Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill

It is my pleasure to rise and give a contribution on the title and commencement clauses of this bill, the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. As you called for speeches on this, I was actually just making some notes on the commencement clause. I have some questions for the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Social Development, on the commencement date in particular. We have seen movement around the commencement date for the provisions that relate to youth services in particular. My understanding is that now the commencement date is for late August for those provisions. I know that the Minister has made brief references in parts of this debate—or, at least, she did in question time—around why the commencement date has shifted for the youth services measures of the bill. I would be interested in a slightly more fulsome answer, because I have received conflicting advice from the Ministry of Education around whether or not the schools are, indeed, ready to pick up the provisions set out in Part 1 of this bill in particular, because, of course, this bill will require greater information sharing from schools to the Ministry of Social Development.

My understanding is that the Ministry of Education at this point says that there are two management systems that might be used to get information, either ENROL or the student management system. They are quite different systems. ENROL, it is my understanding, does not capture all of the information that the Ministry of Social Development would require in order for it to carry out the basics of, for instance, contacting a school leaver to find out whether they require youth services in order to place them into further education, training, or work. I ask the Minister to give assurances to the Committee that the commencement date for this bill is realistic, and that the Ministry of Education is liaising appropriately with the Ministry of Social Development to ensure that the right IT systems are in place—and I believe that up to $17 million has been spent on those IT systems.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: How much?

It is a significant piece of work. I believe $17 million has been spent on IT for this bill. So if there has been movement in the commencement date, I assume that is because things are not quite as rosy as they would need to be in order to kick off. If there is some explanation around that, I would welcome the Minister sharing that with us, because a substantial amount of taxpayer money has gone into that part of the bill, and what I have seen out of the Ministry of Education suggests that it is not exactly clear what is going to be happening with its information flows into the Ministry of Social Development.

I also note that the commencement date for the provisions that relate to work testing kicks in in October. I would be interested in the Minister sharing the rationale for how much time is required for Work and Income to make such significant policy changes. I assume that this is based on advice from officials that October gives relevant time to advise case managers of how the new system will operate. If, indeed, that is the case, what is the difference between a substantial change around work testing and the probably more substantial change of Work and Income no longer dealing with anyone under the age of 19? Youth services, with no prior training in this area, will have to pick up that work, and they are getting substantially less time from the commencement of this bill to establish the right training and policies in their organisations, having never worked in this area before, than Work and Income gets. Youth services get to kick off in August, when the rubber hits the road for whole new practices, whereas Work and Income is getting right through to October, even though it is much more its bread and butter. So I would be interested in the differences around commencement dates there.

I come, then, to the title of this bill. The current title is the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Some listeners out there who may have been observing the debate around this bill may be confused that actually the title is quite a narrow title: “Youth Support and Work Focus”. To be fair, actually, that title probably captures what this bill does. It is heavily focused on those under the age of 19, many of whom are not actually drawing down on any Government support at present. We have had that discussion: roughly 1,000 young people are on the independent youth benefit, and roughly 1,500 are on what will become a teen parent payment. That is the focus: those who are on Government support, who are being targeted by this bill, predominantly. They are the ones who will experience the most change in the way that they are dealt with as a consequence of this bill.

For the remainder, the “Work Focus” part of this title is, then, the reference point for the remainder of this bill. As anyone who listened to the debate around Part 3 of this bill will know, for the remainder—the 112,000 on the domestic purposes benefit, the almost 50,000 on the unemployment benefit, and the tens of thousands on the invalids benefit and sickness benefit; actually, it is even narrower than that, it is mostly just for the DPB and widows, etc.—the only change they will see as a consequence of this bill is additional work testing. So when you break it down, it is the “Social Security (Youth Support)”, which is 2,500 people, “(and Work Focus)”, which is the rest. That actually, probably, is not a bad descriptor. But you would not have garnered that from the debate that you have heard in this Chamber, which I think, to be fair, overstated the impact this bill would have for the majority of people on Government support currently.

