. I challenge the Government to turn round its approach to welfare to being not one of social shame but one truly of social security.

I rise to support the second reading of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. It is a pleasure to support Minister Bennett and Prime Minister Key in bringing these reforms to the House. These changes, as the Minister for Social Development has pointed out, are well overdue. We know that 13 percent of our working-age population are on a benefit. We know that we spend more than $7 billion on benefits annually, and that is $20 million per day, or $67,000 for the time it will take me to give this speech. Critically, we know that 220,000 Kiwi kids grow up in benefit-dependent homes. We know that long-term welfare dependency is failing our families and their kids. This National Government, behind Minister Bennett, is standing up and saying that we are going to do something about it. We believe that those who can work should work. But we know that those seeking work sometimes need encouragement and support. These welfare reforms will provide that. Crucially, we believe that those who are in genuine need of assistance—those whom Ms Ardern talks about—will receive welfare going forward.

So how does the Government achieve this? Well, it does it by investing into the future of our families—the lifeblood of our communities—for the benefit of our nation. Budget 2012 provides an upfront investment of $287 million to support more long-term beneficiaries into work.

💬 Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: Going forward?

That is right. It is about facts, as Ms Ardern asked. The facts are that $80 million will go into early childhood education childcare. More facts—$55 million will go into front-line services to assist job seekers and sole parents into work. More facts—$149 million will go into wraparound services, which I will come to later in this speech.

So what does this bill do to help people into work? Well, it places on young people receiving the new youth payment, or young parent payment, obligations to improve their educational and social outcomes. These changes, though, are not merely about reform; they are about changing the focus, attitude, and behaviour of those on welfare. This will have a greater emphasis on work, and support those people in every way to achieve their own dreams and aspirations, and that of their families. It is about getting behind people. [Interruption] That is right. It is about getting behind people so that they can realise what they can do, not what they cannot do, as Ms Ardern keeps pointing out. Resources will be available, particularly to those who are at risk of long-term welfare dependence. Young people will be supported to make better choices: to stay in education, training, or work. They will be provided with financial incentives.

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: Nobody believes this.

That is what this bill does, Mr Prasad. They will be provided with financial incentives to utilise budgeting services and parenting programmes. These are part of the wraparound services and assistance for those receiving benefits.

We are no longer just going to hand over benefits like the Labour Government did, and leave people to their own devices. Instead, we are going to take an active, work-based approach, because we have greater aspirations for New Zealanders and their children than that lot did. This is achieved through hard work and not welfare. We want people to stand and support themselves, to make good decisions that affect their lives positively. We will be there to encourage and support them. So this welfare programme will put a clear emphasis on work availability and preparation requirements for those who can work. This will affect sole parents, widows, women alone, and partners by requiring sole parents with children aged 5 years and over to be available for part-time work. It will also require sole parents with children aged 14 and above to be available for, and seek, full-time work.

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: Where is the evidence this works?

But what it does—and Mr Prasad knows this, but he denies it—is provide clear expectations and obligations. It is a genuine partnership between the State, on one side, and those who receive State assistance.

So what do these reforms look like in practice? Last year I met a young lady of 18 in my electorate of Maungakiekie. She had an 18-month-old baby and was heavily pregnant with another child. She was living in a cold, damp garage, and finding it hard to make ends meet. She and her family had literally—literally—fallen through the cracks, and they were living in squalor. Under these new reforms we will be supporting this young woman with income support, budgeting, parenting services, and access to training and education.

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: Ha, ha! It’s there now.

Mr Prasad might laugh. He might laugh, but despite his protests this young lady and her children will welcome the assistance that this Government will provide her, going forward.

Finally, you hear Mr Prasad, Mr Sio, and others across the Chamber asking where the jobs are. I will tell them where the jobs are. The latest household labour force survey shows that more people are being employed in this country than ever before. In March 2012 there were 2,230,000 employed. That is more than at any time in our history. This is 30,000 more people employed than when this Government took office in November 2008.

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: How many are out of work?

Do your research, Mr Prasad. The SEEK website today had over 16,000 jobs available online—12,800 full-time, 900 part-time, and over 2,000 for contract positions.

As I conclude this speech, I say once again to these members opposite, and the people who are listening out there in New Zealand, that these changes are long overdue. They will bring this welfare system into modern times. I want to congratulate the Prime Minister and Minister Bennett once again. They have tackled the very difficult issues facing our society with compassion and care. These measures will make this country bolder, brighter, and better again. I know that the people in Maungakiekie and New Zealanders across this land are ready for these changes. I welcome them. Long term, these changes will move people out of welfare and into employment. That is good for their families. That is good for our communities, and, yes, it is of great benefit to our country. I urge all members of this House, right across this House, including our Green friends over here, to support this Government in bringing about these changes. I commend this bill to the House.

I think that last presentation by the member Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga reflects the heartless attitude of this Government. I can say to that member that he is not going to return to Parliament in 2014. This Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill introduces a significant shift in the direction of welfare reform, and will have an immediate impact on the well-being and welfare of many low-income individuals and families. The Government’s reform will have an immediate impact on the financial and emotional future of those being targeted by this Government—namely, young people and sole parents.

The greatest concern for me is that it will have the most severe effect on the lives of children who belong to families living in poverty, or living below the poverty line. As the Children’s Commissioner submitted at the submission stage, this bill makes no requirement to take up the best interests of the child or children affected by these reforms. It does not take into consideration the best interests of the children.

