Volume 665 Week 51 - Tuesday 17 August 2010 
Volume 665 Week 51 - Tuesday 17 August 2010 
[Volume:665;Page:13107] 
Tuesday 17 August 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Statements 
Hon Chris Carter—Change of Parliamentary Membership 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Under Standing Order 35(1)(c) I have been advised by the Labour Party that its parliamentary membership has changed and that the Hon Chris Carter is no longer a member of the Labour Party for parliamentary purposes. Accordingly under Standing Order 34(4) the Hon Chris Carter is from 10 August 2010 regarded as an Independent member for parliamentary purposes. Allocations of speaking slots and oral questions have been adjusted. Allocations of funding to the Labour Party and to the Hon Chris Carter have also been adjusted. 
Points of Order 
Land Transport (Safer Alcohol Limits for Driving) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As advised to parties this morning I seek leave for the Land Transport (Safer Alcohol Limits for Driving) Amendment Bill to be introduced and set down as a members’ order of the day. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Questions to Ministers 
Recession—Prime Minister’s Statements 
1. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement that by March 2010 New Zealand will be coming out of the recession “reasonably aggressively”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yes he stands by his full quote from March 2009. The statement made in March 2009 was borne out by the fact that in the latter half of 2009 and early 2010 the economy went from a 1.5 percent contraction to 1.5 percent growth which is quite a considerable turn-round. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is it reflective of his aggressive recovery that when the Mount Roskill New World supermarket which opened today advertised 150 low-paid jobs over the last couple of weeks it got 2700 applicants? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That number of applicants is reflective of the sharp recession that the New Zealand economy went through. The recession was caused by two things: the global financial crisis and the mismanagement of the previous Government. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: If the New Zealand economy was aggressively coming out of recession why did nearly 20000 additional New Zealanders join the dole queue over the last 3 months? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member might reflect on that himself because here is a quote about strong economic growth: “The world economy will grow at around 3.9 percent this year. So New Zealand can also expect strong growth”. That statement came from Phil Goff Labour leader in January this year. He was predicting strong growth. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: In order to help young New Zealanders to come aggressively out of the recession how many additional training opportunities has his Government created to deal with the 65 percent increase in youth unemployment and the 68000 young people who are currently not in work education or training? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government as part of its overall economic policy has created both the Community Max and the Job Ops schemes which offer thousands of jobs to young people. It has an infrastructure investment programme that is supporting tens of thousands of people in jobs. The member can talk to the construction— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House is very boisterous. I did not intervene when the Minister answered the previous question but this question was pretty straightforward. If I recollect the question correctly it asked how many training opportunities had been created following a certain time. The Minister may not have that information given the primary question but the answer should at least attempt to answer the question. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Write faster Steven; write faster. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am trying to deal with a Minister who I believe has not adequately answered a question and that is not assisted by interjections from the Opposition. If Opposition members want to hear an answer they will show some respect. I expect to hear a better answer to that question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I said in my earlier answer the Government has created the Community Max scheme and the Job Ops scheme which provide thousands of on-the-job training places. We have a multibillion-dollar infrastructure programme that is providing hundreds of on-the-job training opportunities. We have with the existing money expanded the number of tertiary education places. We are taking widespread action to help young New Zealanders to maintain their connection to the workforce. What we are not doing is cranking up Government spending and encouraging people to borrow— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When I get to my feet the Minister will resume his seat immediately. It seems that the Minister does not have that information. 
