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 third time. Doing nothing about benefit dependency is no longer an option. For too long the system has let thousands of New Zealanders languish on benefits, with no hope, no support, and no encouragement to live and lead a better life. In fact, the welfare system itself has failed too many New Zealanders. This Government will not stand by and let that continue. The bill before the House today continues the significant and comprehensive reforms this Government has introduced to modernise the welfare system. It started with Future Focus in 2010 and we are following it up with this bill, before introducing a third tranche of welfare reform later this year that will contain the most significant changes.

The changes we are making will reset obligations and expectations, introducing a level of fairness that is long overdue. The statistics have been telling us for years that welfare dependence is intergenerational. This causes a loss of hope and a lack of ambition for adults and for their children in so many ways. One hundred and seventy thousand New Zealanders have spent most of the last decade on welfare. You cannot tell me that that is good for them as individuals, good for their families, or, certainly, any good for their children. We simply cannot continue to spend up to $8 billion a year to support 12 percent of the working-age population. I cannot ask taxpayers to support a system that continually grows, but does not address the causes of dependence, at the expense of health, education, and other priorities that taxpayers might like us to make.

I am not convinced that the left sees a problem with this level of dependence, but I am convinced there is a difference in philosophy when it comes to welfare. The left creates dependence; the right creates independence. We would rather give them the tools and the support to be independent. The right will incentivise, while the left are busy with sympathising. This is not about a lack of compassion. I have a huge amount of respect for people who are raising their families with little money. I just want them to have more. We could do nothing, as the left would prefer, and that means leaving the 320,000 New Zealanders on welfare, with no hope of a better life. I simply refuse to do that.

When listening to the debate on these reforms it is clear that some have no faith whatsoever in the ability of New Zealanders to get off welfare and provide for themselves. On this side of the House, quite frankly, we see that as demeaning. We believe in people and their ability to succeed and better their situation, and we believe in providing them with the support so that they can do so. We do not believe in leaving people on the scrap heap. To continue simply paying a 17-year-old sole mother a weekly sum of money and give her no other support would quite frankly, in my view, be irresponsible. We will not do that. To write off single women as unable to support themselves financially, simply because they are women, would be ignorant. We will not do that. To allow people to just give up and opt out of work would be a failure of any Government, and we will not do that. National will modernise the welfare system with a clear work focus that applies to a far greater number of people.

We will take a completely new approach with young people. They will be required to be in education or training to get a benefit. Their bills will be paid directly. Money for food will be loaded on to payment cards, instead of giving them cash. They will have to complete budgeting and/or parenting programmes, if appropriate. They will receive small cash incentives for meeting these milestones. Instead of having a solely financial relationship with Work and Income, teen parents, along with other young people, will have a youth service provider or private worker working alongside them. That provider will help them navigate issues like accommodation, bills, getting access to education or training, and upskilling. Teen parents will get vital childcare. We are putting aside $80 million for this, so there is no barrier to them getting the education or training they need.

This bill will require sole parents with children over 14 to look for full-time work, and will require sole parents with children over 5 to look for part-time work. This bill will require those parents to start preparing themselves, in advance, for this change. This bill removes the sexist and discriminatory policy that has seen the women alone and widows benefits existing well beyond a time when they were necessary. These benefits effectively said that a woman could not fend for herself without a man, and I think that is just archaic. We are modernising welfare. We are providing more support, and we will be expecting something back. We have changed the commencement date of 30 July 2012 for the youth package changes to 20 August 2012. Changes to the widows benefit, women alone benefit, and DPB come into effect in October of this year.

As I have mentioned, the bill introduces a new system of support, obligations, and financial assistance for young people and teen parents. The aim of this is to balance support and obligations in a way that will improve social outcomes for young people. This is new; it is a different approach to a longstanding problem. Never before has anyone looked at the benefit pipeline and put such a huge investment into those very young people who are likely to go on to benefit. Currently, there are around 3,000 16 and 17-year-olds and 16 to 18-year-old parents on a benefit, and around 14,000 young people aged 16 to 17 years who are considered to be “neets”—not in education, employment, or training. We are determined to stop the track on to benefit. The changes in this bill will reduce the risk of long-term benefit dependency for teenagers, and ensure they have better outcomes and opportunities. The best way to do this is through work and training, and we are investing $148 million over 4 years for youth services to achieve this, including that very necessary wraparound support.

The left has criticised this investment a lot. I stand by it. We are going to have youth-focused providers who are the experts in working with young people, motivating them, and helping them to turn their lives round. We are being flexible and innovative in how we do that, but uncompromising in the outcomes that we want. There has been some speculation on the next welfare reform bill. I would like to assure the House that progress is being made. As I previously have indicated, amongst other things we will change the benefit categories, install the investment approach, and put in a regime of social obligations and drug testing for some beneficiaries.

But in conclusion on the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, I would like to extend some important thankyous—firstly, to Sam Lotu-Iiga and to those members of the Social Services Committee from all sides of the House who have worked on the bill. I want to recognise your work, for sitting during adjournments, for the time that you gave to people to make their submissions, and for the suggestions you made for changes to the bill, some of which we were able to take on board. I know that through the select committee process the committee actually found a couple of things that were slightly ambiguous and suggested we make changes to those problems. I think we see a better bill for that process, so I want to thank those members of the select committee for the time they spent on the bill.

I particularly would like to thank my hard-working officials. There have been many officials from many departments, but mainly, obviously, those from the Ministry of Social Development who work in the policy unit, who hopefully are listening out there. I just say an absolute heartfelt thank you. They really are the engine behind all of this. They take those ideas and they turn them into something real, and I want to say thank you. Treasury has worked really hard. Despite the sometimes fun comments I make, Treasury has actually just got on alongside of this and has been a real part of that robust debate that I think leads to a better piece of work. We have had other ministries—whether it be the Ministry of Health, the Inland Revenue Department, or the Ministry of Education, in particular—that have helped us. Their role in this has been absolutely critical, so I do say a real, genuine thank you.

I also say thank you to Cabinet. I say thank you to Cabinet because it is actually putting in that huge investment of more than $148 million. The total costs of this are $287 million. Cabinet does not do it lightly. I had to go to Cabinet and prove a really strong case of why this was going to make a fundamental difference to these young people—and it does. Change is on the way. I think this is a big part of that brighter future for New Zealand, and I would like to commend this bill to the House.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Labour Party and give what I think is a very considered response from our party to this piece of legislation, the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, and to the Government’s welfare reforms generally. I have said it before in this House: Labour’s approach to reform around welfare has always been to look through the perception that is often perpetuated by politicians in this space—dangerously so sometimes, I would say—and to look to the reality, because we ignore the reality at our peril. The more that perception is perpetuated, the more we risk our own ability to fulfil the fundamental principle of doing what is right and what works, and that is something that I will defend staunchly in this area.

If we were to come back to the evidence when it comes to welfare reform, what is the context in which these reforms are being introduced? Well, in 2009, when the Government came in, if you look at the unemployment benefit numbers, we were sitting at roughly 18,000 people on an unemployment benefit. We are now looking at almost 50,000 people sitting on an unemployment benefit. I know that on this matter the Minister and I will agree: that has not happened because New Zealanders have had a sudden change of attitude to work. There has been a change in the economic environment in New Zealand. Laying aside all of Labour’s views on whether the Government could and should have done more on that—laying that aside—there have been economic circumstances that have led to more Kiwis joining the dole queue, and reluctantly so. I must emphasise that. Unemployment is currently at 6.7 percent. We need only to look in our local areas where a job is advertised and at the enormous queues that extend outside of, for instance, supermarkets advertising a handful of jobs to know that Kiwis want to work.

The Minister claims that she believes that, too. Why, then, during this debate, and in the outside world, have we heard statements like “The dream is over.”, and members in this House, in this debate, talk about the lifestyle of living on welfare? That kind of language makes it much more difficult for us to get to the core of the issue and address the real barriers that exist for people moving from welfare into work, because there is no denying that Labour is a believer in work—the value of work, the dignity that work provides—and we will do everything we can to assist Kiwis into work.

