Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill

It is my pleasure to speak to Part 2 of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, although I think perhaps a lengthier debate on Part 1 might have been in order. But given there are some subsequent amendments within Part 2, I am sure that we can cross-reference some of the implications of Part 2 against Part 1. But before we do, I am frustrated by the misinformation that continues to be pursued by Government members, not least by the Minister for Social Development herself, who has continually tried to portray the Labour Party as being against people accessing a benefit. Never a more ridiculous statement have I heard.

As I have said before, Labour was the architect of our Social Security Act in New Zealand. We will defend to the death people’s right of access to social security, but what we have been frustrated by is this Minister’s continual attempt to portray her welfare reforms as successful based on one criterion. What is that criterion? A decrease in the number of people accessing benefits. All we have done on this side of the Chamber is simply point out the fact that that is not, in fact, true. If you use the Ministry of Social Development’s statistical assessment—which is released annually and uses June data, and goes right back to the 1940s—you will find that, based on that annualised data, we have seen some of the highest numbers under this Minister. They are higher than we have ever seen before, based on that ministry statistical assessment, which is based on annualised figures from June.

So what Melissa Lee said before about us having high numbers of sickness beneficiaries under Labour—actually, it is not true, when you look at the record of this Minister. So yes, we will point that out, because on that Minister’s criterion she has failed. But on the criteria of morality, on the criterion of a dignified system, and on the criterion of doing right by job seekers who are actively seeking employment, this bill also fails. This bill fails on those sets of criteria that we set ourselves, as members of the Labour Party. On those counts this bill fails, and I think it is only fair that we continue to raise those issues in this Committee.

I want to refer to clause 65 in Part 2 of this bill, which has not been touched on. It amends section 60GAE, which refers to beneficiaries having an additional dependent child whilst on the benefit. The Minister raised last week that this is the very reason for the existence of these changes in these welfare reforms. The Minister’s belief that there are too many people having babies on the domestic purposes benefit is her sole driving force in presenting this bill to Parliament.

First point: if you go back to the 1940s and, in fact, if you look at welfare numbers for the last 10 years, DPB figures have tended to sit around the same figure. We have not seen this dramatic jump or ebbing away; they have tended to sit at the same number for some time. Neither Labour nor National have made dramatic shifts in those figures. For the Minister to now claim that, actually, what she is doing is backing New Zealanders and believing in beneficiaries, and then at the same time say that all that sole parents are is people who go out and breed so that they can get money—which is what this clause says; that is what this clause says—and try to pretend that it is about something else, I find it completely disingenuous.

Secondly, show me the family who aspires for nothing more for their child than a life on welfare. Show me that family. Show me that mother, because again that is what this clause is implying. It implies that that is the only aspiration that a family or a mother has for their child, and that is absolutely wrong.

Thirdly, show me the woman who has a baby on her own and who is the only one responsible for bringing that child into this world. I might have missed the memo, but at no point have I heard the Minister or anyone on that side of the Chamber talk about the responsibility of dads in this equation, yet every time we are in here discussing sole parents, we are talking about mums in the most derogatory of terms. Was there a memo on immaculate conception, because if there was, I missed it. It is time that we got real, and section 60GAE is an absolute denial of reality.

It takes more than the denying of access to a benefit to fix what can sometimes be generations of families living at the bottom of the heap, and if this Minister thinks that she can fix that issue by simply denying a parent and, therefore, a child access to social security, then that is the most naive of suggestions. On this side of the Chamber we will not deny that there are families who have been at the bottom of the heap for generations and that the issues they face are complex. But to simply say that cutting off their benefit is the answer is not only naive but it is just going to cause us other issues in other areas of our social security system or with our social services.

I have seen those issues. I will take any one of those members out on to the streets with me with Lifewise or the Auckland City Mission, and we can see what happens at the end point of some of these policies. Evidence tells us that the only way to deal with some of those harder end cases—the minority—is with intensive case management. Show me how you do that when a Work and Income case manager sometimes has on their books more than 300 clients. This bill does not address that. This bill is not realistic in addressing some of these genuine issues, where they exist. Instead, it is making political rhetoric and playing political games with some of these individuals’ lives. Let us get real.