Chris Tremain 
: What other excellent initiatives is the Government implementing to lift New Zealand’s economic growth? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Our most urgent task has been to undo the damage done by the previous Government which blew out Government spending collapsed the tradable sector and left us with record external debt to foreigners. As part of our plan to fix that damage we have reformed the taxation system we have put Government debt under control we have reprioritised $4 billion of low-quality public spending into front-line services we have introduced national standards and the Youth Guarantee we have cut red tape in a whole range of areas we have injected hundreds of millions of dollars into innovation research and development we are investing billions of dollars in infrastructure such as roads the electricity grid— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Answers are meant to be of a reasonable length. There was nothing wrong with the answer but it just went on and on. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Both members will resume their seat immediately—immediately—both members. The House will come to a little order. It is totally unacceptable the discourtesy to this place that is being shown. This is question time and previously when the Minister did not want to answer a question that he was asked about how many jobs he may not have had that information but the member who asked the question deserved a decent attempt to answer it. When the Minister was then asked a following question by his own member to just go on and on is again not reasonable treatment of this House. The Minister made a number of points and did not need to carry on. If the members have a point of order they wish to raise with me they are welcome to do so. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The continuous applause throughout that answer encouraged me to keep going. I think that if you are going to set a standard of reasonable treatment in the House then I will continue to give as extensive an answer as I can while I am getting such encouragement from Opposition members through their continuous applause. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think there is really a matter of order that needs to be addressed. I will hear the honourable member briefly. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think I could get into trouble if I made the comment that if Government members want to clap in that way— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no need to take this matter any further. I accept the point that the Hon Bill English is making that where there is a lot of interjection Ministers naturally will feel provoked to carry on. I accept that so I am not blaming anyone in particular. I ask both sides of the House to just be a little more reasonable. I realise this is the first day back after an adjournment but a little bit more reasonableness would be helpful to the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How does his broken promise not to increase GST help the economic recovery when retailers across the country are saying this is the worst period for them in living memory because over half the workers have had no wage increases whereas prices are due to go up by his own reckoning by 5.9 percent? 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. At the risk of interrupting I think it is an unacceptable procedure to load a question in that way by saying there was a “broken promise”. That is an accusation from across the House. One could argue that it is for the Minister to respond that there were no promises broken but actually that would be the question then. I just ask you to rule on these sorts of epithets that get thrown around. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Rodney Hide is absolutely correct that that kind of question is out of order. It is to me disappointing that having supported the honourable Leader of the Opposition to try to obtain information from the Government he then asked a question that strictly was out of order. I did not rule it out because I thought there was licence now for the Minister to have a real flick back and I do not like to stop Ministers. I would rather see Ministers use those opportunities to attack back where members are foolish enough to make that kind of accusation in a question but then members should not seek my help if they do not like the answer that they get. I do not like inserting myself too much into question time. However the member asked that question and I will not give him the luxury of asking a further question. I invite the Hon Bill English to answer it. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: On 1 October this year GST will increase by 2.5 percent not 15 percent as the Labour Party alleges and New Zealanders will receive extensive tax cuts. So the average family on 1 October will be $25 per week better off after paying their increased GST. We are advising families not to be misled by Labour which seems to be unable to calculate what 15 percent GST is in the pamphlets it has published. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just as the ACT leader was concerned about questions being loaded—having loaded a few bullets himself today—the answer talked about a party misleading— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard sufficient. As I warned members if they ask a question like that which accuses a Government of breaking a promise they should not seek my protection if the answer is not attractive to the side that asked the question. I ask members to be a bit more thoughtful when asking questions. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Did the Prime Minister ever forewarn New Zealanders that National would increase GST or did he explicitly say “National will not be increasing GST.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: This Government ran the most open pre-Budget policy process that the country has ever seen with a 15-month national discussion about the changes that were required in the taxation system in order to undo the damage done by the previous Government to our economy. Many New Zealanders have welcomed the Government’s changes to the taxation system because they will help to undo the damage done by that previous Government and will lift our growth prospects for the future. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was quite explicit: did the Prime Minister ever forewarn or did he explicitly say that National would not be increasing GST? I did not hear the answer to that question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes you did. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: No I didn’t. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being considered. I say to the House that it would be helpful if Ministers actually did listen to questions that are asked. On this occasion there was no insertion of an accusation into the question; it was a fair question. I think that the Leader of the Opposition has a legitimate gripe that not much of an attempt was made to answer that question. I accept that there is a dispute over what I believe took place. I invite the Hon Leader of the Opposition to repeat his question. We will all listen very carefully to the question and the answer. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Did the Prime Minister actually assure New Zealanders explicitly: “National will not be increasing GST.”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was not exactly the question that I heard. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Did the Prime Minister forewarn the country that National would be increasing GST or did he say explicitly “National will not be increasing GST.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I said in my earlier answer the country was forewarned. This Government ran the most open pre-Budget policy process that the country has ever seen running from about March 2009 right through to the 2010 Budget. At the time that the announcement was made everyone knew that it would happen. 