So what are the barriers to that? Well, at the moment you cannot deny that it is the availability of work. We have touched on that. But also there was a survey conducted by the Inland Revenue Department, which we have referred to consistently, that demonstrated that the other barriers for people entering into work were the cost of childcare, and, for 64 percent of people, whether they had the right training and education to move into the jobs that were available. So, on those measures, what does this bill do? On work and on job creation, obviously it does very little. It is a social development bill. But what has the Government done on it? Again, it has done very little. It has not even met its own projections on job creation that were set out by Treasury. So, on that count, we consider that the Government has not done enough. If you want to fix welfare, fix the economy—and on that count we believe the Government has failed.

The second measure is training and education. If you are under 19 and on a benefit—if you are a sole parent, for instance—then there are some measures in this bill that are training and education focused, and also if you are on an independent youth benefit. But, let us put it into context. That actually equates to roughly 2,500 to 3,000 young people on welfare who will be affected by that. For the vast majority—for instance, domestic purposes benefit recipients who used to be eligible for a training incentive allowance—that is still gone. All other incentives and support around training and education do not exist in this bill, so let us be under no illusions there.

On childcare, to an extent the Ministry of Social Development and the Minister have acknowledged that this is a barrier, because she has extended the childcare subsidy for 1,500 people. The big question we have asked is, what about the 112,000 who continue to struggle with that cost? On those measures, this bill will not substantively assist those who need it the most. So what if you are not 18 or 19? Well, it is very easy, I think, to be misled by the Minister’s statement. In her last speech alone she said: “the welfare system itself has failed too many New Zealanders. The Government will not stand by and let that continue.”

Show me how you are changing that with this bill. If you are not 18 or 19 years old and you are on welfare, all you get from this bill is more work testing. We are asking what about the rest, Minister? What about the rest? I understand that she is targeting 16 and 17-year-olds, but there are hundreds of thousands on the benefit now, who are not 16 and 17, who need that assistance. She says: “We will not let it continue. We are modernising the welfare system.” I would like to see the evidence of that for those who are on an unemployment benefit, on the DPB, or on the sickness benefit.

If we are looking at those who are on the domestic purposes benefit, for instance, we have already had a set of reforms brought in by the Minister. We have had Future Focus, which brought in extra part-time work testing, and now we have this set of reforms. But even on the Ministry of Social Development’s own projections, even after these $287 million reforms are brought in, the number on the domestic purposes benefit is still projected to be 10,000 higher than when the Minister started. Surely that raises some flags over whether or not work testing alone is going to provide what is needed to make a real difference for those women in particular, because they do represent the most significant number of people on that form of support.

So we highlight again that if you want to fix welfare, fix the economy but address the other barriers at the same time. But in the meantime, we do agree to the extent that the Government is targeting young people. The question becomes how you do it. Again, we want to come back to the evidence and the reality on the ground for those who are already working in the space of Youth Transition Services. Now, this bill will assist 14,000 young people. This is what the ministry and the Minister have projected. There are over 80,000 young people not in employment, education, or training, and they are not just 16 and 17. We heard from Youth Transition Services operating on the ground that 60 percent of the young people they help actually fall off the track after they are 17, and need some kind of service that is targeted to their needs and will assist them to get back into work, training, education, or whatever fits their individual circumstances.

We, instead, have contended that the Government needed to work with more, not less, and I will highlight that we are spending more and working with less via this piece of legislation. We needed to give the existing providers who are out there doing a great job the flexibility they needed to take into account the circumstances of the young person. Some are exiting from school because school was a rough place for them. They were not on track educationally. The last thing they want to do is be shoved back into school. We have got to try to fit their aspirations with a programme that keeps them on track. So we wanted to give providers that flexibility. We did not want to skew incentives, and we feel that that is what this bill does. Again, always having the best interests and the sustainability of a young person in training in mind, not just short-term gains, is our approach when it comes to young people.

I want to flag, though, in the concluding remarks of my speech, a fundamental part of these reforms that has not been canvassed broadly, and that is that this legislation means that providers in the community—some private providers—will now be administering part of the Social Security Act to a degree that we have not seen in New Zealand. If a young person in need has previously been dealt with by Work and Income—an emergency hardship grant or any kind of grant that Work and Income previously would have dealt with—that has now been contracted out to the community. Our concern as Labour members is what is next. This may be only 2,500 or 3,000 young people, but we believe that with any partitioning off of the welfare state to community organisations to a large degree—perhaps the sickness benefit might be next, the invalids benefit—we have real concerns over that kind of track. I ask the Minister, if that is not part of your agenda, to stand up and give this House those assurances.

But, in conclusion, I say that Labour is the party of work. We are the party of opportunity. We understand the dignity that comes with work, and that families will always be better off in work. For us the question is how we get there. We do not focus on rhetoric and perception in this party. We focus on evidence and the reality of what is happening on the ground, and, in that sense, it is time we went back to true social security—a dignified system that transitions people into the work they deserve.

I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. I start by congratulating the Minister for Social Development, Paula Bennett, not just on this bill but on her courage, empathy, and diligence with this rather complex portfolio, which she manages on a day-by-day basis. Her success and her progress is something that gladdens me. I also give credit to the chairman of the Social Services Committee and the select committee, but particularly to the leadership of the select committee under the member Sam Lotu-Iiga—a first-class member of Parliament doing a great job on that select committee.

Welfare reform is something that the ACT Party has long championed. ACT MPs and supporters have worked hard in the wilderness to bring about welfare reform. This reform is long overdue. We have made the case that our system no longer works, and that too many New Zealanders are left out of work, out of hope, and out of dignity by a system forced upon them. The system can give somebody else’s cold hard cash, but nothing more, and that is the problem with socialism: you run out of other people’s money very quickly.

ACT explained that children and young mothers need love and community—love and community that a bank transfer at midnight cannot give. The ACT Party is glad to see mutual obligation become what everyone in this House, deep in their soul, knows is right—mutual obligation. One hopes that one day reforming the Resource Management Act the Government spending limits become what everybody knows is right. For now we are pleased with welfare reform, and welfare reform is the incremental step to progress for our country; it is taking people without hope, taking people without a job, removing the welfare cheque, and giving them the dignity and opportunity to provide for themselves through work.

Along the way this bill has been championed by the ACT Party, supported by the Welfare Working Group, and I want to thank the Welfare Working Group for the hard work that it has done to contribute to this. The group found that one in eight working-age New Zealanders is on some form of handout, borrowed every week from the savings of the Swiss, the Germans, and the Chinese. We cannot continue to borrow on the backs of our great-grandchildren yet born for a welfare system that fails our youth today—fails dignity and fails opportunity, fails hope and fails self-reliance, fails self-reliance and fails self-esteem. So in this parliamentary term, welfare reform is supported not only by ACT but by the recommendations from the working group, and is part of our confidence and supply agreement. This Minister, this young Minister, who knows about these matters, these complex matters, has helped it by running it hard.

It is ACT’s vote that makes the reforms possible; it is not the votes of the people opposite, who will take from the Chinese, the Swiss, and the French and spend their money by borrowing it from them on a welfare system that fails us. It is the ACT’s confidence and supply agreement that stipulates the obligations of parents as per the Welfare Working Group—the obligations of being a responsible parent. Having children is a God-given right, but an awesome responsibility, and it needs to be sheeted home.

ACT’s confidence and supply agreement also includes initiatives for better support for at-risk families. It is the at-risk families we need to target through income management and the contestable provision of social services. The contestable delivery of social services is critical to the partnership between the State, which gives the hand up, and the recipient, who takes the handout. When I was first elected to Parliament 4 decades ago in the electorate of Whangarei, the local police, the local social workers, and local employers knew everyone in the city. Welfare then could work because in Whangarei all those years ago we were in it together. Now the State has alienated people from the social welfare system. So this bill represents a small step towards that kind of mutual connectivity and responsibility. The community used to say to people on welfare: “We will help you, but you have a few things to do for yourself.” We do not hear that any longer. Self-obligation brings self-respect, self-respect brings self-esteem, and self-esteem brings dignity. That is what this bill seeks to achieve.