I also want to speak to the amendments that have been made around medical assessments. When you come to Part 1A of schedule 2, which I believe is part of this debate, it talks about appeals to the medical board. Many of those appeals will be based on the medical assessment process. I would love to tell the Committee what that entails, but we simply do not know. It is one of the most important parts of this bill and we are completely in the dark as to how it will work.

In fact, as CCS Disability Action said—and I think it said it really well, so I want to share its submission—“We support their use of appropriate tests designed to find out what assistance and supports the person needs to obtain employment. However, we have grave concerns about United Kingdom style assessments, especially when these are carried out by contracted providers. Despite the rhetoric about focusing on people’s abilities, these tests have proven to be medical model based checklists, often administrated by people with little real knowledge of disability.” Why is CCS Disability Action worried about a UK model? Because, in 2012, the Minister herself said that that was what she was looking to replicate.

We sought clarity at the Social Services Committee from officials about what was going to be included in these assessments. We got back a short note that basically said that the bill contains provisions to enable assessments but that it does not include how assessments will operate in practice. We asked about the tender process. They said that no decisions had been made on which external contractors would be used for these assessments, or whether there would be one contractor or multiple contractors. We simply do not know.

Labour has tabled an amendment that says that we should not be passing any policy or regulation-based changes on medical assessments until they come back before this House and are debated, and that is only fair. Any Government that denies our ability to do that is a Government that has something to hide. I suspect, I am afraid, based on the approach of Dr David Bratt, who is the chief medical adviser, that we have every right to be worried. I saw recently a presentation by Dr Bratt regarding people who are undertaking assessments for sickness and invalids disability. It is called Ready, Steady, Crook: Are we killing our patients with kindness?. He openly—openly—spreads the notion that access to social security is bad for people’s health.

Actually, do you know what is bad for people’s health? An undignified system that does not focus on people’s strengths and abilities to get back into work, a system that does not focus on their wellness, and a system that, instead, allows them to squander in poverty without the means necessary to even ensure that they are again one day employable. That is what is dangerous to people accessing our system, and this bill does nothing to address that.

Part 2 of this bill contains in it provisions that, as I have said, seem to take on this notion that we need to be cruel to be kind. Well, we trialled that. It was in 1991, and Ruth Richardson cut benefits by 25 percent. Did we see a decrease in access? Well, what we saw was an increase in harm. We went from 30 percent of kids living in poverty being in the homes of those on benefits to today, when that rate is more like 70 percent. Mr Speaker, this bill will do much more harm than it will do good.

Could I just remind members—speaking to the previous speaker—that when we are in Committee the presiding officer is the Chairman, not the Speaker.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: I’m sorry.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is fine. I would not pull you up on that matter.

Part 2 of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill is all about consequential amendments to deal with the main harm, I guess, which has just been voted on in the Chamber this afternoon. I want to talk about those consequential amendments, because they are based on the very basic but false premise that people who are on benefits today are there because they do not want to work and they are people who do not want the best for their children. All of these amendments are based on that very false premise.

We know that it is a false premise—well, actually, on this side of the Chamber we know that it is a false premise—because when Labour was in Government we had very low unemployment in this country. In fact, we had the lowest unemployment in the OECD for many of those quarters, and, when we were not the country with the lowest unemployment in the OECD countries, we were the country with the second-lowest unemployment in the OECD. So what Labour has proven is that if given the chance, if given a vibrant economy where there are jobs to be applied for, then of course people will apply for those jobs, and of course people will ensure that they have the skills to go and make sure that they are at the front of the queue for those jobs.

What this Government has delivered those people is actually no hope—not a brighter future, like it promised, but no hope, because they are standing in those job queues now. I should say “those jobless queues”, because there is a small number of jobs and hundreds of people lining up for them. That is the brighter future that the Government has delivered.

But, with these consequential amendments, one amendment that appears to me to be so vitally missing is the one that would make some sense if the Government really was using this legislation to improve participation in early childhood education. I do believe there is evidence that shows us that, in the right circumstances for children who are aged 3 and 4 years old, getting quality early childhood education for around about 20 hours a week does make a good and positive difference to their life outcomes, and it makes a particularly good impact for children from low-income households. So that is perfect for many of these families whom we are addressing.