Chris Tremain 
: What reports has the Minister seen on real wage growth over the past decade? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have seen a report that was so incredible that it was hard to believe. It stated that in the 9 years that Labour was in power real after-tax wages rose by 3 percent in 9 years. I found that number incredible and we are going to check it. But the best advice I have is that in the 9 years that Labour was in power real after-tax incomes grew by 3 percent. There were a couple of reasons for that: firstly inflation was consistently high and secondly the Government’s taxation system— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Has the Prime Minister— 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: 3 percent. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: That is about what she is worth yeah. That is about the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say again to both sides of the House that interjections like that will lead to disorder especially today with the House being quite prickly. I ask members to be reasonable. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Has the Prime Minister ever assured the country that he was opposed to compulsory savings schemes and is he now considering one? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister has made a number of statements on that matter over the last couple of days. 
Chris Tremain 
: Does the Minister have any view on why real wage growth was only 3 percent over the past decade? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do have a view and it is that the policies that meant that households had only 3 percent growth in their after-tax real incomes were the same policies that blew out Government spending. But worst of all they left New Zealand owing foreign lenders $170 billion and we have a huge job to turn that round. 
David Garrett 
: How does the Government’s management of the economy since November 2008 compare with New Zealand’s economic performance prior to November 2008? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has faced a very big challenge from 2008. To give Parliament some measure of it in the 4 years to March 2010 the Australian economy grew by 11.6 percent and the New Zealand economy grew by a total of 2 percent. Turning that round will be a massive decade-long job. We are only now realising how much damage the previous Labour Government did to this economy. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What are the milestones that Gerry Brownlee said the National Government had to measure its progress in closing the wage gap with Australia? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Our milestone is to close that gap by 2025 and there are any number of publicly available economic indicators for the public to assess our progress by. 
Economy—Reports 
2. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I am advised that the Government has made good progress since the election in 2008. We have seen off the worst of the recession at the same time as protecting New Zealanders from the sharpest edges of that recession. We have taken major steps towards making our tax system fairer and more supportive of savings investment and exports. However our external liabilities still remain of significant concern. We owe foreign lenders around $170 billion and that is forecast to rise to $250 billion in the absence of policy to improve it. 
Craig Foss 
: Why is it necessary to lift the level of national savings? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Put simply New Zealand has a history of spending more than it earns but that was exacerbated particularly since 2005 under the management of the previous Government. Since 2000 external liabilities have almost doubled from just under $100 billion to almost $180 billion today and they are projected to reach $250 billion within 5 years. No household business or Government can continue to increase its debt levels for ever. Servicing those liabilities already costs around $10 billion in a normal year. That is $200 million a week paid by the New Zealand Government households and businesses to foreigners simply to pay the interest. 
Craig Foss 
: What would be the consequences of allowing these current trends to continue? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We could let this trend continue at a more rapid speed as it did after about 2004 but of course that would lead us into the same territory as countries such as Greece Spain and Ireland where they have been forced to go through pretty dramatic restructurings. This Government has decided to pursue a course of considered and consistent change—that is a gradual adjustment—while New Zealanders learn to spend a bit less save a bit more and invest in the trading part of our economy which is exports and tourism. If we pursue that course over 4 or 5 years we will have an orderly adjustment with the least possible pain to our community. 
Hon David Parker 
: If the Minister has been so concerned about the level of external liabilities why has it taken him 2 years in Government and two Budgets before even the appointment of a committee to resolve the problem? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Because in Budget 2010 we took a big and significant step to start resolving these issues with the changes in our tax system. We have also embarked on a programme of significant investment in infrastructure cutting red tape lifting the performance of the Public Service supporting business innovation and raising educational standards all of which are necessary. 