So perhaps it would be more appropriate—maybe we could say the “Predominantly Youth Support Social Security Bill”, or the “Narrow Target - Based Youth Support Bill”. I guess the reason I would throw in the “Narrow Target” is that that, I think, encapsulates the significant debate that has happened around what is happening to our Youth Transition Services. At the moment we have a very broad-based, community-based delivery model that is coming into a more narrowly focused—and the Minister, as she said, makes no apology for this—attempt to work with roughly 14,000 young people. As we have continued to point out, there are over 80,000 young people not in employment, education, or training. Our preference has always been to build on the existing community-based Youth Transition Services that are already out there. It would have been cheaper, it would have picked up more young people, and it would not have just locked in on 16 and 17-year-olds; it would have been 16 and 17 plus. That has been our contention through this debate.

But also, if we were to be slightly more realistic about the “Work Focus” part of the title of this bill, it would be the “Work Focus (Without the Work) Bill”. This is not just rhetoric. I mean, this is fact. I can see the chair of the Social Services Committee is getting agitated by my use of evidence. I know, it is a pesky thing! Facts—never let them get in the way of some useful rhetoric! But almost 18,000 people were drawing down an unemployment benefit at the time that the Government came in. Granted, a recession kicked in; we have always acknowledged that. We are now sitting at closer to roughly 50,000. But to bring in a bill that is so heavily focused on work testing when the environment has changed—and the Government acknowledges the environment has changed. In fact, it has been its excuse for the unemployment figures that we have. On the one hand it is acceptable to use the recession as an excuse for the Government’s record on the unemployment benefit and the unemployment rate, but it is not an excuse for people to say: “I can’t find a job.” So we have always had this complete contradiction throughout this bill. I think it is important that perhaps we look at the title acknowledging that, the “Work Focus (Without the Work) Bill”.

Finally, there is one other title I wish to consider. At the very beginning, of course, it is the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill because all of this is based on the original Social Security Act that came in in the 1930s. But, as has been raised in this debate by my colleague Su’a William Sio, I think it is timely to go back to what the roots of social security were in New Zealand. It has been pointed out that Michael Joseph Savage never intended for it simply to be a subsistence payment that did not acknowledge the wider context in which the person existed. He always said that social security should exist alongside appropriate health, education, and a pension scheme. That was always the context in which he referred to this. We have lost the context. We now focus so heavily on the payment realm of this—the existence on social security—that we forget that actually it should be used as a springboard to try to get people into a better life. That means sustainable work.

💬 Mike Sabin: That’s what the bill’s all about.

Mr Sabin, explain to me how work testing does anything other than say to someone: “Go out with a booklet, come back at the end of the week, and show me 100 signatures that show you asked 100 people for a job.” What if that person does not have the skills? What if that person has not been in the workforce for 5 years and has no job skills to get into further employment? The welfare system should not be static—

I stand to talk to the title, commencement, and amendment of the principal Act. I do say to the member who has just finished, Jacinda Ardern, that, like her, I look forward to bill No. 2 and the changes that are coming through. I hear constantly that she is ready for the massive, substantial changes to the welfare system, and I can assure her that that work has been done, and that it is coming. This is the first stage. We certainly have heard what has been talked about as far as the title of this bill, the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, and I can say that this is substantial but is by no means the biggest part of changes that are coming along.

The member did raise questions around data systems and information sharing between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Social Development. I think they are quite valid questions. I can assure her that that has already been tested twice. It works; we are ready to go. I can assure her that the delay with taking the commencement to 20 August just makes sure that we are getting to those young people and we are giving them that little bit of extra time to adjust, which I think is fair and reasonable.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable Minister, the time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Before the break we were talking about data information-sharing, and the member Ms Ardern had raised as a concern how we were going to share that information with the Ministry of Education, did we know what information, did we have the systems in place—I think that was the kind of thrust of where she was at. What we have done is we have actually tested it now twice, and the information works and we are getting the right information in the right time. I am quite pleased to say that it has been tested, it does work. The reason we have changed to that commencement date is, firstly, around that testing. Also, we have now got to go through the third reading and Order in Council and we wanted to make sure that those who were going to have those sorts of changes also had a reasonable amount of time and notice of being written to so that they could actually get them through.