But those families do not withhold their children from that quality early childhood education experience because they do not want the best for their children. There is a range of reasons why sometimes their children do not make it into that situation. Here is just one, which was in the newspaper a couple of weeks ago. Actually, the very good 20 hours’ free early education policy, which Labour brought in, was designed in fact exactly to improve access for these very families—but not in a punitive way; in an encouraging, supportive, and “let’s take the barriers away” kind of way. What is happening these days with the 20 hours’ free early childhood education policy is that a lot of the providers—in fact, this newspaper found that 45 percent of those early childhood education providers—are saying to parents: “Well, you can have the 20 hours only if you enrol your child for another 10 hours, at a much higher fee”—at a much higher fee.

So I want to see the consequential amendment in this legislation that stops that practice from actually happening. While that practice continues to happen, what we are going to see is benefits being halved as a punishment for beneficiaries who do not have their children in early childhood education, while they are being told by the early childhood education providers that they are going to have to pay a lot of money to even enrol their child. These are the very practical issues that this Government is turning a blind eye to. When the Minister of Education was asked about that situation, she said: “Ah, nothing to do with me—nothing to do with me. They’re going to shop around.” So here is the Government, with this legislation, forcing beneficiaries to put their children into early childhood education, and punishing them if they cannot do that, but then its own Minister is saying “Shop around.” That is her answer to those beneficiary families: “Shop around, and see if you can get the worst quality.”

I am pleased to take a call on Part 2 of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. I repeat that all of the consequential changes that are being made under Part 2 are because of what has been approved under Part 1, so there is a link between what Part 2 is doing and our discussion about the provisions of Part 1. I want to talk in particular about clauses 64 and 65. That is what I will be referring to.

It is interesting that one of the things that happens in this bill—and it is something we have not talked about a lot in the debate on Part 1—is that sole parents will no longer qualify for the sole parent benefit when their youngest child turns 14. So for the first time we now have this new rule that when children are aged 14, their parents are no longer really that responsible for bringing them up. Something is being said here about bringing up teenagers. You could have a 16, a 15, and a 14-year-old, and the moment the youngest one turns 14 you are unable to qualify for the sole parent benefit. What is that saying about how we bring up our children? And why is it that this Minister for Social Development and this Government place so little emphasis on the care of 14-year-olds?

That redefinition of the sole parent benefit actually has this impact. I believe that, quite often, for many, many parents, that is a much more demanding time, particularly when you have more than one teenager. It is a time when young people are testing all the boundaries, and it is a time when parents—in this case a sole parent—would want to be home, but now they have to be available for work. They can no longer access this particular benefit. That is a change that has been made and there has not been a lot of debate about it, but it is one that concerns me because it leads me to ask the question of what the consequential changes that are being made under Part 2 say about the optimum environment or the best environment for bringing up children.

It is very hard to find anything in this entire bill, including the consequential changes under Part 2, that is about creating a better environment in which parents or a sole parent can bring up a child. I wonder whether this Government has any focus on that. That is a worry, because we do know the set of conditions under which children do much better. It has to do with what happens in the home. It has to do with what happens in the community, in the provisions of social policy, and the way in which society sees parents bringing up children. But this Government, for this group of parents who are bringing up their children, has now put so many obstacles in their way that I wonder what it says about the optimum environment for bringing up children.

I rather suspect that the Minister has tried to muzzle some of her own speakers. It is a surprise that a couple of them did sneak in a call, but when they did speak to the consequential changes that are being made in Part 2 because of the decisions in Part 1, they did, indeed, expose the Government’s own thinking. I wondered what Sam Lotu-Iiga was saying when he said that the purpose of this bill is really to reduce the cost of benefits. I think the chairman of the Social Services Committee is actually honest about that, because that is the underlying belief. It is not about creating a better environment for our children, and it is not about parents in difficult circumstances—vulnerable parents—bringing up their children; it is about saving money. That is all that that member is talking about.