Labour opposes the reform contained in this bill. These reforms are poorly designed, they are confusing, they lack safeguards, and they destroy trust in our young people. As the Salvation Army submitted, the bill is fundamentally inconsistent with the intention of the Social Security Act. I agree with the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, which submitted that this bill discriminates on human rights in terms of age, gender, and employment status. I believe it when Women’s Health Action said that it gave a comprehensive submission based on evidence opposing this bill because, it said, it undermines women’s sexual and reproductive human rights.

We know from the evidence, which is so readily available, that child poverty exists now in New Zealand. We also know from the evidence that child poverty increases when there is rising unemployment and rising underemployment. That has happened throughout the 4 years that this Government has been in power, the consistent trending of rising unemployment and rising underemployment. We also know that when more people are working part-time or casual jobs there is more poverty. When families have low incomes relative to living costs there is a larger gender wage gap, and women who choose to become mothers are often penalised in the workforce, as they are now under the current environment created by this Government. There is increasing child poverty.

We also know from evidence that when Governments cut benefits or limit eligibility for benefits, or have lower income taxes and introduce higher goods and services taxes, these policies also increase child poverty. This is the current economic environment upon which this Government is introducing these significant changes to New Zealand’s social security system.

Every group or individual that I heard submit was quite scathing of the collapsed process with which this Government drove the introduction of this bill. It gave very little time to individuals and organisations to prepare submissions. According to the Law Society there were groups that could not submit because of the Government’s collapsed approach to public submissions. The Council of Trade Unions probably best summed up the feelings of submitters when it said that the Government makes a mockery of democracy when it rams through significant changes in such a short time frame, which limits public contribution.

The Government reforms target young people and sole parents. We were advised that it is the expectation of this Government that when these young people reach the age of 18 years, they will be in employment and will no longer require a benefit. I find that very difficult to believe, given that the approach is more of a big stick than a carrot. But even if the carrot was accepted, what jobs are available to people? Many submitters questioned the Government about where the jobs are. They questioned what this Government was doing to enable the creation of genuine, meaningful, and high-value jobs that pay well for workers and their families. Dr Robin Gwynn submitted that having people work instead of just accepting money is an excellent idea, but it will not succeed unless there are jobs for people. He also asked the same question every other submitter asked about where the jobs are, and said that if the Government believes it has the right to bully people into work, it should also ensure that jobs exist for people.

Under the Government’s bill sole parents will be required to find part-time work when their youngest child is 5 years old. They will be expected to find full-time work when their youngest child is 14 years or older. These changes will apply to women receiving the widows benefit, domestic purposes benefit, and the domestic purposes benefit for women alone. It is expected that 56,300 people with children under 5 will be forced to find work. We were advised that 45,000 people with children aged 5 to 14 years will be pushed towards finding full-time or part-time work. We were advised that 21,300 people with children aged 14 years, or who do not have children, will be pushed to have full-time work. Sanctions will apply if people fail to meet these expectations.

The Government wants to introduce this bill in July. The CCS Disability Action submitted that this bill does not address barriers of single parents with disabled children forced to enter the workforce. The Wellington People’s Centre pointed out to Government MPs that job matching was a huge issue and that many solo mums or widows were on casualised part-time work, receiving wages that ensured that they struggled continually to make ends meet. Kay Brereton was lost for words to describe the absurdity of the Government’s bill dictating that if you have a child you will not get a benefit. The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom said that paid work is not more important than the “unpaid work of child rearing and caring for those in need,”. Graham Howell submitted and said that this bill “smacks of social engineering of the worst kind” and is flawed from a conceptual and practical basis. He further said—this was Mr Howell—that the changes will “increase the number of jobseekers, all … bidding for low-waged jobs”, thus driving down wages.

Dr Anita Lacey of Auckland Action Against Poverty said the bill “does nothing to address the real causes of poverty in New Zealand, which include a poorly performing economy, low wages, a shortage of decent jobs, benefits that are too low for many people to live on, and … job insecurity”. The Auckland Women’s Centre showed evidence that showed that women affected by this bill are already under-resourced. They live in poverty, have bad health, and need to be supported, rather than be bullied by this Government. The Auckland Women’s Centre opposes the bill and describes it as mean-spirited and punitive. It said women should be supported and given real choice, not compelled or bullied by this Government.

Labour believes that, by and large, New Zealanders want to work. This is supported by the evidence that we have seen in the household labour force survey. Not only the thousands of people who line up whenever there are jobs available in supermarkets but also the thousands of New Zealanders who are leaving our shores every week for Australia are clear evidence that this Government is taking this country in the wrong direction. We believe that those currently in need of Government support deserve a set of measures grounded in evidence and the reality of the current economic environment.

People require a set of measures that address the barriers that exist in moving from the welfare system and into work. They deserve to be treated with dignity, as human beings deserving of the means to support and sustain themselves and their families. People need jobs. People want to work. People want to earn an income that gives them dignity as a human being to support their children. The reforms introduced by this Government treat people with disrespect, or treat them as nothing less than what people are demanding.

I now want to conclude. The behaviour of the chair and some members of the Social Services Committee during the public submissions stage was appalling—appalling. Aided and abetted by that chair, they consistently challenged submitters. They consistently undermined submitters, given the collapsed framework that the public had. I would say that this Government is taking us in the wrong direction.

It will come as no surprise to anyone in this House, I suspect, that the Green Party will be voting against this bill, the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, tonight. We oppose this bill for many reasons, many of which were just listed by my colleague Su’a William Sio. They reflect the concerns of the people and organisations that got their submissions in but also those that we consulted directly because we were not satisfied that 10 days to get in submissions was long enough. I will be sharing some of those comments directly this evening.