The title of this bill absolutely does sum up where it is. It is around youth support and it is around a work focus. I have heard some things in the debate—this evening, in particular—around that work focus being punitive and that people can lose benefits if they do not find jobs, and things like that. That is not true. All we are asking is that people are available for work, and that there is a new work preparation. So around that title, having that work focus is actually fair. It is already in place, as we know. It is in place for those whose youngest child is 6, and we are moving it to the youngest child being 5, for part-time work.

There have also been some questions around the length of time and the hours that someone can work. We have given more flexibility there. We have had cases where we could see that with that work focus it was quite ridiculous that someone who was working 10 or 11 or 12 hours, perhaps doing two shifts, was still being work tested and that was not counted as such by the department. They were kind of being hassled a little and I did not think that was right, actually. If it was a few hours either side, there should be that level of flexibility. For it to be economically viable I can tell you that at 10 hours you are getting more money. At the end of the day, particularly for those on the DPB, the abatement is at 30 percent. That means on top of Working for Families and accommodation supplements and others that they get, they are financially better off. Also at 20 hours one can just about pretty much go off the benefit. By the time you add in accommodation supplements—and actually about 40 percent of those who get accommodation supplements are not on welfare, they are those in work; fully in work and off the benefit completely. There is a little gap in there, and there is a gap of about anything from 17, 18, 19 hours where you are not substantially better off, so once you get to that 20 hours there are absolutely no two ways about it: you can see a real benefit. Having that work focus, which, of course, is in the title, makes real sense and puts that attention there.

I cannot reiterate it enough that if you have not found a job you will not be punished. You know, there is no punitive measure; there is no sanction. The requirement is to be work available, and the requirement is to be in that position so that you are actually actively looking. The reality is if you are looking, then you know you have got a much better chance of getting one.

As far as the youth support network focus is concerned, I just want to give an example as well of a 17-year-old whom I met quite recently who had left school early, had been out of work for a year, had not been doing anything, and had not actually been on a benefit either, but had got to a stage where she sort of said: “What am I going to do?”. She took the jewellery out of her nose and dressed herself up a bit, got some advice from someone on how she would interview, and went round the Henderson mall with her CV and knocked on doors. It is a true story that she came out with three jobs. She came out with three retail opportunities, and of those opportunities that she came out with, she was at the stage where she was to do work experience for all three, so she did. She went in and worked for a few hours at each of them. At the end of that, all three of them offered her a job and she chose one of them. That was about 3 or 4 months ago and she is still in work, and she is doing OK.

Now that is one example I give you, but to say that there is no work available simply is not true. Let me give you an example, as well. As members will know, during the recession we saw, I was actually very proud that we had a welfare system that was there to support those who needed it. I get some grief for numbers going up—well, so they should, actually: that is when people are walking through the door and they need help. We should be giving it to them as efficiently, and as promptly, and in as much of a respectful manner as we can—and we did. You know, I heard horror stories overseas, and I am still hearing them, of queues outside doors and people having to wait absolutely weeks and even months to get appointments, let alone get the help that they need. We were able to address those needs up front, but now here we are. In January 2010 we had the unemployment benefit at over 68,000 people and we now have it at 50,000. I would like to see it at less than 50,000 and that is what we are working towards, but the reality is we have seen 18,000 people come off that benefit in the last couple of years due to, in part, the lessening of the recession, without a doubt—and actually more jobs are available and that is why they are getting there—but also that kind of focus. We are seeing that kind of balance there. You can throw up your hands and just say that there are not opportunities for people, but, really, by putting the right support around them and also giving them the right kinds of incentives and putting obligations in, there is absolutely no doubt—and all evidence points to it—that you will get better results for people and they will have better opportunities.