Every time Melissa Lee speaks on bills like this, she does make a fool of herself, because here she was saying—

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

—again, again, I know—that she did it and therefore it is OK for every sole parent to use childcare and to do what this bill is saying, because she was able to do it. What Melissa Lee does not tell us is that she was middle class, she had the financial resources, she was a businesswoman, and she had a mum living at home, as well. There were a whole bunch of other circumstances. What Melissa Lee is saying is that it was good for her and therefore it is good for the sole parents who themselves are vulnerable.

I think there is a good reason why the Minister has muzzled her side from talking about this. The consequential changes themselves in Part 2 of this particular bill really carry on the negative impact. Thank you.

I am very pleased to take a short call on the second part of the bill, the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. There have been a lot of politicised comments coming across the Chamber today. We have seen that over the years, I think, with law and order bills as well. The reality is that what we are dealing with here is New Zealanders who are not in work and finding better ways to support them to be in it. At its very heart, that has been the core focus in this bill. One of the key ways that this transition will occur is through the seven benefit categories becoming three, and simplification of and clarifying the important messages that really underpin what this bill seeks to achieve.

There have been some comments around the numbers. We hear various numbers being batted around and defended and challenged and so forth, but the reality is that between 2000 and 2008—if we really want to dig into those numbers—there was a 51.6 percent increase in those on the sickness benefit, a 47.2 percent increase in those on the invalids benefit, and an 8.5 percent increase in those on a domestic purposes benefit. As a police officer working in Whangarei and Kaitāia and essentially throughout Northland, I saw throughout the course of that time an immense change in the welfare system, in the approach to welfare, and in the belief in what welfare was about. Those figures absolutely spell that out—crystal clear, in my view.

This bill is really challenging, I guess, one end of the spectrum that I do not think too many members in this House are keen to discuss. That is the end of the spectrum where there are vulnerable children being abused and being beaten, and where there are young people who are hardly adequate, in my view, to be making decisions about being a parent when they are children themselves—

💬 Sue Moroney: It’s all coming out now.

—who actually through intergenerational welfare—and we will hear opposition from the other side of the Chamber on this, but the reality is that there is a group of people whom this House is not willing to challenge and not willing to acknowledge exists, and this is where the vast majority of vulnerable children are and where the carnage that we see out there is happening. We are trying to address that. This side of the House is trying to address it in many ways, but the reality is that there is an end of the spectrum where, unfortunately, mothers are trapped in welfare and they are making poor decisions.

The Children’s Commissioner absolutely alluded to this point in his submission. The Children’s Commissioner made it very clear, and I will quote him from his submission to the Social Services Committee. He said that work is the best route out of poverty. There is no one in this House who can deny that fact. [Interruption] We will hear objection from the other side of the Chamber, as we always do, from parties that will sit there and rail against every effort that this Government is making to introduce growth into the economy through legislation and through giving the business community the tools that they need. They can stand on that moral high ground they seem to have occupied and quote ad infinitum that there are no jobs, but they cannot come into this Chamber and not support bills that are about job creation.

The Children’s Commissioner went on to point out also that social obligations are a normal part of society—social obligations are a normal part of society—in a family, in a business, and in a church. Social obligations are a normal part of what we have as a society. The Children’s Commissioner absolutely backs that up. He also went on to say—and this is the important thing to note—that he believes that the area of greatest harm where vulnerable children are most affected is in the area of the people who will require the most amount of sanctions in this bill. This is about challenging that particular group to ensure that they have the support they need, and to ensure that the safety and vulnerability of those children are actually being addressed.

The Children’s Commissioner says that work is the way out of poverty. It is not a punitive thing—it is not a punitive thing. Social obligations are a normal part of society, and the most vulnerable children are at this end of the spectrum. We must address them, and this bill does that.

I am pleased to take a call in the Committee stage of this bill, the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. The last member who spoke, Mike Sabin, really exposed himself and what this Government is about when he talked about this Government looking to give the business community the tools it needs. That is what this bill is about. It has nothing to do with looking after the destitute and the poor and those whose life chances have evaporated or have been taken from them. This has nothing to do with those who are the victims of the vicissitudes of a difficult labour market and a difficult economy. This is about punishing people.