The Green Party does not believe welfare is all about the individual, and our belief is based on several pieces of evidence. Between 1999 and 2008 the number of people on the unemployment benefit plummeted from 161,000 to 17,000 because the economy was doing better. The number of young girls having babies is trending down, without Government intervention. The proportion of sole parents with jobs has increased since the 1990s, and has started levelling off only as job growth has slowed.

Most people on the DPB are on it for a very limited period of time. Less than 10 percent of current recipients have received the DPB continuously for 10 years or more. We also know that there are really significant and valid, actually, reasons for people needing the DPB. A large percentage of women accessing the DPB do so for reasons of domestic violence, and CCS Disability Action told us during submissions that 25.8 percent of people on the DPB have children with disabilities whom they are caring for. There have also been numerous pieces of research in this country that have clearly demonstrated discrimination in the job market, especially based on race, age, and ability. All of this evidence speaks to structural issues that will not be addressed by this legislation.

Although the Green Party rejects the individualistic approach, for the reasons mentioned above, I do understand that, at least, it is a consistent philosophy for the National Party, even if it is not supported by all the evidence. But in the words of the feminist icon John Armstrong, National appears to have one rule for women and no rules for men. Mr Key said last year 4,300 children were born to mothers on a benefit—a shockingly high figure, 4,300—so this Government is changing the law to try to stop this, changing the law in a way that will potentially take mothers away from their babies once they are 1 year old. Yet all the while the Government is not doing anything to track down the estimated 30,000—yes, 30,000—or so fathers who have left it to the State to pay for the upbringing of their children, leaving us with a debt of $2.3 billion. In the words of a woman who has used the services of Women’s Refuge: “I’ve a $30,000 debt from studying a level 4 course. My ex has reduced child support to nothing, while he continues to travel around the world and tell the kids he doesn’t have any money because he’s giving it all to me. My ex is on over $120,000 and honestly thinks he’s poor. I honestly don’t think they know what it’s like not to have $3 to buy milk, or to have your phone cut off because you can’t pay the bill, what it’s like to have to go through the systems and beg just to look after your kids.” For this House to be considering easing up on child support payments while increasing work testing for women on the DPB and cutting the training incentive allowance for higher-level courses is a validation of that man’s disproportionate sense of entitlement.

Several submitters through the submission period spoke about the punishment of beneficiaries and the stigmatisation. John Key and the Minister for Social Development have said that beneficiaries need a kick in the pants, that beneficiaries are living a dream, choosing a lifestyle, and have to use a food bank only because they are making poor choices or do not know how to budget. These comments, alongside the vilification and misrepresentation of beneficiaries who dare to put their name to their concerns, create the context of this bill. This lifestyle or dream has been described by one of the women I spoke to: “When I left”—a violent relationship—“I looked online for forms and information and went in. But it turned out I hadn’t filled in the right forms or didn’t have the right ID, or something, so I had to get another appointment. That happened so often. It’s really humiliating and demoralising sitting, waiting, always waiting, then having to tell a random person your story in front of the whole office. The other day I was telling my story again and the woman next to me was saying ‘Oh, that’s terrible! They really have to give it to you.’ That was nice, but sometimes you just don’t want everyone knowing your story.” That is the dream.

The new model of a wraparound service for young people is promising a lot—except jobs—but in the words of a young woman who used the independent youth benefit recently: “I have friends who go to places and they promise, promise, promise, and then more people come in, and they forget, and my friends just get lost.” Although tying funding to outcomes may be a motivator for the organisations to get their act together, this is really specialised work, and trust is particularly hard to build, especially when you are going to have to report the young person to Work and Income if they do not comply. In the words of another young woman who knows: “Service providers need to take time to get behind the front. We learn to have a front to be tough. Once you cut their benefit they’ll just get more gangster—more crazy. More crime is going to happen for sure. You can always swap your food card for drugs, and smokers will just go to the dairy and steal them.”

The Green Party agreed with the presenters who wanted to see the successful schemes, like the one in Ōtorohanga and Southland’s Work’n it Out, replicated. We believe in investing in young people. Rather than create a whole new scheme that is not grounded in evidence, and that creates ethical challenges that have meant that a lot of respected providers have not applied for contracts, we would replicate the programmes that work.

Another submitter talked about the difficulties created by the payment cards. They worried about the extra level of bureaucracy being placed between a young person and finding a new place to live, when their flatting situations are often pretty unstable, and the mixed message that a payment card sends by locking young people into more expensive shopping options compared with farmers’ markets or second-hand stores, while supposedly teaching them good financial management.

Other youth workers and the Children’s Commissioner raised concerns about setting National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 as the benchmark. For young people who have been out of the school system for long periods of their life—and some of them have not ever been in it, from being refugees—this is likely to be demotivating, to say the least.

Young mothers and other submitters all raised concerns regarding the lack of availability of appropriate courses in childcare. Along with numerous submitters, we reject the view that parenting is not valuable work. In the words of another woman: “And, honestly, monitoring and caring for a teenager can be a full-time job. I am actually really frightened about going back to work. Even my parents, who are very conservative, anti-welfare, churchgoing people have told me I need to stay off work. They said—which hurt at the time—that ‘You’ve been so focused on managing your relationship for the last 13 years that your kids haven’t had the love and attention that they’ve been waiting for.’ If I worked, I’d have some more money, but no time. The kids need anger management counselling, and help with managing their father, as well as just some focus.”

The drivers for welfare are many and complex, and so the answers need to be comprehensive. The Green Party is ambitious enough to believe that we can work together with business, local government, and community to create a productive economy that, in turn, feeds an inclusive society.