The current welfare reforms do not propose all stick with no carrot, because you will not have reform with just stick and no carrot, but with true mutual obligations. That is what welfare is about. If we are going to borrow from the savings of others, we have to have a true mutual obligation that we are going to help ourselves to help those who are helping us help ourselves. They do not merely take away benefits for non-compliance, but will pay extra for recipients who do comply with new obligations and incentives for new obligations, because handouts always require that. If you believe in true socialism of taking from people who work hard, to give to people who do not work hard, then there must be some social obligation, and that obligation is two ways. This sense of give and take is closer to the kind of human relationship of which mechanistic welfare has robbed us. Mechanistic welfare has robbed this country. But the ultimate dignity that a person can have is the dignity of work. Work builds self-belief. Work builds self-esteem. Think about that term self-esteem. It is not other people’s opinion of you but your opinion of yourself that builds self-esteem.

This bill re-emphasises the importance of work. It re-emphasises the importance of work for adults, and the importance of working role models for young children and working role models in the community. It acknowledges that in many families with small children both parents work at least part-time. I salute those hard-working families. We put hard-working families on a pedestal. We know it is difficult to raise kids and work around the clock for two-parent families struggling to make ends meet. We see those people as good people, and if we are going to transfer at midnight their hard-earned taxes by way of a bank transfer to people who are seeking support from the Government at a time of need, then there needs to be some obligation to the hard-working people who are providing the money, otherwise it is called blatant socialism.

Minister Bennett and our coalition partners are investing in the social capital of this country by realigning welfare with the notion of mutual obligation and work. This is what this bill should have been called: the “Mutual Obligation of Self-respect and Self-reliance (and Giving Back Something to the Community that is Funding the Welfare) Amendment Bill”.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: The next one.

We can call the next one that. We look forward to seeing further bills and enacting further elements of our supply agreement in these coming months. We are turning the corner in New Zealand. The ACT Party has played a long role in all of this. We have long argued that this 40-year experiment in open-ended welfare has not worked, because it is based on wrong values. We have argued that a culture of mutual obligation must replace a culture of entitlement, and this bill is the arrival of that long march. I am glad to be supporting it as the leader of the ACT Party.

Malo le soifua. Thank you for this opportunity. I rise on behalf of the Labour Party and I want to simply say that the contribution and presence of Mr Banks after four decades is evidence that the right-wing ideology of the Jim Bolger Government failed New Zealand and that the “mother of all Budgets” of “Ruthless Ruth” during his era failed New Zealand communities. It is also evident that they have never learnt their lesson.

I would say to this House that the Government’s Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill is flawed and introduces punitive measures that are similar to those punitive measures of the decades that Mr Banks hails from, and that are more characteristic of underdeveloped countries than of a developed nation such as ours. Labour opposes this bill because it does nothing to address the real issues of economic growth, productivity, and employment. It fails to address the barriers that are faced by New Zealand communities, such as the availability of jobs, such as skills and education, and such as the barriers that sole parents face of child care and the rising cost of early childhood education.

This debate, if we listen to the numerous submitters who came forward and provided evidence, is a debate that is important, and it ought to be taken seriously. However, I do not think that in the period from the first reading to the select committee consideration, to the second reading, and even throughout the Committee stage the other side has taken seriously the impact and the ramifications of the bill and the systems that the Government is introducing in this bill. I cannot help but be reminded again and again and again by the substantial submissions made by significant organisations that service our community and that deliver and are engaged at the coalface of our communities the length and breadth of New Zealand. Significant organisations such as the Salvation Army, the Child Poverty Action Group, the women’s organisation, the Human Rights Commission, the Children’s Commissioner, the Families Commission, all of them raised concerns and all of them did not support the bill that is here. The Salvation Army—and I remind members on the other side—said succinctly that we are moving away from the fundamental purpose of the Social Security Act of 1964. I want to repeat it for the sake of this House. The purpose of the Social Security Act, which this bill now amends, is “(i) to help people to support themselves and their dependants while not in paid employment; and (ii) to help people to find or retain paid employment; and (iii) to help people for whom work may not currently be appropriate because of sickness, injury, disability, or caring responsibilities”—for young children or those who are elderly or sick—“to support themselves and their dependants:”.

I also want to remind this House that as a developing nation we are a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and, above all, we should be the shining example in this region of upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I draw your attention to article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests.” Article 24: “Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.” Article 25: “(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate to the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.”

I think we have drifted as a country so far away from the fundamental principles and values that we as a country signed up to. We have drifted so far away with this bill from the fundamental purpose of the Social Security Act 1964, which established our system. No person I have ever met, no one in my community, no one in the schools I visit, whether they be in my electorate or in other electorates, ever talks about how it is their lifestyle choice to be on a benefit. That is not a lifestyle choice, contrary to what the other side believes. Jobs, jobs, jobs are what this Government fails to deliver. I think that this Government here has mastered the act of appearing to be busy while actually doing nothing—I have got it wrong—the art of looking busy while achieving nothing, because so far this Government seems to concede the fact that it cannot deliver jobs for the country, and is simply sitting on its hands, allowing thousands and thousands of New Zealanders to leave our shores for the safety of Australia, for the jobs and the quality of life that Australia seems to offer them.

As I said, the whole bill is very reminiscent of what Mr Banks’ era delivered, which we as a country suffered for many, many years. In fact, in 1999 when Labour came into power, we were challenged with the high unemployment that National had left this country with. In 2008 when we left power, unemployment was relatively low, at 3.5 percent. We are now, for women, at 7.1 percent. While 160,000 unemployed New Zealanders continue to look for work, this Government introduces a bill which will introduce sanctions, or threats, as I have called them, because if they do not do what the department will force upon them, then they will be faced with sanctions. My greatest concern is that, despite the intention the Minister for Social Development had in drafting this bill, those individuals who will suffer as a consequence—whether intentional or not—will be children and young people, because when they are 5 years old, their mum or their dad will be forced to go out to look for work. If they do not find a job, they will be sanctioned. At 14 years old, that young person will be left at home because their mum or dad will be forced to go find a job.

I want to say to this Minister that sole mothers do not have a choice. That is not a lifestyle choice. Sole parents want to be able to provide for their families and want to provide for their children, and what this Government is doing by introducing sanctions on sole mothers really is a kick in the guts for them. At the end of the day, it will be the children who will suffer, and I will point my finger directly at that Minister, as responsible.

The Green Party—

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you were busy, but on two occasions in the last minute the Minister for Social Development used the words “it is a lie”; one when the member was speaking, and one just then. May I ask you to ask her to withdraw and apologise?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have to say I was actually busy calling the honourable member Jan Logie, but if the member did use that word then she should withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I didn’t call him a liar.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): All I can say is that all members are honourable members; their word is their bond. If members are found to have not honoured that, then there are repercussions through the Privileges Committee.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I certainly did not call him a liar. What I did say is I felt that there were lies, but I did not call him a liar, so I did not besmirch the member by calling him a liar.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I thank the Minister for explaining the situation. Nevertheless we have a rule in this place that no one is called a liar because indirectly you are not actually calling the person that; you are insinuating that the whole Parliament is like that. So in that case I would just ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I certainly can withdraw and apologise if that is your ruling.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you—much appreciated.

The Green Party, as stated several times already, will oppose the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. We will continue to offer alternative solutions, and we hope that after the next election we can be part of building a society that has a strong foundation based on a Kiwi sense of a fair go and community. We have many specific concerns about the content of this bill, and many concerns regarding the context within which it is operating. We have many concerns about what we see as some pretty fundamental inconsistencies within this bill, and many concerns regarding the underlying values inherent in this bill. Ultimately, we have a different vision for our society and a different view of our fellow New Zealanders. I would like to speak to that a little bit more.