You are financially better off, whether you are in part-time work or in full-time work, but I end by also saying that part-time work is also quite a great confidence-builder. There are those who have been either out of work for ever, or out of work for a short time, and are actually getting a part-time job of one or two shifts a week, and it might be in retail or something else—we just recently placed 63 people off the benefit and into a call centre in Auckland, guys. That is 63 people off benefit and into a call centre in Auckland. For all of them, it is all different shifts and everything else. Some will be part-time, most of them are full-time, but I tell you what, I bet their confidence grows and when that next job comes along or that opportunity to get ahead in that job, they will do that.

When it comes to the commencement, we have got some parts of the bill that are happening, as I say, on 20 August when it comes to the youth package, and others are coming through in October, which just makes sense to stage that through, but bill No. 2 is on its way, as well, which will see fundamental changes and will get us towards our next change.

I do not think the Minister for Social Development will find anyone on this side of the Chamber who would disagree when she says that work is important and work is valued. I think, by and large, all New Zealanders value work. We live in a society where work becomes important, but it is also about the wages that those jobs provide. For the Minister to argue that the accommodation supplement and the childcare supplement will enable sole mothers to receive an income where they can work defeats, I think, Minister, the whole purpose of your bill, because you are using the accommodation supplement and the childcare supplement to subsidise the employers and to subsidise the landlord, whereas the whole purpose of this bill is the focus on work—focus on work where solo mums and solo dads or young people are going to be pushed into work are able to support themselves. But your argument of using the accommodation supplement and the childcare supplement seems to me to concede the fact that there are jobs out there that are not going to be able to sustain a solo parent or sustain a beneficiary who wants to get into a job.

The title of the bill is the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. It is an amendment bill to the Social Security Act 1964, but, as submitters have said before, the purpose of this amendment bill and the original purpose of the original Act just do not connect. They are miles apart. The suggestion by many submitters is that, really, this bill should not be there. It is the wrong bill to introduce if the Minister is genuine about her concern in addressing these particular issues. In fact, it should really be the “Repeal of the Social Security Act Bill”, rather than an amendment bill, as it shows. If the focus of the bill is about jobs, then this bill is really doing everything other than the provision of a job, yet it provides sanctions, which, in my mind, are a threat that if people do not get a job, then they are going to lose out on something.

There is another significant shift that this bill introduces. It introduces a youth package that permits the use of third parties or private organisations. That is a significant shift from what currently occurs where a third party—whether it be a business or a community trust, or whatever organisation—is going to be the representative of the Government department in the delivery of benefits, in the delivery of any sanctions, and in the provision of any of the pre-benefit activities that the bill suggests the chief executive has, because the chief executive is not going to be the one sitting down with every beneficiary who comes through the doors of Work and Income. When the bill allows for third parties to be involved in the relationship between the beneficiary and the Government, I think that debate still needs to be had, because there are significant risks associated with the third parties involved in the relationship there.

The bill also, although it says in the title “Youth Support and Work Focus”, does not highlight the fact that there is significant change for the beneficiary, which falls on solo parents, on widows, and on sole parents. When a bill suggests one thing but does something else, you really have to ask yourself whether we are being honest with the public out there. The fact that the entire bill introduces work testing—again, the work focus gives a different suggestion to the public, who will read the bill and think, “OK, this will enable me to get a job.”, but it does not. Despite what the backbenchers say about the vacancy opportunities online, we still have today 160,000 people unemployed—6.7 percent. Women, who predominantly make up the sole parent category, are 7.1 percent unemployed, which is higher than the national average. So, again, I do not think that the bill is being honest by allowing the general public to be fully aware of what will happen.

The bill also introduces sanctions. I—and most people—take sanctions as a threat, and there has been significant power now being placed upon the shoulders of the chief executive. It will be the chief executive who will determine whether a person is eligible for a benefit and what benefit. It will be the chief executive who will determine which pre-benefit activities for the applicant will apply. It will be the chief executive who will determine what educational activity the applicant can apply for. Again, this is a significant shift from the original legislation, which I do not think that we have had enough time to debate.