Craig Foss 
: Does he believe there is widespread support for a lift in national savings levels? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes I think there is just as New Zealanders are learning to contain— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister. A Government member asked the Minister a question and has a right to hear the answer. The level of interjection is unacceptable. Members know—I do not think I am wrong—who I am looking at in respect of the level of interjection. Please a little more courtesy. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think there is widespread support for it. In fact for the first time in a good decade we are seeing New Zealand households actually increase their savings. I hear that even the Opposition members grudgingly accept the need for less spending and more savings. We only wish they had seen that when they were in Government; when they were in Government New Zealand’s external liabilities rose to $170 billion. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister really think that all New Zealanders came down in the last shower of rain and that this is somehow news to the Opposition just as it seems to be news to the Government? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question I admit allows—[ 
Interruption 
] I have not called the Minister yet. The question I must admit is a broad primary question. I guess the Minister is happy to answer it if he feels he is responsible for showers of rain. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think New Zealanders have a good fundamental grasp of our economic outlook. That is why they voted out a Government that was damaging the economy and voted in a Government that could fix it up. That is why they support the progress we are making. 
Accident Compensation—Sensitive Claims Clinical Pathway Review 
3. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does he stand by his statement on Radio New Zealand’s  
Checkpoint 
 programme of 12 August 2010: “I’m not satisfied that ACC has handled the issue of counselling services for sensitive claims that well. I’m going to await the final report from the independent clinical panel before drawing final conclusions.”; if so why? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes I do. I have been consistently cautious about interfering in the clinical decisions of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) in this sensitive area. But given the level of concern from colleagues and the public I have established an independent clinical panel to review the corporation’s approach. That panel is doing a very professional and thorough job. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he now accept that he was warned by clinicians by survivors by the National Council of Women and by 3976 people who last October signed a petition that stated: “By doing nothing and allowing these changes to occur unhindered you are choosing to make recovery from horrific abuse harder for some of the most vulnerable members of this society.”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I draw the member’s attention to the advice from the Royal New Zealand Colleague of General Practitioners and I quote what it said in November last year: “All the clinical evidence suggests that the new approach ACC is adopting will be in the best interests of the patient”. Given that sort of advice I have been cautious about getting involved in a clinical debate where I am not well qualified but in response to the concerns of colleagues like Chester Borrows Jackie Blue and Nikki Kaye I have set up an independent clinical panel and I will be ensuring that the advice of that panel is taken by ACC to ensure that we are providing proper care for people who are sexually abused. 
Hon Annette King 
: Did ACC advise him that the process to change the clinical framework or clinical pathway was started under a Labour Government as he has claimed many times; if so when? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes that is the advice I have received. There was concern in the research that was commissioned in 2003 at Massey University by the previous Government. The key element—and I am not an expert on the clinical issues—is that the clinical concern in that research was that unlimited counselling would do more harm than good for sensitive claimants. I am advised by ACC that the changes in the pathway were begun in 2008. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What steps has the Minister taken to try to have the issues over sensitive claims addressed as quickly as possible? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The independent clinical panel wrote to me on 16 July seeking an extension of time until September to enable it to provide a comprehensive report. My concern was that this delay would put back the addressing of the problems in relation to providing for sensitive and vulnerable claimants. I agreed to the extension until mid-September subject to the panel providing interim recommendations. On receiving those recommendations I immediately wrote to the ACC board seeking their implementation as quickly as possible which the board has done. 
Hon Annette King 
: In light of the Minister’s answer to my previous question is he saying that ACC was not telling the truth when less than 1 month ago in answer to an official information request it said: “No work was undertaken on either the clinical framework or the clinical pathway prior to 2009” and when it also said that the clinical framework was developed by the clinical services directorate in 2009 long after a Labour Government had left? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I stand—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister. I believe that the member has asked a serious question and the member’s colleagues should listen to the answer. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I stand by the advice I have been given by ACC which is that the work on the clinical pathways began in 2008 prior to the change of Government as those documents make plain. Labour has tried to politicise this issue but the changes in sensitive claims have been totally driven by ACC’s clinicians not by Ministers. They have not been driven by Cabinet but by clinicians trying to do their very best for sensitive claimants. 