It is all very well to say that work is the best route out of poverty. You will find no disagreement with that on this side of the Chamber, I say to Mr Sabin, and to any other member of the Government. We agree with that. So the question that then remains is what you are doing about the work side of that component. What are you doing about the work side of that equation? Nothing is being done, because job numbers are going down. Another 140 jobs have gone out of the Department of Conservation today, 1,500 jobs went out of Telecom last week—I am beginning to sound like an auctioneer now. How many more hundreds and thousands of jobs are going to go before this Government takes the job creation part of the equation seriously? It has got nothing to say and even less to do about that.

So the only recourse now is to beat up on the most vulnerable and the poorest of our people: those who look to the State for help at a time of need, those for whom life has not delivered very good chances, and those who may have done well once but whose life’s fortunes have taken a turn for the worse. They quite rightly look to the State for support and assistance during that difficult time.

Yes, Mr Sabin, we understand social obligation. Yes, Ms Bennett, we know about reciprocal obligations—everybody does. But sometimes people have a difficult time in their lives. Sometimes people lose the job that they have been committed to and have worked in for 5 years, for 10 years, or for 25 years. They do not exercise a choice over that—it happens to them. When they go through that difficult experience, because they have paid their taxes, they have raised their children, and they have done the best they can, they are entitled to look to the State for that bridging assistance, for that bridging support. They are not to be punished for it. They are not to have labels bandied about.

What of the woman who loses her husband or her spouse or her partner to a health and safety accident at work, to a road traffic accident, or to a disease or some other misfortune? She is no longer to be regarded as a widow for the purposes of our social security system. She now has a work-tested benefit. What dignity does she have left under this Government with that system? None at all.

This is heartless legislation. It is nasty, pettifogging, mean-spirited legislation from a nasty, pettifogging, mean-spirited Government. No one will come out of this with any dignity. It is about changing labels, and it is about putting the emphasis on punishing people rather than on addressing the real problems that we have, which are a sluggish, slowing economy and a so-called recovery—a so far so-called jobless recovery—where people are still struggling to get work. Over 1,000 people are lining up for 50 jobs in Hamilton. There have been a number of occasions now when we have had 10 or 20 or 30 people per person lining up for a vacancy. That is the state we are in, and it is not a good state.

Those people who do not get work at the end of their long time in the queue, who get through the interview but are still turned down, and who are probably turned down dozens of times every couple of weeks are to be recast now as victims of a social security system, rather than those who have looked to it for support. They are to be relabelled and renamed. The sense of failure they will have, which is no fault of theirs, will be compounded and emphasised. That is how heartless this legislation is. So we reject this.

There is no need for this sort of legislation. We do not need to rename the widows in this country, who face stress enough and pressure enough. We do not need to re-victimise those who are already victims of circumstance and misfortune. So the transitional provisions of this legislation provide nothing. They provide no hope and even less benefit to those people who look to our social security system for a lot more. They deserve better.

The previous contribution to this debate—not the previous speaker, Andrew Little, who just sat down; that was a very good contribution indeed from Andrew Little—from Mike Sabin on the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill needs, I think, some revisiting. He talked about this side of the House not supporting bills that apparently his Government has brought into this Chamber that create jobs. Well, Mr Sabin, I cannot think of one bill that this Government has brought into this House in the time of a recession that has created any jobs. It does need to be put on the record that the National Government actually thinks that a bill that is attacking workers’ rights and attacking beneficiaries creates jobs. It is simply a nonsense, but it is not the only nonsense that Mike Sabin spoke about—well, actually, this was not a nonsense. Something that he said that I agreed with was that one of the best ways out of poverty is work—paid employment, I am guessing he meant, because, of course, all people work; some of us get paid and some of us do not.

But here is the difference: Labour actually delivered that vision to this country—actually delivered increased employment opportunities when in Government. Labour did not just bang on about how useless New Zealanders are, put people down, and take these sorts of punitive measures. Labour actually provided the stimulation in the economy, because it is a stimulated economy that creates work, and it is work that creates jobs. That is the scenario, Mr Sabin, not pieces of legislation like this bill, which puts punitive measures on, and actually threatens to cut the income going into, low-income families. That is not the way for the brighter future. That is not the path to an improved economy, and it simply will not do what he said. It will not provide the work that helps those families out of poverty. In fact, it might do quite the opposite.