The other points I make are on childcare, because when this bill introduces the provision that sole parents will be work-tested when a child is 5 years old—it used to be 6, the bill now reduces it to 5—for part-time work, I still have genuine concerns. If they are working in a job that does not pay sufficient to provide care for the child at home or at an educational facility, then the Minister has suggested that we will continue to provide the childcare subsidy. I think that is wrong, because that means that the focus really is about subsidising employers, and subsidising landlords to the detriment of taxpayers and to the detriment of sole parents or beneficiaries who will have to continue to work for low-paid jobs. How can you live and provide a decent quality standard of living if this is the rate of affairs that this Government seems to be content on proposing?

Again, the jobs. If I really wanted to be mean to the backbenchers, I would say that this bill ought to be called the “Kick in the Guts for Beneficiaries Bill”.

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

Well, that is what this is all about.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: They think it’s funny.

That is right, and they do not take this seriously. The Minister, above all members on that side, should know that the children of beneficiaries should be our primary concern. The children of sole parents should be our primary concern. If the Minister was in attendance when the public made submissions, she would have heard from a range of significant organisations and significant individuals who responded and gave evidence that their paramount concern is that this bill does nothing—does nothing whatsoever—to protect the most vulnerable in our society: the children of sole parents. To leave a 14-year-old child at home, really, this perpetuates what we are doing. When a 14-year-old child is at home because mum is forced to go to work or they will be sanctioned and have nothing on the table—nothing to pay the rent with—what will that do to that young person? So I think if the Minister is genuine—and I accept that she is genuine about this—then really what she is doing with this amendment bill is not simply tinkering with the main Act; she is providing a significant shift to the whole Social Security Act. Both the purpose of this bill and the purpose of the Social Security Act—

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: Social engineering.

Absolutely. If we were in Government, they would say this is nanny State. That is what they would have called it. We are not saying that one iota, whatsoever. I simply say that she fails in this bill to address what will happen to children left alone and to mothers who, because they will be sanctioned if they do not try to find work, may not be able to afford childcare. The subsidy provided for childcare is $6 per child. Compare that with the cost of sending a child to school. You cannot send a child to school for $6. So I think she fails to address children.

I would like to now talk to the title of the bill, which is the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, and to take us back in time a little bit to actually look at what the original Social Security Act was about, so that we have a bit more of a sense of the context of this.

Back in 1972 the National Government put together a Royal Commission on Social Security in New Zealand. This commission, after extensive thinking and consultation, advocated that as a country we move from security to welfare—to quote it—“to ensure … that everyone is able to enjoy a standard of living much like that of the rest of the community, and thus is able to feel a sense of participation in and belonging to the community;”. In the commission’s thinking, there was a need to shift from the very basic safety net against unforeseen or unavoidable misfortune. Welfare was to be an agency for the promotion of the welfare of every one of our citizens. Although I can hear the Government saying that we just want to go back in time, it is not true. I would note that in this bill and the previous Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill, it has been the Government that has been regressing even further back in time, almost back to the 1950s. To me, it harks back to a time when single mothers were scorned and put under undue economic pressure to stay in bad relationships, and to a time when women who dared to speak up were slapped right back down again. But back in the 1970s they seemed to have understood a basic truth that this Government seems to have lost—that we all benefit socially and economically when we invest in our people.

💬 Hon John Banks: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Two matters under the Standing Orders: not relevant, and reading from a text.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): It is the presiding officer’s prerogative to make those calls. The reason for that, and the Standing Orders at the select committee made it quite clear, is that such mechanisms can be used to interrupt a speech. So it is the prerogative of the presiding officer.