Last night I went to a presentation by a great organisation called KidsCan, which is working in New Zealand to provide raincoats for children who do not have them, shoes for children who do not have them, and food for children in lower-decile schools. This group is not a political group, it is not advocating for structural change, but what it described is absolutely relevant to our sense of social security and welfare. It described children who do not know when their birthday is, because their parents have not got enough money to be able to put on birthday parties. It described little girls who are getting their heads shaved because the cost of buying lice treatment is half of the family’s income. It described children who are going to bed in raincoats that were given to them by this organisation, because they are the warmest thing they own. The people from this organisation were very clear that it has not met one parent who does not want the best for their children. They have not met one parent who does not try their hardest for their children. That is the context we are living in. This is not about poor parenting; this is about inadequate income. Two out of five families living in poverty are working families. Pushing people off welfare into work will not solve the problem of poverty in this country. What we need to do is increase our base income. This bill does nothing to achieve social security.

Now to speak a little bit more around the content of this bill and the points that we oppose. We oppose the contracting out of services. The Minister for Social Development talks about a wraparound service for young people and the need to care. I absolutely, wholeheartedly support that. I have worked in the community with a lot of young people in that situation, and I really recognise that when they do not have family to stand by them, support is important. However, we cannot support this model when we are undermining the value and the functioning of the community as opposed to the State. That is what this bill does. It puts community organisations into the role of the de facto State. That compromises the ability to build relationships, and undermines the organisations’ ability to respond to their community needs.

We do not support the starting point of controlling every young person’s finances and putting them on payment cards. The Social Services Committee had very strong evidence from some young people—and from young people I spoke to, as well—about the need for flexibility. In actual fact, many of their living situations tend to be quite tenuous, and they need to be able to respond quickly and get out of bad situations. This provision is not going to help with that problem. In fact, having automatic payments—things out of their control—may well put them into more precarious situations.

We support aspiration for our young people. We do not support a one-size-fits-all solution, which National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2, as an aspiration for all young people, is. It is a one-size-fits-all solution. It does not recognise the needs of young people with learning disabilities. It does not recognise the needs of young people who are refugees who do not even have literacy in their own first language. It does not follow best teaching practice, which is that you focus on the students and their learning pattern, not the teachers or some external goal.

We do not support the information-sharing provisions in this bill, which are not consistent with the Privacy Act. They are an experiment. We actually believe that the right to privacy goes over, and should go beyond, the Government’s experiment. We also have concerns that were brought up with us by young women around education. We really support that model in terms of young women being able to go to schools and have their kids in the same place while they are learning. But we do not have many of those schools in our country, so the chances are that a lot of these young women are going to be sent to courses that are not going to provide childcare onsite, and they are going to be separated from their children. There is real potential that that is going to have an impact on their bonding. We do not believe that that is good for the country.

In terms of the provisions in relation—

💬 Mike Sabin: There’s a lot of good bonding going on within the dryer.

If that member does not think these young women want to bond with their children, he has obviously not met many or had many discussions with them. The DPB—

💬 Mike Sabin: Well, I’ve got six children; I’ve probably got some idea.

Are they in that situation? For the DPB, we do not support the work testing at all, actually. We believe that the evidence supports that when women are ready to go back to work, and when their children are ready for them to go back to work, they start looking for work. We do not believe they need to be pushed. We believe that their individual situations and reasons for being on the DPB in the first place actually often mean they should be there with their children, putting their children first, and, in many cases, healing from what have been some very traumatic experiences, rather than trying to juggle the needs of their children and juggle the needs of a job, travel, and life. We believe that that is unrealistic.

I would like to speak to some of the inconsistencies in this bill. One is that the intent, we are told, of this bill is to take an investment approach, a really radical approach. The Minister has said that she makes no apology for the cost of it, that it is going to be expensive but it will be worth it because it will pay off. Yet the Government used its financial veto to rule out my Supplementary Order Paper, which would have extended the training incentive allowance to higher-grade courses, which we know are the courses that will enable women to get off the DPB 6 months earlier and enable them to stay off the DPB for longer. We have got clear evidence on that. The cost of that provision was only $5 million to $15 million.

I would also like to draw attention to the inconsistency where the Government purports to want the best for children, yet, again, it used its financial veto against Holly Walker’s Supplementary Order Paper, which would have provided the option for discretion when officials gauged that sanctioning a parent would make it difficult to feed, clothe, or care for the well-being of a child. The Government said that that would cost millions of dollars—hundred of millions of dollars—because it had budgeted for those sanctions. The needs of the child, obviously, do not figure in its considerations. For us, that is a fundamental inconsistency.

I would also like to talk to some of the values. The Government talks about the importance of work, and we also heard this from the ACT Party. We share that. Absolutely, work is important. Parenting is work. Actually, contributing to our community is work. And most people want to work, in paid work or otherwise. Part of the way we shape our society is by valuing work—not by valuing just the things we say are work and not valuing what other people consider to be work. We would also like to say that our understanding of a fair go is the understanding that everyone has—that we give our children a place to start in life that is comparable, so that they can get ahead and everyone has the chance of getting ahead in life. We know that when children are living in poverty, it means they are going to have poorer life outcomes, poorer educational outcomes, poorer employment opportunities—a whole range of really negative things. This bill is, in fact, entrenching that inequality in our country, and I do not believe that inequality is a New Zealand value.

Ahn nyung ha se yo, Mr Speaker. It is a great pleasure to rise to make a contribution on this third reading of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, but before I go on I would just like to make a comment about something that Jan Logie has spoken about. I cannot believe that any good parent would let their child go to bed in a raincoat because that was the warmest thing they could possibly find. You can go to an op shop and buy a warm jumper for 50c. You know, I cannot believe that a Green member would actually talk about spending a lot of money on hair lice treatment. I mean, you can actually wet the child’s hair and use a fine-tooth comb to actually get them out. It is called elbow grease. It does not cost very much. As a mother, I know what that is like.

Over the course of the debates in the passage of this bill I have to say I have become more convinced how important this bill is. It is exactly where we should be as a nation, and I commend the fortitude shown throughout the process by the Minister for Social Development, the Hon Paula Bennett. I also take this opportunity to thank the officials for the hard work that they have done in assisting the committee and the members of the Social Services Committee for their hard work. We have all heard the statistics during the debates about the number of young people on benefits in this country, and about the number of young people who leave school who are not employed and are not in training of any kind whatsoever. We have also heard—and this is something all sides of this House agree on, I would think—that when people end up on the benefit at a young age, the likelihood of them staying on the benefit for longer than those who come on to the benefit later in life is high.

Is this the kind of future that we want for our young people in this country? I certainly do not, and I am sure that all in this House do not, either, and this bill provides a way out of the statistics for our young people. The wraparound service for at-risk youth who otherwise would end up going down the path of long-term dependency on social welfare is what I am passionate about, because to me welfare cannot become a way of life. It cannot go down through the generation of families, and it cannot be an acceptable way of life. It is purely a safety net for people who find themselves in difficult times, to assist them until they get back on their feet again. That was the intention of social welfare.

During the course of the debate it was a Green member—I think it was Jan Logie—who said that we needed to go down the path of a strength-based approach. I just wanted to comment that writing off young people as being unable to participate in the workforce cannot be the strength-based approach she is talking about, especially when members opposite talked about National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 being too high a mark for them to achieve—that these young people could not possibly meet that goal. I say there is nothing wrong with backing our youngsters to have a goal and to achieve it.

I want to see a welfare system that does more than just hand out money. I want to see a welfare system that encourages young people to aspire to be great and to do greater things—to be greater than what they are. I want to see a welfare system that utilises the expertise of youth support providers who actually know what they are doing in terms of young people, to wraparound the service and to tell young people that they can do better and that they are in fact capable. Our welfare system over many Governments over the past has failed our young people. This John Key - led Government is doing something about it.

Finally, many members opposite have spoken about the work-test obligations in the bill as though they are a punishment for women. I have to say that at times during the debate I was made to feel guilty that I am a working mum—a working solo mum of a 13-year-old child. Would it not be fantastic if everyone who had a child could stay at home? I certainly feel guilty when I am not at home due to work commitments and miss significant events in my son’s life, but it was a decision that I made to provide a better life for my son. It is time for all to realise that taxpayers should not be burdened for lifestyle choices, and I am in no way suggesting that people choose to be on benefits. Some do; most do not. But helping people on benefits get out of their situation and to be work-focused and work-ready is what we are doing with this bill, instead of simply giving them the money and leaving them to it.