Such is the impact of bad pieces of legislation like this that I just want to tell the Committee about a meeting that I went to in Hamilton just prior to the last election. It was a meeting of women on the domestic purposes benefit. They invited candidates for the election to come and meet them face to face, hear their actual stories, and put a face on people whom that side of the Chamber likes to bash continually: beneficiaries.

💬 David Bennett: Oh, rubbish.

I think David Bennett was there. I know for certain—

💬 David Bennett: Yes, I was, and they lapped it up.

He says he was and he says that they lapped it up. I am about to tell you what he meant by that comment. Tim Macindoe was also there. I know that at the end of that discussion, they said to these women: “Thank you for telling us your stories. Thank you for telling us your stories. We really appreciate much better the circumstances that you’re in.” Did they once come clean and tell those women that this is what they intended to do to beneficiaries, that these are the punitive measures that they were going to land on DPB recipients? No, they did not. They knew that coming back into Government, this is exactly the nonsense that would be visited on those women, but they did not dare tell them.

The other sad part about that meeting was that when one of the women spoke said to us, she said: “I’m not like those other DPB recipients. My husband left me with young children. This is the struggle of my life.” I went up to her afterwards and I said: “Actually, you’re just like those other DPB recipients. Please do not fall into the trap of listening to what the National Party says, because it would have us believe that every single one of those DPB recipients is a 16-year-old who deliberately goes out to make her life miserable by getting pregnant at the age of 16.” And this woman, who was a recipient of the DPB herself, had actually thought that that is what every other DPB recipient was like. She thought she was unusual. My message to her was that she was being a great mother and a wonderful role model to her children in difficult circumstances. She was like all of those other recipients.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for letting me speak to Part 2 of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. This is the kind of bill that you bring into Parliament when you have got the worst economic record in 50 years—when you have got the worst economic record in 50 years. This is the kind of bill that you bring in if you are trying to lay the blame somewhere else. Instead of dealing with the highest unemployment rate since Bill English was last the finance Minister, dealing with the 50,000 Kiwis who have gone to Australia since this National Party has come to Government, or dealing with the 50,000 more people who have become unemployed since this National Government has come into power, this is the kind of bill you bring in to try to blame somebody else.

Mike Sabin, the last Government speaker on this bill, talked about this side of the Chamber not supporting any pieces of legislation that have come in to enthuse job creation—

💬 Andrew Little: It would be nice to see some.

—since this Government has come into power. Well, exactly. As Mr Andrew Little said, it would be nice to see something—it would be nice to see something. It is very rare to see a piece of legislation come into this House from that Government that increases job creation. Evidence of that is that the unemployment rate since this party has come into Government has stayed high. It has not gone down in a huge way. The Government said it would create a brighter future for Kiwis, but unemployment has stayed high under this John Key - led Government. The only jobs that have been created around this bill are the jobs of people who perhaps were in charge of the focus groups that made sure that this piece of legislation came to this House.

Another thing that Mr Sabin said was that this is a bill that helps create the business conditions to help create jobs. A question that I would like to ask maybe the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Immigration, is where in the vast volume of this bill it says that it helps create the business conditions to help create jobs, because I do not see anywhere in this bill that says it helps create jobs. I know that it cracks down on a lot of Kiwis who would prefer to be working, who are slugging their guts out at the moment to try to get work but who are being supported by social security. It says a lot about smacking them down. But it does not say anywhere in here anything to support Mr Sabin’s assertion that this bill helps create the business conditions to create jobs in New Zealand. It is a serious question, which I would like to put to the Minister in the chair. Can he point to the relevant parts of this legislation, especially in Part 2, as we are debating that, where it does create some jobs? Because I do not see that anywhere in this bill.

My colleague Dr Rajen Prasad spoke about creating an environment where we can create jobs. We will not disagree with the other side of the Chamber. We want to create an environment where jobs are created, but this bill in no way goes anywhere near that. I want to talk again about the fact that the bill is completely lacking any job creation initiatives. It does not talk about creating any jobs.

