Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Mr Speaker—well done. I rise to oppose this bill at its second reading, as we did at the first reading and as we did at the select committee. I personally was not at the Social Services and Community Committee, but I’ve read a number of the submissions, I’ve listened to my colleagues, and I am absolutely convinced this is a callous and mistaken bill.

It cuts jobseeker support eligibility for 18- and 19-year-olds, including those who are sick, injured, or disabled, and it reduces the accommodation supplement for low-income homeowners. As of June this year, Minister Upston confirmed 2,733 people were receiving jobseeker support due to a health condition, injury, or disability. Almost 70 percent of those people have a psychiatric or psychological condition. That’s going to make it really hard to get a job; that’s going to make it really hard to go into further education. It’s going to make it really hard to go into an apprenticeship in this country. By definition, someone on that support has already been assessed by Work and Income as unable to work full-time, and media reports at the moment show hundreds of applicants for job vacancies. Cutting income support does not create a single job. The parental income test threshold in this bill is $67,225 a year for a couple, for two parents. By comparison, a backbench MP salary is over $180,000.

That’s almost three times more for one of us than what we’re expecting two parents to be able to pay for their 18- and 19-year-olds. In my experience, 18- and 19-year-olds eat quite a lot, let alone everything else. With the increasing unaffordability of kai, this is a really brutal change to our benefit system.

The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU) made an excellent submission. They represent over 370,000 working New Zealanders, probably more than any of the parties’ membership in this House. When we were last speaking to this bill, people on the other side of the House laughed at our reference to the NZCTU. That is just not acceptable. They know a lot more about how working families actually have to manage looking after their teenagers.

These are still teenagers. They might be old enough to vote—if Minister Goldsmith encouraged them, rather than rolled back and disenfranchised people who might be wanting to enrol to vote. But they are still teenagers. In particular, for those teenagers who have disabilities, those households will have extra stress and extra costs. It might be transport-related costs for getting people with disabilities around, whether it’s to job interviews, or going to university interviews, or summer schools or whatever. There are also costs for physically changing the house so that those young people can get around there. These are the very people that should be supported, not have this Government punching down upon them.

I just want to refer briefly to Pou Tangata’s submission, because they pointed out how hard it is for Māori, in particular. Māori unemployment is more than double the rate for New Zealand Europeans, and, amongst young Māori, 21.8 percent of young Māori wāhine and 19.1 percent of young Māori tāne are not in employment, education, or training. This is against a general youth rate of 14.4 percent.

This Government should be funding Mayors Taskforce for Jobs, not cutting their funding. The mayors in the council offices are on the ground, connected with employers, and they can help youth much more than this Government.

Point of order. Thank you. I understand that Ministers are required to correct their statements at the earliest available opportunity. On Tuesday, between 3 and 4 p.m. in the House, when I asked the Minister whether any benefits had been cut through the use of the “confirming your circumstances” policies triggered by mandatory reviews, the Minister said no. There has now been media reporting basically confirming the exact opposite. I’m just concerned that Ministers are not taking the earliest available opportunity to correct statements in the House that were incorrect at the time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I’ll just take some advice there. Here it is. This could be a matter of privilege, so this should be raised with the Speaker by letter if you feel that this is what has actually happened. OK, we’ll take the next call.

This bill is about fiscal sustainability for the welfare system, targeted to help the most in need. I commend this bill to the House.