And we have recent research that backs this up. University of Otago research, published just this year in Social Science and Medicine, investigated the impacts of family poverty on children up to the ages of 10 and how this reflected in later life. It showed that poverty and low income during childhood is associated in adolescence and adulthood with poorer educational achievement, lower earnings, and higher rates of welfare dependency up to the age of 30. The results held true even when a range of childhood and other family factors were taken into account. For this cohort of 987 individuals, the major effects of being brought up in a poor family appear to be a significant reduction in both educational achievement and earning opportunities that is still evident at 30, noted the professor. In contrast, the children of families who were in the top 25 percent of income earners were more likely to leave school with high qualifications, and more likely to go to university and have higher incomes. These results reflect a wide range of other international studies demonstrating the impact of childhood poverty on later life outcomes.

So for the purpose of this bill to say it is about social security, about a work focus, and in the content of the bill to be extending work sanctions, and for the Government not to be willing to accept our Supplementary Order Papers on the training incentive allowance, or the absolute protection for children to ensure that they are fed, clothed, and their well-being is taken care of, to me seems to be pretty much of a guarantee that we are going to keep on seeing these negative outcomes flow through for people later in life. This is the absolute opposite of an investment approach. We are introducing a deficit analysis and approach to our young people. This Government’s approach is a wilful ignorance of the need for money to function in our society. The only mention of financial support in this bill is the preference not to provide it. We do not want anyone stuck on a benefit. In fact, we absolutely believe that most people want to work and contribute.

I call Dr Rajen Prasad—[Interruption]

I do not know what to make of that little groan from the crew over there led by Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga and company. I think the title of a bill should actually say something quite particular about what the bill is really about. Clearly, the title that we currently have does not quite cut it, and lots of alternative titles can be suggested. Of course, usually they can be quite humorous, but I do not think there is much humour in any alternative title for this bill, the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, because there is so much wrong with this bill, and I think the title should reflect that.

I think it should be called the “Anti - Young Persons Bill”, because the presumption about young people in this bill is that they are incompetent. We do not even allow them to make mistakes. We say: “You can’t manage your money, so we will manage it for you. We will give you a little bit at a time until you finally earn the right to have it all back.” We do not bring up our children like that. Nobody in this Chamber brings up their children like that, so why is it that these young people are being put in that position? The presumption is of incompetence, so maybe it should be the “Social Security (Presumption of Incompetence) Amendment Bill”. Then the young people can relate to it as a bill that is theirs. Certainly, that gives us a lot of scope for this particular bill.

The “Anti-Adolescent Bill” would be another one—that is an alternative title—because now a single parent has to go back to full-time work when their child turns 14, or come off benefit. So what is it that makes it so that all of a sudden our 14-year-olds are being asked to manage themselves? The Minister for Social Development’s argument has been that 68 percent of parents do, and therefore everybody who is a beneficiary must. The Minister has not explained anything about the figures she has used or some contextualising about the nature of the two groups of parents. The Minister said nothing. She simply has taken that and it has been her driving argument here for making 14 years of age the cut-off point when parents must be available for full-time work. Most people in this Chamber know that that adolescent period is demanding—not for everybody, but certainly for a group of parents their adolescents are so demanding that they require their full-time attention. But, of course, anybody who has been on a benefit and could do that will now not be able to do that. So it is an anti-adolescent bill, and that should be the title: the “Social Security (Anti-Adolescent) Bill”. That would be a title that would be quite appropriate in this particular case.

The Minister has defended it, saying it is not punitive, that there is nothing punitive in this bill; it is all enabling. The Minister’s demeanour throughout all the calls she has taken is to play the line that we are simply enabling our young people and our beneficiaries to avail themselves of the facilities available. But, you know, the measures are punitive and it actually does produce perverse effects. There can be situations with two solo mums, both with a 6-year-old and a 1-year-old, when one would have access to the benefit and the other would not. That is entirely possible and yet the Minister says there is nothing punitive in this. There are punitive provisions in this particular bill, as well.

Who supports this bill? Certainly, professional after professional after professional came to the Social Services Committee and they did not support this bill. They found so many things wrong with it, and that was the overwhelming nature of submissions to the select committee. So the bill’s title could reflect that professionals do not support this—[Bell rung]—Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Dr Rajen Prasad.