I was just wondering whether we were sitting in this House listening to this debate on the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill or listening to a drama unfolding, and I was about to fall asleep. It was a soothing voice, however. I commend Jan Logie for the voice; it was a very soothing voice to fall asleep to.

This is my first opportunity to speak on the bill, and I have to wonder whether those members opposite were sitting in the same select committee as I was, because they obviously have a completely different view of what actually happened in the select committee room. So I would like to take this opportunity to commend the tremendous work that the Minister for Social Development, the Hon Paula Bennett, has actually done. The previous Labour Government in 9 years did not have the guts to actually tackle—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Using that term is not acceptable.

Thank you. What I was about to say was that our Minister has the courage to tackle something that the Labour Government did not have.

When the architects of the welfare system set about designing how it was actually going to work, they would never have imagined that we would have 220,000 children growing up in welfare-dependent homes, or that 170,000 people would have been on welfare for most of the last decade. What welfare was designed for was to provide a safety net for people in difficult times, and it is still so. But in New Zealand we have long-term welfare dependency, which is trapping many people into a life of limited choice, poverty, and poor health. We all agree across this House that we need to actually do better, and that is what this Government is doing.

We know that often when people enter into the welfare system at a younger age, they tend to stay on welfare for much longer, and that is a fact. So for me, we must provide an environment where these young people who would otherwise have very limited choice going into welfare have a choice for a better life outcome and a brighter future. By identifying these at-risk youth, we can provide services to help them re-engage with education, training, and opportunities for employment, and this bill sets out to do just that.

This bill will deliver a more effective and active welfare system with greater support for our young people, as aspects of our current welfare system are out of step with modern life—for example, the widows benefit and women alone benefit. The current welfare system simply pays benefits to young people and teen parents and, effectively, leaves them to it. That is what the Labour Government did. Well, that is just not good enough. Often these young people do not have the life skills or the experience to know how to budget or prioritise, or to understand that education is what is required for a better outcome. They need good role models and advice on how they can best make things work for them.

This bill will provide a youth and young parent payment, and a youth support provider will work with them to get them back into education and training. The support provider will actually manage the young person’s benefit payments, with essentials like rent and power paid directly, and an allowance and payment card for living costs. Most of us know how to pay mortgage payments or rent or power on automatic payments, because those are the essentials that we cannot spend from our pay packet. We know how to apportion it. Young people do not tend to, and we need to actually teach them how to do that. This is a great bill and I commend it to the House.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First—

💬 Mike Sabin: Nice blue scarf.

—yes, a very nice blue—just to remind people on the other side who the real traditional national party is. I rise on behalf of the New Zealand First Party, the party that takes pride in its common sense and its realistic approach to social services policies. In fact, the Minister for Social Development would do well to seek quality advice from New Zealand First, and we are happy to offer that advice.

I am somehow stunned by the previous speaker Melissa Lee’s poor contribution on this debate. Screaming through the microphone does not necessarily represent quality, I must say.

Let us be real here. The aim of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill is to transform the benefit system into one that is modern, active, work-focused for adults, and education-focused for young people. And, yes, Mr Lotu-Iiga, New Zealand First continues to ask the question of where the jobs are. Where are the jobs, at the end of the day? Has the Government received funding from the Australian Federal Government for these proposed training programmes? Because we can be sure that it will be benefiting from them. Our tertiary students at present are already on one-way tickets across the Ditch and to other parts of Europe and Asia, while the Government shows no intention at all of holding on to them. Instead, the Minister proposes to boost a growing exodus.

In fact, New Zealand is becoming an excellent employment agency, or shall we say training institution, for Australia. Perhaps we should ask Australia to thank the New Zealand National Government for doing this. I recall—

💬 Mike Sabin: They’re upskilling their mining to come home to Northland.

—let me remind Mr Mike Sabin—a former Prime Minister of a National Government who once said that New Zealanders who emigrate to Australia raise the IQ of both countries. Sadly, nowadays they raise the IQ of Australia and other countries but not New Zealand.

Pushing this bill forward suggests speedy implementation of legislation that hopefully does not come under close scrutiny. Yes, we believe that reducing long-term welfare dependency is something that this Government needs to address. We acknowledge that, but where within these schemes does it provide the solutions? “Where?” is the question. I can tell everyone in this House and those who are listening to this debate now what this bill is a solution to. This bill is merely a concealment. It is this Government’s disguise of a job creation scheme for bureaucracy—in other words, sugar coating. It is sugar coating, which is probably the more relevant term.

💬 Tim Macindoe: For what?

That is right, Mr Tim Macindoe. New Zealand First is concerned about a number of changes proposed in this bill. These include the use of the private sector in finding jobs, information-sharing provisions within the bill, the wider welfare reform package, and, of course, the cost to the taxpayer. Furthermore, we see the bill as a distraction from the Government’s poor economic management and its failure to provide the right setting for job creation.

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: She’s right, there.

That is right. Thank you. I agree with you, and I thank you for agreeing with me. Looking at the current benefits that people have access to—namely, the independent youth benefit—I see the same expectations laid out for 16 to 17-year-olds. There are the same obligations to be met regarding secondary schooling, full-time training, and activeness in looking for work. I see exactly the same frameworks surrounding a youth benefit but with a difference in its title and its opening, yet again, for political cronyism.

If we look at this bill from its intent, on stating the obvious, it exceeds all levels. You can laugh about it, Mr Lotu-Iiga, but we discussed this at the Social Services Committee, and we made our view pretty clear. Yes, it has outlined that better parenting education programmes and budgeting programmes are needed for young parents. But where are your figures to say how much this will cost New Zealand taxpayers? Where are the figures? What we do not want is the transfer of beneficial funds—

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I can help this new, inexperienced member with the figures. I am quite happy—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, you are interrupting the member’s speech.