Hon Annette King 
: I seek leave to table a document from ACC dated 30 July 2010 that points out that no work was done on the clinical framework or clinical pathway prior to 2009. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister said that he had quoted from official documents from ACC. I ask that he table them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not believe that the Minister had an official document in his hand when he was answering that question. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What were underlying concerns that ACC had that led to the changes and has the Minister received any advice on whether those concerns were valid? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The concern that the corporation’s clinicians had backed up by comprehensive research was that ongoing unlimited counselling of victims of sexual abuse could lead to more harm than good. The clinical panel has confirmed the validity of this research and the need for professional oversight by psychiatrists and psychologists to ensure that long-term counselling is both beneficial and appropriate. I am advised by the clinical panel that where the corporation erred was in requiring such an assessment for all claimants when insufficient professional support was not available resulting in unacceptable delays in providing care. I am confident that with the support and advice of the independent clinical panel we can improve the support provided for sensitive claimants. 
Craig Foss 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During that exchange and prior to it the member Darren Hughes questioned whether the Minister was telling the truth quite a few times. Members cannot do that; all members are honourable. I ask that the member reflect on that and withdraw. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has taken offence and strictly the member should not imply— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I was very careful in what I said Mr Speaker. I— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will not repeat what he said. I heard very clearly what the member said. Another member has taken offence. A member should not imply that another member is not telling the truth. I ask the Hon Darren Hughes to stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Lynne Pillay; a supplementary question. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to the Labour front bench that I have called one of their colleagues. I expect them to show some courtesy to their own colleague. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Will the Minister now require ACC to identify the estimated 2000 people who were unable to participate in his Government’s accident compensation process because it was too traumatic; and will he offer them counselling? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: As of Monday the corporation is offering 16 counselling sessions for those people who seek the services of counsellors. The corporation will work through a final solution when the full report is available from the independent clinical panel. I point out to the members opposite who are interjecting that way in excess of 2000 accident compensation claimants were turned down for counselling during the time of the previous Government. In fact when Labour was in Government half of those who sought counselling were turned down. 
Hon Annette King 
: When the Minister said in the  
Nelson Mail 
 last week that “Some days I’m in politics and I think ‘What the hell am I doing?’.” will he now accept that the victims of his bungled policy are asking the same question? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is a pity that the member chooses to selectively quote. The overwhelming point I would make—[ 
Interruption 
] Well the comment was made in reference to visiting an oil rig in Tasman Bay and I am not sure that that is particularly relevant to the issue of sensitive claims. Members opposite have attempted to play politics with this highly sensitive issue. [ 
Interruption 
] They have—they have played it for all it is worth when all the papers show that this issue is in essence a clinical issue in which neither I as Minister nor the board have made substantive decisions. 
Drug and Alcohol Abuse—Gaps in Treatment Services 
4. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: Is he aware that a recent study of GP consultations in New Zealand revealed that opportunities for discussion about the misuse of alcohol and other drugs were not acted upon in one-quarter of the consultations and what steps will the Government take to address the service gaps in treatment services identified by the Law Commission? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am aware of the study the member refers to. It was a study of some 15 general practitioners and it was published in July 2009. The issues that have been identified are under action by the Government particularly in the area of addressing service delivery gaps. Let me give the member some examples. We are investing approximately $22 million in the action plan to tackle methamphetamine. We are providing more training to front-line staff in other Government agencies on alcohol and drug screening programmes and brief intervention and more work is being done on that topic in the area of primary health care during the current year. Finally the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC) has been working particularly strongly in this area. I understand that it has been supporting some pretty good examples of work in this field by primary health organisations such as the Whanganui Regional Primary Health Organisation which is working very effectively. 
Rahui Katene 
: What efforts have been made to consult Maori providers of substance misuse and addiction services to ensure that issues are understood and care is delivered in a culturally appropriate manner by all health care professionals? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Both the ministry and I meet regularly with Maori alcohol and drug service providers to discuss that very point. It is also under action by a number of the district health boards in terms of the specific programmes that they advance. One of the pieces of good news that the member may be interested in is the recent public education campaign being mounted by ALAC where a number of advertisements identify particular drinking behaviours; it has resulted in a 40 percent increase in self-referrals to the Alcohol and Drug Helpline. 