Another—and, I think, miserly and ugly—part of this bill is that it is going to crack down or place sanctions on beneficiaries if they do not put their children into early childhood education. We on this side of the Chamber want as many kids who are under the age of 5 in early childhood education as possible—absolutely no debate about that. We want 100 percent qualified teachers; they have a different opinion over on that side of the Chamber. But on this side of the Chamber we want to see as many children in early childhood education as possible. That will free up those parents to be able to go and find some work, but this Government has not created the amount of places subsequently needed in early childhood education for us to be able to do that. So in that respect the sanctions in Part 2 that are carried out against those parents who cannot find a place for their children in early childhood education really expose the smoke and mirrors of this bill.

Also around job creation, I want to speak in a Wellington context, because in the last household labour force survey unemployment in Wellington went up by 1 percent. When this Government is talking about this bill as another piece of legislation it is putting through to stimulate job creation, well, in a Wellington context, and the electorate that I represent, the electorate of Mana, that just is not happening. It just is not happening, so anything that this Government tries to tell you about the legislation that is brought through this House in terms of creating jobs is not being felt in the communities here in Wellington, because the unemployment rate has gone back up.

I think it was Grant Robertson who showed the front page of the Nelson Mail today, where 300 people, I believe it was, in Nelson went for just one job. Mr Sabin said this debate has been political. Well, it will get political because this Government has done diddly-squat to create any jobs in this country. Nick Smith should be ashamed of the front page of the Nelson Mail today. What has he done, as Mr Sabin says, to create the business conditions to create jobs, when 300 people can line up for one job in Nelson? We have heard of other examples where we have got 20 or 30 people lining up for one job. So although this Government says that the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill is creating the business conditions to create jobs in New Zealand, the bill is not worth the paper that it is printed on. This Government has not delivered on any of those promises that it made at the last election and the previous election. It has not delivered on any of those promises that it gave in the last election and in 2008.

So this Government brings in this piece of legislation, trying to say that it is creating jobs for Kiwis, but it is not. What it is doing is smacking down Kiwis on benefits who are looking for jobs and who have not been given the environment, as Dr Prasad has said, so that they can be in work. I do concur with what Mr Sabin said. If the Children’s Commissioner said the best thing that we can do for these people is find them a job, yes, that is exactly what we should do for them, but this Government has not delivered on that at all.

When you look at the track record from this Government back to, I think, the last time Bill English was Minister of Finance, in 1999, you see that the party on that side of the Chamber has a track record of high unemployment. It talks the talk on creating jobs, but for this Government and for the previous National Government, in which Bill English was the finance Minister, it has not walked the walk, at all. On this side of the Chamber, when we talk about the opportunities available for people on benefits under Part 2, this party has walked the walk. As Sue Moroney said before, the last Labour Government had the lowest level of unemployment in the OECD.

This bill will do nothing, and Part 2 and the sanctions placed in it will do nothing to create jobs for those people on benefits who really want jobs. This bill will do nothing, and the fact—

💬 David Bennett: What a wasted speech.

What a waste of a speech, and what a terrible speech? Well, what a waste of an MP in Hamilton or wherever he is from. What is this Government doing to create the jobs for the people here in New Zealand? You know, 300 people apply for one job, and this bill is what the Government puts through this Parliament. This Government is not about helping to create the conditions or the business conditions to create jobs. The sanctions placed in this bill in Part 2 will do nothing to help create jobs. This Government has talked a lot about creating jobs. This bill does not deliver. It has failed, and that is why the Government has the worst economic record in 50 years.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity. The Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, as I said in an earlier contribution, really is flawed from the get-go. Therefore it becomes quite difficult for the New Zealand public to find any genuine desire by this Government, as represented by this significant change to the Social Security Act, that this is going to address the problems that people currently face.

I recall submissions to the Social Services Committee where there was a call by submitters to please support parents in poverty to become good parents. In so far as the public is concerned, it appears that this bill is targeting unemployed people, targeting solo parents, and targeting generally low-income communities that are just struggling to make ends meet and are doing it tough in this economic environment. Nothing in this bill, whether Part 1, Part 2, or any of the four parts of this bill, provides any hope to the people who are trying to do their best in raising young children, who struggle to try to meet the rising costs of childcare facilities, and who are trying to make ends meet in terms of providing food on the table.