I can sympathise with that member, because he perhaps needs a little bit more education about when to stand up and call a point of order. The benefit system should actively help and promote paid work and independence, not create barriers to finding paid work. As my colleague Barbara Stewart once said—

💬 Tim Macindoe: How does this bill do that?

Are you listening, Tim Macindoe? Are you listening? I am trying to remind you of what was discussed in the select committee, just in case you have a memory problem there. As my colleague Barbara Stewart stated in her speech, Treasury has “provided a job forecast of 1.6 percent per annum over the next 3 years.” She made that very clear. The question, though, is what sort of jobs we are talking about here—what sort of jobs. Since the Government has deceived its voters into believing that jobs would be available, there are now more job losses. I can infer only that this forecast is based on optimism, which is far different from reality.

The information-sharing section, proposed section 125D in clause 19, screams of a nanny State, which the National Government has actually accused Labour of doing. This bill permits certain agencies to disclose information about young persons in certain circumstances. Who, then, decides which relevant agencies have access? I definitely cannot imagine Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga to be someone who can give that. Who are these intended agencies—or can I say buddies—and what are the certain circumstances? Under proposed new section 125D there is no explanation given as to which organisation will have accessibility rights, and which individuals will have their information shared. We find no problem with the Ministry of Education providing information to the Ministry of Social Development—that is absolutely fine. This is with reference to the provision relating to the use of the National Student Number—we recognise that. In respect of the provision relating to the use of the National Student Number, though, we will support the inclusion of a specific provision concerning information sharing between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Social Development. We agree, however, with the Privacy Commissioner that the changes in this bill target a group in whom trust in authority may already be in short supply. That is very important to note.

Modern society norms are what this Government wants to align its models with. Really? Is it normal to ask widows and women living alone to take on board work, without taking into consideration their circumstances? Is the Minister saying that the norm of this Government is to be insensitive to these women and widows?

💬 Kris Faafoi: Yes.

Yes, I believe so. Women, for as long as we can remember, have always had an important role in our community and in our families. For women alone in the 50-plus age group, where does the Government propose these women find jobs? It is hard enough for youth to find jobs. And what do you say about the older generation’s prospects in this competitive job market?

New Zealand First opposes this bill, and the reason we oppose it is that it does not make sense. New Zealand First said from its very beginning that we will support good legislation and oppose bad legislation. If the intent of this bill actually served a purpose in reducing welfare dependency and gave a real solution to this problem, we may have had a different stance. However, for these legitimate reasons, New Zealand First will not support the amendment bill in its second reading. Thank you.

When I spoke in the first reading debate on this bill, the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, I made the comment that the issue we are talking about is probably the greatest challenge of our political generation. I also made the point that I believe the outcome of this bill will be one of the defining achievements of the John Key - led Government.

Jacinda Ardern earlier tonight misrepresented the figures that this bill will cater for, so I want to clarify that we are talking about 14,000 young people, aged 16 or 17 years, who are not in employment, education, or training. Not a few hundred, but 14,000. They deserve our help and our guidance, and, most of all, they deserve a future. But they cannot do it on their own or with the soft bigotry of low expectations that characterises the approach over many years of members opposite in this House.

I am very proud to be a member of the Social Services Committee, and I will be especially proud when the benefits of this measure bear fruit, as they undoubtedly will.

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: Will you resign if they don’t?

Opposition members, like Dr Prasad, are stuck in a time warp. And those members ignore reality—tragically, not at their own peril, but at the peril of those whom they claim to represent, and whose interests they are unquestionably failing. I endorse 100 percent the outstanding work of our Minister for Social Development, Paula Bennett. She is doing a fine job and a tough job, and I commend her for that. I endorse 100 percent the excellent work of the chair of the Social Services Committee, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, who, I have to say, has handled the whole process with dignity, with courtesy, with respect, with intelligence, and with fairness. And I put that on the record because I have been appalled at the attacks on his character tonight. He is a fine man doing a very fine job. I also commend the excellent work of the very fine deputy chair, Melissa Lee. I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with all three of those members of this House, and I back their effort 100 percent. Let us get on with the job.

Contrast their efforts and their contributions in this debate with the ideological claptrap of the Opposition speakers. Su’a William Sio accused the MP for Maungakiekie of being heartless. That was the word he used. Well, I say to Mr Sio that I take offence at, and exception to, that claim. Mr Sio should be ashamed of making it, because throwing young people into the too-hard basket and patronising them with welfare without expectations is what is really heartless. That is the bigotry of low expectations that characterises the members opposite. Michael Joseph Savage, the architect of the modern welfare State, would be utterly appalled. What Labour oversaw in the first years of this decade is so far removed from what Michael Joseph Savage and his colleagues envisaged and intended when they established the modern welfare system that I am sure that he and they would disown their successors on that side of the House.

Mr Sio also attacked the select committee process. Well, as I said, it was a very well-run process, and it was respectful in tone. No one was bullied, Mr Sio, in that process, and no one is bullied by this bill. Dr Prasad’s constant refrain that these measures are punitive is absolute bunkum, and I am sure deep down he knows it.

I would like to say much more on this; I will at future stages. I am proud of what we are doing, and I really commend this bill to the House, because it is one of the most important things we could possibly do.