This change is long overdue. I commend the Minister for guiding this bill through its passage through the House. It is a great bill, and I commend it to the House.

Talofa lava. Malo le soifua ma le lagi e mama, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Malo le soifua.

Fa‘afetai mo le avanoa. Thank you for the opportunity. Kia ora tātou katoa. I rise on behalf of the New Zealand First Party to provide a realistic viewpoint to this debate in the third reading of this so-called Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. I am somewhat stunned by the contributions from John Banks and the former speaker, and I suggest perhaps Melissa Lee needs to stick to motorway debates. That is where she can do better.

Let me be real here. There is no question surrounding the argument that New Zealand needs to address the key issue of welfare reform, or welfare dependency. However, the bill does not guarantee this. In fact, the only thing it can guarantee is that our children, our youth, are being used as guinea pigs in a reform system. This Government is also too keen to rush in a Trojan Horse, you might call it, which allows this Government to implement other legislation. Perhaps the next one would be a youth rate. The youth rate will be coming up next at $10.50 or even less.

There is nothing wrong with dreaming a fantastic dream, and those who dream do recognise the importance of dreams that bring about positive aspirations. We all agree on that. In my previous role as a facilitator for professional development, and, of course, with the Department of Corrections, I often talked to the participants about dreams and their relevance to life. I believe that this bill was meant to be the link between our youths’ dreams and achieving positive goals in life. After all, the future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams. However, as we all know, although we acknowledge those who dream of a better future, it is also fair to say that where there is a dream, there needs to be a vision—because the dreamer can dream the most fantastic dream, but only a visionary can make that dream come true. That is what New Zealand First believes in.

I do not know about the members on that side of the House, especially the only ACT MP, John Banks. From where I sit, this bill is much more suitably called the “Missing in Action Benefit Bill” or, let me say, the “Missing the Point Benefit Bill”.

💬 Mark Mitchell: That’s silly.

Of course, it is not silly. You should know that. People up in your electorate, Mr Mark Mitchell, are also in that area. A lot of them are actually in this category. The Government has failed to put in place a strategic plan on job creation for those who would be affected by the introduction of this bill. If I could ask this: are the Minister for Social Development and the National Government actually concerned about our youth, or are they happy to sit back and use the estimated $520 million funding not for our youth but to fund the information technology package to run the reforms? And that is not to mention the additional cost to keep it operating. If paper shuffling were a job, the Nats would be darn good at it. I ask how we can guarantee what this Government believes, and I emphasise the word “believes”, because it means we will rely on the right interpretation for youth.

Yes, job training programmes are essential. By the way, can the Government confirm whether it is receiving funding from the Australian Federal Government for this Government’s proposed training programmes, because the Australians are certainly going to be the beneficiary of this bill? Our tertiary students are actually already on a one-way ticket to Australia. Instead, this Minister is proposing to boost the growing exodus. The National Government is doing very well as an employment agency for Australia. We can all recall a former National Government Prime Minister who once said that New Zealanders who emigrate to Australia raise the IQ of both countries. It is sad that the Government is pushing this bill forward. It is a speedy implementation of legislation in order to avoid close scrutiny, and it deprives ordinary New Zealanders of a fair opportunity to have their say. The chairman of the Social Services Committee and the National members of the committee put forward an unrealistic time frame when calling for submissions.

Although reducing long-term welfare dependency is something that this Government needs to address, so must be the schemes to provide realistic solutions for jobs. I can tell everyone in this House and those who are listening to this debate right now what this bill is a solution to. It is merely a sugar-coating. That is what this is all about, and New Zealand First is concerned about a number of changes proposed in this bill. These include the use of the private sector to find jobs, information-sharing provisions within the bill, the wider welfare reform package, and, of course, the tax to the taxpayers. Why is that? There is no saving to the taxpayers. At the end of the day, when you look at this bill, there is absolutely no saving to the taxpayers. The most appropriate title for this bill, then, should be the “Political Cronyism Benefit Bill”.

Under this bill the cost to the taxpayers is not only not reduced but the paying out in administration of the benefit just shifts from Work and Income to the Inland Revenue Department. The bill does not give the opportunity to our youth to learn how to be independent, and that is the crux of this debate.

Then there is the second phase of this bill, which really gets me. The bottom line is whether this Government will provide jobs to widowers, to those on the DPB, and women living alone receiving the benefit. Some of those people did not have the choice of becoming solo parents. For some of them their partners died, for whatever reason, and so they were put in that position not because of their choice but because of the facts of life.

In respect of the provision relating to the use of the National Student Number, we support that totally. We understand the need for that to happen. We also agree with the Privacy Commissioner that the changes in this bill target a group for whom trust in authority may already be in short supply.

New Zealand First has some serious reservations about increases in the use of the private sector for finding jobs. The goal is to pay private companies or organisations for every person that comes off the welfare. The underlying principle is fine; we all agree with the underlying principle. The approach and the implementation of the bill are what we need the Minister and the Government to perhaps hear, in terms of what we are trying to say they need to fix. Women, for as long as we can remember, have always had an important role in our community. Having a child or becoming a housewife is not a matter of choice; it is actually a duty. It is a duty for some of our women. It is a duty that is willingly accepted by many, and is in some circumstances compulsory. Extending work availability expectations and pre-benefit activities to this category is simply government formed on an impetuous nature. By nature, the Government is again putting into action privately run bureaucracy firms. This should not be a shortcut to creating jobs. This is about getting people off the benefit and into jobs. My challenge to the Government is to put in place a strategic plan that will realistically and genuinely provide jobs for our community. Thank you. New Zealand First does not support this bill.

This is an important day for our country, and for our history. It is an especially important day, and a very positive one, for young people who are at risk of leaving school without qualifications, who are struggling to find work, who are unlikely to acquire a range of vital life skills without much more active intervention and support, and who are ultimately in clear danger of being welfare-dependent, possibly for a lifetime. That is the reality for far too many young New Zealanders under existing legislation and circumstances. That reality is a tragedy for them, it is a constant worry—or, at least, it certainly ought to be—for all who love and care for them, it is a huge cost to our economy, and it is a major blight on our society. I am proud to be part of a Government that is determined to tackle this issue at its core. This is one of the most important and compelling issues that made me want to commit myself to a political career. For me, therefore, this is a very significant day.

I am proud to have played a full part, as a member of the Social Services Committee, in developing and working on this bill, the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, to the point where its significant provisions are about to be passed into law. Contrary to the confused and dogma-ridden assertions of Opposition members, this bill is not punitive; it is liberating. This bill does not bash beneficiaries. It shows very clearly that we believe in them, and that we want the very best for them. It is not heartless and cynical; it is positive and aspirational. It is a measure that is desperately needed, and whose time has well and truly come. Our Government has demonstrated this conviction by investing $287.5 million over the next 4 years into practical support and a range of programmes that will assist New Zealanders out of welfare and into work.

Our opponents have claimed that they welcome that principle, but their speeches, their votes to date, and their intentions as to how they will vote this afternoon show that they clearly believe the opposite. Several Opposition members have worried that young parents covered by this bill will not have access to childcare. That is false, and a clear case of cynical scaremongering, as $80 million was allocated in this year’s Budget for extra early childhood education childcare places, and those who are the focus of this bill will enjoy a guaranteed childcare assistance payment. That is because we want the best not only for those young people but also for their children. For every one of those young people for whom the intergenerational cycle of welfare dependency can be broken, life will improve considerably. They will secure the brighter future that this National-led Government wants for every New Zealander.

Opposition members should support that goal, and endorse these measures to achieve it. But, instead, they have resorted to dogma and negativity, refusing to acknowledge the problems, and, instead, saying to those who are in this position: “We’re sorry, but for you, what you have now is as good as it gets.” Well, what have those defeatist merchants of doom told us? Mr Sio seems obsessed with the notion that beneficiaries will be forced into work, and then will not be able to live on their wages. Well, if they move into low-paid work, it is true that for a time life will be difficult, and that some tough choices will be needed.