Thank you. That has been the second time in 2 days that my favourite Chairman has recognised that the person has something more to say. I can see things are looking up at last. Maybe it is something about the second row that does it. But, certainly, back to the serious point, I was looking to hear the views of the professionals who came. You would expect them to have understood what the bill was trying to do. You would expect them to reflect from their experiences why this bill would work and why these provisions would work. But they did not, and, of course, nobody has listened to what they said; hardly any of that has been taken into account. So it could be the “Nobody Believes the Government Bill”, because the submitters certainly did not.

It certainly is a “Government Knows Best Bill”, because that is what it has been. It has been that the Government has made up its mind, and therefore that will prevail, and it has forced this through the House. But, of course, it could easily be the “Mike Sabin Bill”, because he articulated in his one call, which I recall in Part 3, what the Government’s perspective was. It actually was the most punitive statement that any member has made in the time I have been in this House—the comment that these are lifestyle choices these women make. I did challenge the Minister to repudiate that statement and to stand aside from it. She did not. Therefore, I am entitled to draw from that that it is indeed the Minister’s view, and that demonstrates the punitive approach to sole parents and to bringing up children.

Who are the people who will avail themselves of the provisions in this bill? It has been said quite consistently that it is the poor, and it is the poor who are in this position. So this is an anti-poor bill, because it is not really designed to make life great for them. It is designed to actually put a whole series of blocks in their way, and that also begins to reflect this bill.

Turning to another line of thinking, the bill has been poorly handled. When we go to the commencement date, we see that the Minister has had to change that commencement date. Right from the beginning it was a rushed process, and maybe that explains the commencement date—I am referring to the commencement date, Mr Chairman. It has been poorly handled. The date has had to be changed. The deadlines have not been met. People have not had enough time to submit in a detailed kind of way. Perhaps one of the consequences of that has also been that the information-sharing system, which is still being designed, is going through another select committee, and the two systems have not been synchronised. And now this one survives for 3 years, with a review, and things will happen. I know the Minister says that it has been tested and it works well, but the Privacy Commissioner appeared before us, and others from the legal fraternity did as well, and these are questions they raised. So the commencement date is a problem, and it has had to be changed. One of the consequences of that has been that the information-sharing provisions of this bill are wrong.

There are just so many things wrong with this bill, and I think there is scope for the title to reflect that. We have got a provision for what the alternative title ought to be.

Finally, there has been a lot of reference to quality childcare. The arguments are not convincing. The Minister shakes her head, but they are not convincing. That quality childcare should be available is a constant theme from my colleagues on this side of the Chamber. If we are going to use these provisions, then quality childcare must be made available. As to that 68 percent that the Minister quotes, maybe they do have access to that, and can afford it by some means, but, certainly, many cannot. Babysitting clubs are not a substitute for quality childcare when mums have to go out. I have given the case of a person having to deal with the demands of two young children, and when the 5-year-old goes to school then the parent does have a little bit of time.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First. I am going to take a very brief call on the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, because I think it is very important. The title of the bill, I think, should be something like the “Minister Benefit Missing in Action Benefit Bill”. I think that should be the title of this bill. It is a very important—

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: I raise a point of order, Chairperson. The member has referred to Minister Bennett as “Minister Benefit”. I object to that. In this House the rules are that you have actually got to refer to members by name, specifically. Using that slur is—

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: Point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): We have a point of order. You wish to speak to the point of order?

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: Thank you. Maybe so, but certainly that reference to “Paula Benefit” was made at the Social Services Committee—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! I have heard enough. [Interruption] I am on my feet. This is not the select committee, and there are clear rules in this House where all members must be referred to by their appropriate names and titles. The member who was making her speech should do so.

Thank you. Just so that it is clear, I was not actually referring to the Minister; I was actually referring to the actual title—

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: I raise a point of order, Chairperson. She is arguing the point of order. The point has been made, and we have got to move on.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes. Once a point of order has been ruled on, we move on, and the member should not refer to it. The member should continue with her speech.