It is always good to follow Mr Macindoe on this particular bill, the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, and indeed many others. Much of what he says does not hold up to scrutiny at all. Indeed, much of what the Government members have had to say on this bill does not hold up to scrutiny at all. This is a nasty bill. It has nasty provisions, and it is a nasty Government that is trying to foist this upon our most vulnerable.

There are some things we agree on. We agree with the Government when it says that the best way to assist the people we are talking about is through work. We agree with the Government on that, but that is where the similarities end. When Labour was in Government it did just that. It got our most vulnerable into work. It reduced our unemployment to the lowest level in the Western World. When it did that, welfare numbers came down, people were in work, and people got on with it. But that side is not creating work. Labour took an aggressive approach to creating jobs, aggressively triaging—

💬 Melissa Lee: Transferred to invalids benefits! Transferred to sickness benefits!

That member there who says a lot took the shortest call possible and promptly fell asleep. Melissa Lee had better listen and argue this particular point, because I do not know where that member was when this bill was being debated.

What this Government has done in this particular bill is what it has done in the ACC area and in other areas, as well, and it is doing it now in local government reform. You create a problem—you create the figment of a problem—then, Mr Macindoe, you apply your own ideology. That is all this Government is doing—applying its particular ideology. The language we hear from this Minister for Social Development is: “We will back the young people.” If this is backing the young people, then this is not backing at all. To what extent is this backing young people? I shall go through it step by step and show Mr Macindoe how that really is, indeed, intellectual dishonesty because it is not backing young people.

The process of submissions was truncated—it really was truncated—for no good reason. The only reason the Government gave was: “Oh, well, welfare reform was introduced last year. People have had their say so we need a very short period.” What was the Government frightened of? Was it that too many people would come and tell members opposite that this is a bad idea? On another bill before the same select committee, the Social Services Committee, we have a long, long period of time for submissions, and it is not as important as this bill. It has already had other reports done. But here members on that side are saying: “No, let’s truncate.”

You know, my colleague Su’a William Sio went through the submissions absolutely honestly and religiously. I am happy to quote it back to the members opposite absolutely and honestly. I have my notes from the select committee. I am happy to read them out to the members opposite. What he said was exactly what the submitters said.

Submitters did not support this bill at all—at all. I do not know where those members opposite were, but they must have been asleep. Sam Lotu-Iiga was far too busy managing the process and not listening to what people were saying, because if he had listened, this bill would not have survived in this form. It is a travesty. It is a travesty to the power of a select committee. It is just not trusting our responsible citizens to come to the select committee and make submissions. That side did not hear. Can Mr Sam Lotu-Iiga put hand on heart and say that the Government heard the submissions and has made the changes?

💬 Su’a William Sio: No, he can’t.

The member cannot, because the member had instructions from his Minister, whom they are all singing great praises of. I do not know who is in for promotion next, but Todd McClay has done a travesty to his own.

Listen to the figures. There were 85 submissions, 50 opposed, nine supported, and six were unclear. Do the maths. If you do that maths, it makes 73 percent who opposed the proposal—73 percent. Applying the standard of the debacle of the class sizes, the Government should walk away from this bill. It should walk away from this bill, because it has no legislative ability to do this. It has none at all.

The Government talks about taking an investment approach. An investment approach? My big toe! There is no investment in this. If we invested in jobs, then that is an investment approach. The marketeers have come up with a nice slogan: “Let’s use an investment approach, let’s use the social service language of wraparound, and we will get there.” The Government will not get there, because there is no intellectual honesty about this particular approach. This is a mean Government. Its approach is insincere. It is a punitive approach. It is uncharitable. It cares little for the most vulnerable in our society. That is what this Government has done.

You know, it is ironic that this Government is so hell-bent on doing so much damage—and this bill will do damage. If that member, Mr Macindoe, believes this will be his finest hour, then I feel sorry for him. This cannot be his finest hour. This is going to be quite pathetic—quite pathetic—because there is no investment in this particular approach.

Many submitters rejected the Government’s approach to solo mothers who are bringing up a second child. Now, after 12 months, that mother has to go to work. For a moment, Minister, turn away from the mother and focus on the face of the child. What does the child need? What did the child do wrong? That child needs the mother there for as long as any mother can stay at home. But, no, that Minister, in a nasty way, will take that away from our young babies, and that is mean. That is mean-spirited. What is there about an investment approach in that? That baby will need that mother. It is not the baby’s fault that the baby has been born, but that is a fact. The least we can do is support them to get the best service, to bond, and to have the time together.

It is quite ironic that this Government talks a lot about evidence. I want the next speaker, or any member of that Government, to get up and tell me what the theory is that actually says that this is the way to treat young people. We are taking the very tools we have to train them, taking their money away from them, and locking it up somewhere. Every theory I know—and I have studied this—says that power to make decisions shifts as the child grows older.

The independent youth benefit has been a problem. Some parents have had difficulty with this. This is the group of young people who have, really, split with their own families. Those families have not liked this benefit because, somehow, they have blamed the benefit, but the benefit has been a response to those parents who have really disenfranchised their own children and separated from them. The State has had to look after those young people, and now those families have the ear of this Minister. They have had the ear of this Government. They have had the ear of this particular Cabinet, because the Government is devising mean policies to ensure that they can come now and be punitive. There is no science in this approach. People presented to us and said that when this approach was used in America, it actually increased dependency. It actually increased it. So where is the evidence? Let the next speaker tell me where the evidence is. Let the next speaker tell me where the science is, because it is not science. All it is is a series of punitive mechanisms.