But that is the reality for them right now, because their income is currently welfare-dependent. Their financial circumstances may not improve dramatically, but they should improve. They certainly will not decline. Over time, the future for them will be much brighter. Being back in work will be a benefit to them, and to those who are dependent upon them, especially in the longer term. Mr Sio also appears to believe that mothers of young children who enter paid work are guilty of neglect and bad parenting. Well, that notion is as ludicrous as it is offensive.

Members opposite also bleat repeatedly, as they have throughout this debate, that there are no jobs. Well, if that is true in some areas, then nothing will change. That is what the unemployment benefit is for. No one can be forced into a job that does not exist. But those who receive the unemployment benefit must be prepared to make the transition when work becomes available to them. In many cases, that claim simply is not true. In recent times we have seen that many who have been asked to reapply for the unemployment benefit have instead cancelled their benefit. More people than ever before are currently in work, and many of those who were asked to reapply actually did not do so, because they had already found work or, in some cases, they had gone overseas. Many vacancies are now advertised and, for reasons that escape many of my constituents, quite a number of them are never taken up. Nobody is appointed to them. Many employers, especially those providing seasonal work, cannot attract workers. Sometimes the issue is not the absence of a job but a reluctance to take it, and that, too, must change.

I salute the hard work of our Minister for Social Development, Paula Bennett, and thank her, on behalf of all New Zealanders who want to get ahead in life, for her courage and determination in facing up to this challenge and for steering this bill through to its expected enactment today. I acknowledge Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga and my colleagues on the Social Services Committee. We have worked hard on this bill. On this side of the House we care passionately about the issue and all who are trapped in welfare dependency. We want so much more for them, and this bill contains vital measures to help them to break the cycle and to fulfil their potential. I am proud to have played my part in progressing this bill. I am happy to be held accountable for it, and to be judged on its success. That is how confident I am that this bill will achieve its objectives.

I have always argued in favour of a welfare system for New Zealand that responds as generously and as compassionately as possible to the many thousands of people of all ages who need that support. Many of them have been dealt one cruel blow in life after another. Their stories are often distressing, and it is our collective obligation to assist them. How privileged we are to be able to do that. That is what Michael Joseph Savage and his colleagues had in mind back in 1935, and perhaps even Richard John Seddon and others before them. But welfare has got out of hand, and now penalises and traps many of those whom it ought to liberate.

This bill is an important step in refocusing the system and getting our beneficiaries back on track. That cannot happen soon enough. I encourage everyone in that position to embrace the opportunities that this bill presents to them, and I offer them the assurance that this Government believes in them and backs them to the hilt. Kia kaha.

I wish I could say it is a pleasure to take my last call on this bill, the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, but I do not think it is a pleasure. In fact, it is with some sadness that I get to speak on this particular bill in its third reading.

From the time that this bill has been in the House, we have looked for some kind of logic that it was trying to present that we could agree with and that we could relate to, and that could relate also to the reality of what we find out there. We searched, we examined, and we listened very carefully to the thinking of those who are experts, by anybody’s calculation, who presented to the Social Services Committee. They were people who have researched this field, who work in this field every day, and who came to the select committee with a lot of thinking and a lot of experience behind them, to tell us what they saw in this bill and what the gap was between what ought to happen and what was being provided in this bill. What we found was a big gap between all the factors that needed to be taken into account to make life better for our children, for our mums, and for our families, and what the provisions of this bill provide. For us, there was a real disconnect between what the Government has said it is trying to do, and what this bill will produce from our perspective.

Government members are convinced that these are the only provisions that will reduce welfare numbers, and this has been their driving goal throughout this—what will reduce welfare numbers. Those who submitted told us that they are wrong—that they are absolutely wrong. Yes, we did work hard at the Social Services Committee and I wish we had worked hard to understand what they were telling us as well. In fact, in my view, members of the select committee from the Government side have actually not argued their points with any rigour, particularly in the third reading debate where we went clause by clause. The rigour was not there.

💬 Tim Macindoe: We’re in the third reading debate.

It was left time and time again, Mr Macindoe—time and time again it was left to the Minister for Social Development to take call after call from the chair and simply explain the same logic, the same things that will happen. There will be wraparound services, this will be great, etc. That happened time and time again. Members obviously were not that convinced. They were very ready to clap when the Minister gave one of her 5 or 10-minute renditions from the chair during the Committee stage, but certainly they did not expand rigorously their arguments. They were not convincing.

But let us be clear. Labour believes, and this side of the House believes, passionately in investment—in actually investing in those who are likely to be caught and who are likely to find themselves on their own, caring for young children or adolescents for that matter. We agree that we ought to invest in that particular group. We would invest in helping young people prepare much better for their adult lives and their early adult lives. We would provide sole parents with real opportunities to prepare for work through programmes like the training incentive allowance, which the other side does not believe in. We know they work, because they worked for the Minister herself. She is our best case in point, if you like. But that is all gone, and what we now find—what the Government members put in place of that—is the rhetoric of investment. The rhetoric of investment is hollow, because it somehow takes a word that has positive connotations and imposes that on the logic of this bill, trying to make it good.

It is quite interesting: when Labour spends money on social services and on welfare, then it is welfare dependency; when the Government spends money, then it is investment. That is intellectually dishonest. It is quite amazing that Tim Macindoe gets up and talks about this side of the House being dogmatic, in terms of dogma. Well, that is exactly what that member is doing, and that is exactly what the Government is—absolutely dogmatic. And it is absolutely unfounded by research and by anything else. Dogma does not need that kind of logic. I thought this Government was going to use research that was evidence based and evidence led. Well, it is not.

We have said throughout this debate that the Government is focused only on getting people off welfare, and it seems that it is at any cost—and it is at any cost. The Government denies this, but this is its only motive. The Government tries to mask this in the language I have talked about—the language of investment, etc., and the language of wraparound services. Who argues against wraparound services? Of course we should have wraparound services; that should be there now. There is nothing radical about that. But the Government has not given us the logic of how that is going to be done. What it really has done is it has really been narrow in its analysis. For one member it was that these young women have made a lifestyle choice. For another it is about hope and ambition. For another it is just a new system. What is it? Why do the members opposite and the Government not get their way round? My friend and colleague Mr Macindoe tells me he came to the House just for this purpose. I want to ask Mr Macindoe why he bothered. If this was to be his finest hour, why did he bother? Because I do not think this is going to do that. Of course, for the Minister it is a bit like the cavalry. She said “Change is on its way.”—the cavalry is coming.

When we examine the arguments the members opposite have presented, we have exposed all of them. They say that work is the best way; therefore, we must have work testing. Well, of course work and creating work is the best response to welfare; we have heard enough about that. But this is not what they have been saying. There is no real plan to create that work, only a concession that if there is no work there, then this will not apply. Why bother? Why do we not focus on wraparound services? Why do we not focus on getting those who are on benefits in the best place possible to enter the workforce? This is what the previous programme did, which is what the Minister herself is the beneficiary of—and good on her. I have congratulated her in other speeches on taking the opportunities that were made available then and finding her way through. And why do we now pull the ladder for others? It seems as if this whole bill and this whole area of welfare reform is designed to pacify a group of their constituency who really believe that the problems of New Zealand can be traced to those who are on welfare, and if we did not have that, then everything else would be fine.

It is the same when we get to their arguments about parenting. This is an anti-parenting bill. A mother of a 1-year-old now has to be work tested, and if there is a 5-year-old as well, then that mother will not have the time that she needs to care for the child.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Rubbish!

It is in the bill, Amy Adams. That is in the bill. Read the bill, Minister, because that is in the bill. That is the argument. I wonder whether members opposite and members of the Cabinet really understand what this bill is about. They are saying that for a mother with a 14-year-old, under this Government, the 14-year-old is on their own—I say to that member. They are on their own because there will be no protection if their mother happens to be a welfare beneficiary. That is what this Government has produced, and yet we know from all the evidence that that young age and that older age are exactly when the caring abilities of the parents are needed for those children.