I will give you some examples. In Māngere there were some vacancies available for seven jobs in the local Carter Holt Harvey. Over 200 people applied for those jobs, and I understand that people sat around, even though the company had filled the seven positions, wanting to know from the employer whether there were going to be other jobs.

Again I go back to the first statement I made. The premise that this bill is based on is flawed, wrong, and just totally unacceptable, and that is evidenced by the overwhelming opposition put forward by the community who have made submissions here. I know of people who are currently under the Ministry of Social Development system who have been told to go out and find 10 employers and get 10 interviews to show their genuineness that they are looking for work. There are 175,000 people on the unemployment benefit actively looking for work, but over 200,000 are people whom the Salvation Army classifies as discouraged unemployed. These are people who have been unemployed for more than a year and who, through no fault of their own, are unable to find work, because the jobs just are not there. Again I make the point that nothing in this bill indicates to the unemployed 175,000 or to the over 200,000 discouraged unemployed that this is going to somehow help them get out of the rut that they find themselves in.

What is gravely disappointing for many is that they were promised—they were promised—by this Government a brighter future. They were promised 170,000 jobs. None of those promises, as far as the unemployed, the discouraged unemployed, and solo parents are concerned, have panned out for them. In many ways that is a bad look for politicians generally. When the Government makes those promises and fails to deliver it makes every politician in this Chamber look bad.

It is sad that when this bill comes into force there will be sanctions upon those who are receiving the benefit and who fail to find work. If their benefit is cut, what then happens to them? What then happens to their ongoing living expenses? What happens to those children in those families? Because this is already happening today, and this bill is going to accelerate that and enforce that. As far as working-class communities throughout New Zealand are concerned, this is an attack on their dignity, it is an attack, an undermining of their desire to work, and I think if the Government had not placed the foundation of this bill on such false and flawed logic, then we would be here discussing how many jobs are required and just the kinds of activities that the Government should be funding in order to ensure that jobs are made available. But it is not just jobs.

If there is a solo parent—and I gave the example earlier of Charlotte Murray—with two young children, when this bill comes into force she will find herself having the stress of not only having to go out to find work but having to find work that pays enough to be able to support her and her two young children, aged 2 and 5 years old. I would have thought that a good step by this Government, if it fails to address the need for job creation, is at least to try to alleviate the barriers between those who are unemployed, those who are discouraged unemployed—the barriers that they face—and being able to match them with whatever jobs might be available. But the problem is that nothing in this bill, again, addresses the barriers that submitters have identified—the barriers to work—which are, first, having those jobs. The second is that, if they do not have the skills, what opportunities are available to them when this Government has shut down access to tertiary education, and shut down access to a whole range of community and adult education that was once there?

The Government keeps harping on about those dependent beneficiaries—kick them in the teeth, it will. The problem is that if we look back to the last Labour Government, that last Labour Government was able to create jobs, reduce the number of unemployed, and reduce those who were on the benefit, and that should show to this Government that if you are wanting welfare reform, you have got to create jobs, not kick people who are already struggling to make ends meet, not kick people who are hard-done-by through the economic failure of this Government to meet the economic challenges. But that is what is happening. I do not know whether this Government has taken the opportunity to read and consider the many, many submissions and the constant emails that come through from mums, dads, the unemployed, people without skills, people with qualifications—tertiary qualifications—who today continue to look for work. It is wrong when somebody who graduates at tertiary level with a degree fails to find a job within 6 months, fails to find a job within 1 year, fails to find a job within 2 years. It is wrong when we see people who are tertiary qualified driving taxis just to make ends meet. To make things worse, not only does this bill put people between a rock and a hard place, but the other legislation, which seems to be consistent with the theme of bill—that is, kick people in the teeth, kick them in the guts when they are down—all fails to deliver—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: What clause is that?

Well, it is clause 30, 100—let me see—

💬 Hon Member: 64.

Clause 124, OK. And what this does—clause 124, Part 2; you can look at the schedule, or clause 107. [Interruption] That is right. Clause 107 makes reference to those on the sickness benefit, and that is a real bad thing for this Government to be kicking people on sickness benefits, who cannot help themselves.

I move, That the question be now put.