Submitter after submitter said that this was mean, this was bullying, this was punitive, and this will not work. Name me one respectable organisation that submitted and I will read the submitters out. The Human Rights Commission, the Children’s Commissioner—they all said the same thing. Nine people supported this particular measure. Mr Macindoe, by any standards, you should have the courage to say that at least other people thought very differently.

How does this move our people further? How does this really get young people to grow up perfectly? How does this actually give our children and our babies the best possible start in life? It does not. Somehow, because someone is a beneficiary, this Government is entitled on our behalf to be mean to them. Well, this side will never do that. This side will invest in the proper sense, as indeed it has for a long time. This side will get those people an education, will get them jobs.

Government members of that select committee cannot be proud of the way in which they conducted themselves. It was not a happy select committee; it was a mean select committee, and the members did not conduct themselves well. I was not pleased to be part of that select committee, Mr Macindoe, and I am sure that you were not, as well. What that select committee was doing was railroading, using this Minister’s directions to you. Mr Macindoe, you and your colleagues took leave of your senses to just look at the evidence, look at the science, and take cover. Your ideology got in the way, just like your asset sales ideology does.

I proudly wear this ribbon here. It is the purple ribbon, which stands for World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. In respect of that, I will not abuse our elderly gentleman over here, Dr Rajen Prasad, but instead I will give him some reality. Here I stand in front of the House, hand on heart, and I shall say to the member that I in the Social Services Committee heard the submissions—hand on heart. Not only did I hear the submissions, all 21 of them—and 20 of them were written by the Labour Party—but I heard all that they had to say. So there you go. To the honourable gentleman, I say that I heard them, hand on heart. But the words that were shouted out and ranted from over there were about theory. I want to acknowledge the honourable member, Rajen Prasad, as a lecturer and teacher of theory. But I stand here today not as a member of theory, but as a member of reality, because this party is the party of reality.

The member wants to hear about where the evidence is. Well, let us just say this. The Welfare Working Group took a longitudinal study around the Ministry of Social Development and began to see the impacts of long-term dependency on those who were on a benefit. And what it clearly showed—here is the reality—were the negative effects that it had on those who are on benefits. How can you argue with that? This is reality; this is what we are giving them. So what did we do? The honourable Minister for Social Development, Mrs Bennett, turned round and said that we want to deliver better public services, we would have better choices, and we want to bring our people out of poverty. We want a more active welfare system. That is what we want; we want a more active welfare system. So this Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill will not only modernise what is an outdated system, but will also enable this workforce. This is a thing that, I suppose—

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a serious point of order. The member has referred to a study, but he has not told us what study it was.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, no. Once again, that is interrupting a member. I pulled up a Government member for doing the exact thing earlier. These are debating points.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is the thing that I said. Again, here is the point of reality, and this is what Labour members do not like. They do not like the reality looking straight at them. And that is it, because the reality is this. In the election, with all the promises that were made by that party, what did it do? The reality is it lost its votes. We did not lose our votes. We gained our votes. So here is the reality. You have become a one-trick pony. You have kept our people in poverty. You keep preaching the same message—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

Sorry, Mr Speaker. Labour has kept our people in poverty. That is what it does. Why? Labour members still want to say that our people need benefits. What we are saying is that we need opportunity. That is what this bill will do, if that opportunity is given to us. So we stand here, hand on heart, and we heard the submissions. We are no longer about theory—we are no longer about theory—we are about reality, and about giving our people an opportunity so that they can see a brighter future. Thank you.

Is this a split call?

💬 Dr Megan Woods: It is.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Dr Megan Woods.

I am very happy to rise to speak against the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, especially after listening to what we have endured in this House tonight. We have been told that Labour has kept its people in poverty. We have even been misled when the member opposite, Alfred Ngaro, put his hand over his heart. Well, we might like to suggest it was covering a gap so that the wind did not whistle through. This is a serious issue that we are facing here: to be told that Labour has kept our people in poverty. Well, let us talk about the facts. We heard his colleague, the chair of the Social Services Committee, talking about how National has created more jobs than ever before. Well, here is Statistics 101—that is called population growth. The simple fact of the matter is that there are 52 percent more unemployed people in this country than when the members opposite took office. They should be ashamed of themselves. They have thrown more New Zealanders on the scrap heap through their inaction and their inability to do anything to create jobs in this country.

The reality is that there are now more than 40,000 people on the unemployment benefit. There are 50,000 New Zealanders leaving this country every year. If you want to talk about taking people out of poverty, create jobs. When Labour came into office in 1992 there were 162,000 people on the unemployment benefit. By the time we left office in 2008 there were 17,700 on the unemployment benefit. This is the way that you beat poverty. We are hearing some heckling from the members opposite about getting real in the real world. I want to read a quote from John Key at the Job Summit, when he launched the beginning of this brave new world and the glittering future that National was going to offer. At the Job Summit Mr Key said: “I don’t want to spend much time talking about how difficult economic conditions are at the moment … I’m here to do something about it.” Well, he has done precisely nothing except preside over an ever-increasing dole queue, and that is not good enough.

What is more, this bill has young New Zealanders paying for the deficit of the Government’s thinking. Those members have no idea how to create jobs. I want to focus on some of the impacts on young people of this bill. In the Budget it was trumpeted that there was going to be an upfront investment of $287.5 million over 4 years. Well, this comes at the expense of $155 million that is already committed—let us not kid anyone here—and $58.8 million of that is being cribbed back from the Youth Transition Services scheme, the very scheme that is there to get young people from training and into work. We have no objection to wraparound services, but we do not see why you would get rid of a scheme that, actually, in many cases is being successful. Why not build on the scheme that is already there? That is what we believe would have been a far better solution. We think it is really telling in places where the scheme is working, and the obvious model was with Dale Williams in Ōtorohanga and Youth Transition Services. The fact is that these people did not even tender in the first round. These people do not see how the new schemes being put in place are going to work. We have zero to two young people in that area who are unemployed.