This side is passionate about this bill, because this Government is destroying family life. It pretends to be family orientated, but it is destroying family life. There is a bill next week that will do it as well. We will argue the same argument next week. That is what this Government is doing. Then it brings on people like John Banks, who tells us in his sycophantic way that this is the best thing since sliced bread. When did John Banks become relevant to this Parliament? All he has done is make inane calls on points of order about somebody using a particular word. There is just so much wrong about this bill. From the get-go to the closedown now, we have argued consistently that it is bad. We have also looked to see what could be salvaged, and there is not much. Thank you.

Can I just make it quite clear to the members on the other side that this party—and actually most New Zealanders—values working mothers. If you are working, it does not mean that you are letting your children down. We back them, and fundamentally that is what these members’ argument has been about—they are not prepared to back the people whom this party will.

Before I go on I just want to commend the Minister for Social Development on this bill, the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, for the hard work, the compassion, and the enthusiasm that she has shown with it. I also want to extend thanks to Mr Lotu-Iiga, the chairperson of the Social Services Committee, for his chairmanship, and also thank fellow members on the committee from across the political spectrum. I have enjoyed the experience of working on this bill. I think it is fair to say that we do not always agree on things—and that is healthy—but I think it is also fair to say that we all do very much care about this particular issue for New Zealanders.

💬 Su’a William Sio: You’re such a greaser, Mike.

Yes, I have often been called that.

The core focus of this bill is really around young people and the manner in which we can support them, because the reality for thousands of young people—young teenagers—who are currently in that pipeline is that they are staring down the barrel of a collision with an adult benefit, and, certainly, experience tells us that they will be there for a very, very long time.

Like all of us, these young people have dreams, hopes and aspirations, and often through no fault of their own they find themselves in very challenging situations where they will struggle to achieve those things. It does not mean they do not have those dreams. The challenge for the community—indeed, the challenge for us as legislators—is to actually find ways to address that issue. The burgeoning problem with welfare is something that has concerned not only New Zealanders but everyone in this House and this political spectrum for many years, as $22 million a day is not financially sustainable, but, more important, the human cost, the human collateral, is substantial.

At the core of this bill we are looking at three major planks. The first is a stronger work focus. The focus is about enabling these young people to find their way into work. We have heard much from the other side about the fact that there is no work, which I find amusing when the Opposition will rail against every single policy and every single bill that this Government has put forward to grow the economy. So if they were genuine about supporting work growth and job creation, then they might find themselves supporting what we are trying to do to grow this economy in very challenging times.

This bill also provides a mechanism to build capacity for work in these young people. It is a major cultural shift in the way that we have addressed welfare in the past. A very good example of that is the incentive payments that form part of this bill. Sanctions have long been a part of the Social Security Act, but incentives providing encouragement and promoting behaviour by way of financial incentives is something new and, I think, something we have not spent enough time focusing on.

Beyond that, the payment card and the assisted management of essential bills, I think, will provide a number of these young people with an opportunity to step back from the stress that their lives are under and focus on what we want them to do—to be able to get control in their lives again, to be able to develop the skill sets that will match them with employers, who I know want them. Certainly, in my electorate they are saying to me “We will employ these young people. We just want them to come here and show us they are prepared to work and prepared to learn.”

I believe that this suite of changes will make a huge difference in the lives of these very challenged young people who are at a very difficult stage in their life, notwithstanding their circumstances. The other important thing is the monitoring and guidance that the youth support providers will give these young people. I think this is very important. For many, it will fill a gap that is lacking in their own family.

Changes for teen parents are, again, another very, very important focus of this bill. The work focus must be there with them, the same as it is with other people on welfare, because they also will have dreams, wants, hopes, and aspirations. When the work is suitable, and when they reach an age where their youngest children are 5 or 14, or their second and subsequent child is 1, then we expect them to be available for work, and we will support them with childcare to ensure that. Being in work does not impede a mother’s relationship with her child; if anything, it will enhance it. It provides a platform for far greater choices for that mother, and a sense of pride and something in her day that she otherwise would not get while she is sitting at home waiting for crumbs from the State.

This bill is the first step in fundamentally changing a culture that, I believe, has been very disabling for people on welfare for some time. This is about enabling. This is about supporting. It is not about just giving them money and leaving it up to them. You can give a little dollar here, and an extra one here or there, but ultimately that has not worked and this bill is about doing what will work: providing management, incentives, and support, and preparing them for the world of opportunity and the world of work that actually they should be in, they should want to be in, and we certainly want them to be in.

This bill goes where the Opposition parties certainly would not, and certainly not over in the Greens, that is for sure. This bill is about investing in and backing young people, believing in them to have a dream and actually backing them to get on and achieve it, and ensuring that we have got the right balance between obligations and responsibilities. And we should not forget that—it is about achieving the right balance. What is the reward for the young people? The reward, in my view, is a little more than just being prepared to be, and actually being, in work. It is actually about having a purpose. I think it is about having opportunities. I think it is about having self-esteem and a sense of self-respect in oneself, and we all get that when we feel as if we have done something to contribute to the world each day.

This bill is the first step in the long overdue changes that New Zealanders want and need. The Opposition will oppose it, but we have come to expect that from them. Deep down I suspect that they quite agree with a number of these changes. It is just that this Government got on with doing what has needed to happen. We are walkers, not talkers. I want to commend the Minister once again for the work that she has done, and I wholeheartedly commend this bill to the House.

I understand that the next call is a split call.

I can assure the member opposite that, deep down, nowhere does Labour secretly agree with the measures in this bill, the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. I am happy to stand here and take my final call as part of a Labour team that has consistently opposed the reforms in this bill. Labour believes that we need a set of mechanisms that will address the barriers to getting people off welfare and into work. Those barriers are the availability of work. Another one of those barriers is the availability of childcare, and quality and affordable childcare. And the third barrier is the issue of skills and whether people on benefits have the requisite skills to get back into the paid workforce.

Let us first of all briefly look at the issue of the availability of work. Throughout the passage of this legislation, members opposite have tried to appease their own conscience by hailing to the maker of the welfare State, Mickey Savage, and somehow making themselves sleep at night by saying Michael Joseph Savage would approve. Well, what they are doing is a whole lot more Margaret Thatcher than Mickey Savage. That lady is not for turning when it comes to these welfare reforms. Michael Joseph Savage believed in a social security system where there were a set of rights and a set of obligations for those on welfare, but there were also rights and obligations on the State to create jobs for people—that an active State and an active Government did not leave its citizens to languish in the way this Government is prepared to do.

New Zealanders want to work. The household labour force survey tells us that. We saw that when Labour came into power in 1999 it faced an unemployment queue of 162,000. When Labour left office in 2008 there were 17,700 on the unemployment benefit. This had not been achieved by punitive measures; this had been achieved by economic development and the creation of jobs. We did not just muck around, playing around with cycleways; we actually created jobs.

But the issue that I really want to focus on today is the issue of young people and skills training. We are told that this legislation introduces all kinds of incentives to get young people back to work. There are all kinds of financial carrots and financial sticks, so there are punitive measures if they do not turn up for training. I want a National member to take a call and to tell me why they voted against my amendment to this bill, which actually offered an opportunity for real jobs matched with real skills training. Why is it that National would not match up the opportunity, the genuine and real opportunity we have to train our young people to be active in the rebuild of Christchurch? Why would they not explicitly put the opportunities that are going, that are languishing and are not being taken up, in terms of the $42 million that is being allocated for the rebuild of Christchurch in skills training? Why did they vote against this? It is because this legislation is nothing but a dog whistle to their constituency. They are more interested in punitive measures, rather than real opportunities for our young people—real opportunities matched with real jobs that will offer them a lifetime of employment. But, no, what we can talk about is “building capacity for work”, and other rhetoric like “work focus”, like the member we just heard from. How about just plain, old-fashioned apprenticeship skills training and then going into a job? This is not something that members opposite believe in. This is not something that members opposite are willing to vote for, and it is certainly not something that this legislation does anything to achieve.