Thank you, Mr Chair. As I was saying before, the title of the bill, which is what I was saying, should be the “Minister Benefit Missing in Action Benefit Bill”. I was referring to a title of a bill. The reason why I am saying that is that it is important for us to know that the private delivery of a State function simply based on a profit motive creates no savings for the public or the taxpayers, and it is something that this Government should not be allowed to do. I hope that the chair of the Social Services Committee is listening to this. Ninety-nine percent of submitters are opposed to this bill. It is important that we make sure the people of New Zealand are aware of what this bill is actually about.

💬 Tim Macindoe: Which bill are you taking about?

We are talking about the title. Yes, that is right, Tim Macindoe. I can hear you. That member has got a black and white memory. I mean, that member has got a far-away look. And the further away you are when I look at you, the better you look, Tim Macindoe.

I will now come back to the bill in front of us. I am baffled that after the Minister for Social Development released the Green Paper For Vulnerable Children, she would suggest that solo parents are to work part-time when a child reaches the age of 5. That is a concern, and that is to do with the actual title of this bill. Would it not then be fair to say that this is a form of institutionalised—I say that again—institutionalised child abuse? Did you get that, Mr Peseta Lotu-Iiga?

💬 Tim Macindoe: I bet he gets that.

Of course. The dynamic of being a solo parent is hard enough, let alone facing a non-existent job market. All right? So I have said it before, and I will do it again. This bill has a really good idea. There are a lot of really good ideas behind it. The intention is good. The problem is that we do not have jobs. There are no jobs available for the parents. Overall, we all want people to come off the benefit. I understand that. I acknowledge that. We do not want them to be on a benefit forever. But we must make sure that there are jobs for them to move to. There is no point telling them to get off the benefit if you do not provide them with a safety net. Where is the safety net in this bill? Where is it?

💬 Tim Macindoe: If there’s no job, nothing will change.

There is nothing, and there is no strategy, Tim Macindoe, to ensure that there is continuity when they get off the benefit and go into jobs or job training. It is all very well to say there are 1,000 jobs out there, but, as mentioned by some of the members before, they require specific skills. You do not ask an engineer to go and do childcare jobs. You do not ask mothers who have been on a benefit for 50 years or so to go and look for office work, because that would be ridiculous—absolutely ridiculous.

I hope that those members across the Chamber actually ensure that their own families from Penrose and Glenn Innes and Maungakiekie are not all in the same boat, because I believe that the majority of Māori and Pacific Island people in that area, especially the Cook Island people, will be the ones who will be heavily affected by this bill.

This was a brief call I wanted to make. I wanted to make sure that New Zealand First got its view across. Our minority report has been tabled, and it clearly states where we stand with this bill. The title is completely deceiving, and people need to understand that. What we want to make sure of and what we are suggesting is that the bill needs to provide a safety net for women coming off the benefit to do community work and community initiatives. They need to be involved in some community work. They need to be given projects, and in that way they are contributing to the community in a positive way. That way they can also feel better about receiving the benefit on the other hand, because they know they are doing something for the community. From there, they will be able to get some skills and relevant experience in order for them to be employed by some of our local businesses.

To the Minister for Social Development, I would like you to consider this. Perhaps it is time for you to engage and get a buy-in from local businesses and employers, who will then provide opportunities for these people when they come off the benefit. Yes, it is a very realistic approach, because if you want our votes you need to consider this genuinely. A more one-on-one relationship is crucial in the future of any child, too. It is not fair to expect a mother, when a child reaches the age of 5, to go and have a job, because nowadays you cannot expect just anybody to take care of your child. There are a lot of things that we talk about, such as child abuse. We have also been talking about abuse in so many environments in different areas. This is what we need to also look at, because that is what can happen as well.

So Minister, I think it is a very good suggestion that I am making. Also, it is important that you give these people a fair go, especially those people from South Auckland, because that is where there is a large number of people who will be affected. Yes, I do want them to come off the benefit and get into some very good jobs that will ensure long-term sustainability for their welfare as well as for their families. Thank you.

I move, That the report be adopted.