We also have huge concerns about the tendering out of the provision of these services. We have clear evidence from Australia, and we have clear evidence from the United Kingdom that there is gaming of the system, and that the incentives are not there for providers to actually get young people into success. When you get paid your $1,200 bonus for getting someone to National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2, you do not have to be a genius to work out that the providers are going to steer clear of the most challenging kids, many of whom do not even have NCEA level 1. The effort required to get them to level 2 is just going to be too immense in the time frames they are given. This is not a bill that is designed to help young people. This is not a bill that is designed to create employment. This is a bill that has young people, once again, paying for—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member.

A great deal has been said tonight about all of the failings of this legislation, the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, and I agree with it. I am pleased that our party, the Green Party, is opposing this bill.

This Minister for Social Development, Paula Bennett, uses rhetoric to disguise her culpability in pushing more women and more children into severe poverty and hardship. This Minister, Paula Bennett, spreads deliberate misinformation because she knows that there is no evidence to back up these policies, and, in fact, all the evidence shows that they will fail women and children. This Minister, Paula Bennett, knows that harm will come to women and children because of her reforms, and yet she cares nothing for the impact on those children or their lives. This Minister, Paula Bennett, is stealing the future from those in poverty and hardship. This Minister is punishing women for being mothers.

We can choose a different future for our children. We can choose a different future for all our children, rich and poor, if we choose to treat our children with dignity and with justice. So I want to outline some of the solutions that the Green Party has for dealing with these issues, to bring women and children out of poverty.

First, research across the world proves that educating mothers significantly increases the well-being of their children. So for those who are on benefits, the first, most important thing to do is to invest in their education. We will bring back the training incentive allowance for DPB recipients, and extend it to those on sickness benefits, and to all levels of study, so that other women like me and Paula Bennett, who got degrees and got properly educated while on the benefit, are able to do so as well. And we will extend it to sickness beneficiaries because they too should be entitled to further training so that they can get a decent, high-level education for their future and for their kids.

We will extend the in-work tax credit to beneficiary families, because although this Minister, Paula Bennett, cares nothing for the family of two adults and two children that is on the benefit that has to survive on $75 a week after rent and food, we do care about that family. We know, and any New Zealander listening to this debate will agree, that that family simply needs more money to make sure that their kids are properly fed, properly clothed, and properly housed. No MP in this House would ever expect themselves or their families to have to live on $75 a week after paying rent and food.

But this Minister, Paula Bennett, cares nothing for those children in that family, those children who are hungry and cold, and she will intentionally discriminate against those children. The Green Party will not discriminate. We will make Working for Families fair for all New Zealand kids, not just those who are wealthy. We will make sure that people are earning a decent wage when they do work. The Green Party will not tolerate the modern-day slavery wages that too many people—mostly women—earn in this country. A living wage is the best next step—to make sure that work does actually pay—to truly bring people out of poverty. When four out of five New Zealand families have struggled to put food on the table in the last few years, we know that work is not a ladder out of poverty if wages are kept low. This Minister and the Government she belongs to deliberately keep wages low to keep families in poverty.

Tonight we heard from Jan Logie the stories of women living on benefits—their real, lived experiences. We heard, in their own words, their fears for their kids, fears for their future, and the shame that is brought upon them by this Minister’s degradation of them as women and mothers. Paula Bennett will force these women into work, and their babies into day care, to punish them for getting pregnant. She got what she needed out of welfare, and now she kicks the ladder out from under her. Melissa Lee yawned when she heard these stories of women fearful for their children’s future. I guess, to kick it off, the National attitude to women might be to listen to those stories of women and their fears for their kids, and liken them to dogs. Thank you.

It is a shame that Metiria Turei’s speech was not beamed into New Zealand households at 6 p.m., because then they might get to really see what the Green agenda is all about—this absolutely ridiculous notion that trying to support young people into work is about forcing them into work. Well, what part of the equation do the Green Party and those in “Labour Land” not get? The all-are, no-responsibility lifestyle on welfare is just not a go.

The reality is that over a period of 9 years of Labour and the Greens in charge what we actually saw was a morphing of our welfare system into a welfare trap. At its peak some 350,000 people were beholden to the Government for a benefit, at a cost of $22 million a day—$8 billion a year. It was completely financially unsustainable, but more so was the human capital cost—far more. I am talking about the loss of choices, the loss of opportunities, the loss of self-belief, the loss of purpose, and the loss of hope in individuals who were sitting there, beholden to a Government that at the time thought that throwing a few crumbs at them and keeping them beholden was a good way to stay in office. That time has come to an end.

This Government is prepared to tackle the challenge of welfare dependency, because we back these young people. We back these young people to have a life and to have an opportunity, and we are putting in place the support, the mentoring, the training, the education and the opportunities that these young people need to get their lives back on track. We back them—and it is hard. This bill deals with deals with some 14,000 New Zealanders, young teenage New Zealanders, 90 percent of whom, in the absence of our taking this step, will be on a collision course to an adult benefit, and that is where they will stay for some time, and that is unacceptable.

The Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill is about backing those young people, rather than leaving them to sink or swim, because we know that most of them will sink. This bill is about us backing our children, our young people, with training, childcare, education, management of their bills, and mentoring. This bill is about us doing what young New Zealanders need. I commend the bill to the House.

The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Social Services Committee by majority be agreed to.