This set of measures, this so-called welfare reform, does nothing to address the underlying causes of why people are on benefits. Members opposite cannot sleep at night by telling themselves, repeating over and over, that Michael Joseph Savage would approve. He would not. They have failed to address the core reason of welfare dependency in this country.

Tēnā koutou. The Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill is the unlovely love child of the Welfare Working Group and the National-ACT Government. It is a polite description to call it misguided. I would like to go back to Michael Joseph Savage and the 1964 original Social Security Act, which emerged from the realisation that some people at some time in their lives need State support. Statistics make it very clear that it is often for a matter of months rather than years, so I am not sure what this beat-up is all about.

It is clear that the original Act recognised terms that we might now find archaic, like “woman alone”, “disabled”, and “invalids benefit”. Some of those names are disempowering in contemporary terms, but what was behind them was the recognition that the State has a role in supporting people who are sick, who are caring for children, or who are caring for other people, and that that is actually a valid thing to do. In the case of a woman alone, it was a recognition, which is now denied by this bill, that, in fact, women who care for others end up on less income when they are older. A simple fact of pay inequity and the voluntary work they do often means they have less money. That benefit is gone. There is no guilt if you are a working parent, but, equally, there is no guilt if your work is at home. So let us forget about guilt and get real about what is going on for parents.

What was proposed in the original Act sounds like common sense, decency, and human dignity, and it is especially true in a recession, when our society has become one of the most unequal in the OECD. The Government says, and I have heard it a lot this afternoon, that it wants to help people on benefits—I think the word used was “liberation”, which was kind of ironic—by giving tax cuts to the top 10 percent and then sanctioning the poorest people. I find that term “liberation” rather fascinating. It is a little bit like the George Orwellian quote that the louder you make it, the bigger the lie. However, I would like to go back to the work of my own colleagues, who have done a great job on this bill.

I would like to go back to the work of Holly Walker and her Supplementary Order Paper on the need for a child impact assessment. What Holly was talking about was the need to recognise that this entire bill impacts on children, and that if a thorough assessment had been done on that impact, it would be a very different bill. It would be a very different bill if it was a child-centred bill, and if it was going to recognise that existing poverty should never be exacerbated for our children. The Government’s decision to veto our amendment to give Work and Income the discretion not to apply a sanction if it was detrimental to child well-being is effectively an admission of how harmful this bill will be to children. It is shocking that the Government is already banking on the savings of hundreds of millions of dollars by imposing sanctions, and it shows you what the attitude of Work and Income staff will be when deciding whether to sanction or not. The Government has already banked the kids’ lunch money.

It is also really, really disappointing to see that the Government would not support Jan Logie’s amendment. A drop in the bucket of $5 million to $15 million would have made a huge difference. The mother’s education, as we know from the evidence, is the best predictor of the child’s outcome. So if you want children to thrive, you support their mothers to get an education. You also make sure children have access to their parents, rather than making sure their parents are out being work tested or walking the streets looking for jobs. They need their parents to be around. Here is the opportunity for the Government to talk about an investment approach. However, it has failed.

During every recession there is a tiresome and damaging beat-up, and it is always beneficiaries. No one pretends that living on a benefit is easy, even in the good times. The Green Party believes in job creation and educational opportunity, not work testing for non-jobs and cuts to what is currently a pittance. What saddens me about this bill is that children, women, disabled people, and others who are under attack and can be sanctioned cannot actually fight back. They cannot get up and say: “We are decent people who would love the dignity of work when it’s workable, not the stigma and sanction that the powerful will now take their opportunity to impose upon us.”

The bill is unworkable in parts of the country. Work and Income already knows that it is unworkable, so, really, the whole thing is what I would call a giant non-step in the wrong direction. It is a fiasco. Thank you.

I am proud to take the final call on the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. There has been a lot of talk about evidence. It is not hard to realise that you do not need a lot of evidence to know that the longer people are on a benefit, the more harmful it is not only for them but also for their family, their community, and the country as a whole. There is enough evidence that says that if you go on younger, you stay on longer.

The key aspect of this bill is the word “focus”. There has been a lot of talk about where the jobs are. This bill is not about jobs, because that would be about numbers and outputs. This bill is about outcomes. Yes, the numbers are important, because they indicate change, but the most important thing this bill is focused on is improving outcomes. This is the difference, because it changes the words and reframes them in a way that gives it a sense of vision. Previously, in the welfare system everything was worded with the word “benefit”. What this bill is doing is changing that and using words such as “future focus”, “youth support”, and “work focus”. What that tells us, and tells people who enter into support that is absolutely needed at a time of need, is that while they are there there is an opportunity for reprieve, but that at the same time they should not lose sight of the hope they have to achieve their dreams and their vision—hence the reason for the term “Future Focus”. That is the difference we are making.

We have been accused of many things. In fact, people have used the words “benefit bashing”. I think the only people who have been bashed around are the members on either side of the House. Also, there has been a little bit of drama. I think there have been drama classes in some of the caucuses across the way. We have heard words such as “genocide”. We have heard words such as “putting the boot into beneficiaries”, and that could not be further from the truth. We have had accusations and finger-pointing at the Minister for Social Development herself and even at other members who have been here. It was highly offensive when Mr Prasad assumed that young mothers and mothers would not have the sense of wanting to be a working mother—to have their children and work at the same time. It was offensive to members on this side of the House, and I imagine it was offensive to many, many women in our communities.

This bill is the first stage in welfare reform. I just want to tell the other members that there is much more to come. So the Ginsu knives are coming. The Opposition will have you believe that people will be forced into work. This is not true. The expectation is that people will be available to work. Let me just say that word again—available. You see, it is a future focus. It is about being available for work. There will be no sanction, and that is fair and reasonable. The bulk of people affected by this bill are young people, and the focus is on training and education. This is a stepping stone. I will repeat it again so that the Opposition members understand: this bill is a stepping stone. Why? Because evidence shows that when you go on a benefit younger, you stay on it for longer. The providers that will be there to provide support are called—and here is another key word—navigators. They are not enforcers of the law or of a system; they are navigators to help our young people find the opportunities that are there.

This is an active system, not an inactive system. Here is the interesting thing, because a previous speaker, Ms Woods, asked “Where are the jobs?”. Let me just tell you this. If that was right, if there were a plethora of jobs available under the current system, which were there under the Labour Government, there were no obligations. People did not have to look for a job, and 79 percent of those on a benefit prior to Future Focus being implemented had no obligations to seek work. This is an active system. This system provides greater flexibility. It introduces greater flexibility into the hours of work for part-time work and full-time work. Tests for beneficiaries are subject to work-test obligations. This is not a mean-spirited bill. All it does is extend the opportunities that are there.

This bill also authorises information sharing. It authorises information to be shared between the Minister of Education and the Minister for Social Development in order to allow the provision of services to young people, between the provider and the organisations. Why are we focusing on young people? Again, because we know that when you enter into the system younger, you stay in it for longer.

This bill is also about educational benchmarks. What concerned us was that on the other side of the House there was the dumbing down of expectations. It was said that NCEA level 2 was a bridge too far. [Interruption] It was a bridge too far. We are not about that. We are about setting educational benchmarks, because you see, Ms Woods, Mr Prasad, surely you would know that you would not set those expectations for your children. What right do you have to set expectations lower than those you would have for your own children? Under this bill, this Government sets out the same expectations that we have for our children. It increases work expectations. Again, prior to the National Government’s Future Focus changes, 79 percent of beneficiaries had no work-test obligations. This figure is now 64 percent, and with the implementation of this bill we believe it will decrease to 60 percent.

My final words are these. Many members over there have asked us how we will sleep, and I end with this: all of us who come into this House and have the opportunity to make a change, do so with a conscience. We have to, because one day we will all be held accountable for that which we have supported. I support this bill; we support this bill. It is a bill that gives a sense of vision. It creates a sense of focus. It creates flexibility. It sets a benchmark of expectation that we all have for all our children. This is a bill of opportunity, and we will see the results and the outcomes that will truly make a difference to the young people of our country. Thank you.