Rahui Katene 
: Is he aware that the prevalence of severe alcohol-related problems in Maori is more than twice that in non-Maori and that Maori are four times more likely than non-Maori to die of an alcohol-related condition; and what specific initiatives will be introduced to ensure that Maori are a priority population for identifying and managing substance misuse? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: There are a number of measures that I could refer to. There are kaupapa Maori alcohol and other drug addiction services such as those provided by the Te Waireka programme in Hawke’s Bay Rongo Atea in Hamilton and Te Utuhina Manaakitanga Trust in Rotorua. There is also a range of iwi-based non-governmental organisation services in the northern midland central and southern district health board areas. The national Alcohol and Drug Helpline has dedicated Maori staff available to work for it. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Does the Minister believe that by reducing the availability and promotion of alcohol we would reduce the need for alcohol treatment services; if so will he support significant steps to reduce the availability and promotion of alcohol? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The Government will be announcing shortly its response to the Law Commission’s report on the sale of liquor and the member will have to wait until that happens. But on the linkage he purports between the availability of alcohol and the need for treatment services I can say that that point has been argued for many years. What needs to be borne in mind is that adequate treatment services need to be put in place. This Government through the programmes that I outlined in response to the primary question is doing just that. We will continue to improve the range of services available. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: How do cuts to the St Mark’s Adult Drug and Alcohol Treatment Centre in Blenheim the Care NZ clinic in Otahuhu and the Ashburn Clinic in Dunedin and the potential closure of the Hawke’s Bay addiction centre address the gaps in treatment services identified by the Law Commission? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: We have to look at the range of services provided across the country. Services need to be in areas where there are needs to be fulfilled. This is an ongoing issue. I am confident that the programmes that we have in place and the work that is under way will ensure that the seven recommendations made by the Law Commission in its report are given effect once those final decisions are announced. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: What evidence does the Minister have that reducing the promotion and availability of and accessibility to alcohol would not reduce the medical services required to treat people affected by alcohol abuse? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I do not have the evidence immediately to hand in the House today but the point is that even though the level of alcohol consumption in New Zealand has been declining on a per capita basis for some time there still are people who have significant alcohol and drug related problems. We still have a responsibility to provide effective treatment services to deal with them and we will do so. 
Primary Growth Partnership—Funding of Projects 
5. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What major developments in primary sector innovation has he recently announced? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 This morning I announced two further major successful bids under the Government’s Primary Growth Partnership which will see $321 million invested in innovation projects in our dairy and red meat industries. These two projects involving $144 million of Government money are the biggest investment in primary sector innovation in decades and they show how serious this Government is about boosting economic growth and turning round 9 long years of neglect for New Zealand agriculture. 
Shane Ardern 
: What type of work will be funded under these projects? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The first project involves Fonterra and Dairy New Zealand and will see $170 million invested in on-farm innovation and off-farm research. The second project is led by Silver Fern Farms PGG Wrightson and Landcorp and commits $151 million to reforming the red meat value chain to a market-led approach. Collectively those two proposals stand to significantly change our primary sector and deliver huge economic spin-offs for New Zealand. 
Shane Ardern 
: Why is the Government committing such major funding to primary sector innovation? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Innovation is one of the Government’s six drivers of economic growth. This investment which is the biggest in primary sector innovation in decades will directly boost economic growth create jobs and benefit all New Zealanders. It shows just how serious the Government is about getting our economy back on track and about getting our vital tradable sector including agriculture firing on all cylinders after 9 years of neglect under the previous administration. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: How can the Minister assure New Zealanders that the benefits of the taxpayer-subsidised innovation he has just announced will remain in New Zealand given the National Government’s enthusiasm for increasing overseas ownership of our primary sector? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: This is not about a subsidy; it is about working in partnership with the core industries that drive this economy. This is some of the best news that the primary sector has seen in decades and only the Labour Party would dare to criticise it. 
Income Gap Parity with Australia—Milestones 
6. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: When he said: “The Government does have a milestone and it is to achieve parity with Australia by 2025” will he provide New Zealanders with measurable interim milestones; if not why not? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 To slightly correct the member I can confirm that the Government has a milestone and that is to catch Australian incomes by 2025. I have no ministerial responsibility for the establishment of milestones. 
Hon David Parker 
: Will the Minister at least commit to the milestone that by the date of the next election the gap between incomes in Australia and New Zealand will at least have closed to what it was when he took office? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The voters of New Zealand will make their own assessment on how well the Government has done and will measure that progress at the time of the next election. As I said it is not for me to set milestones. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked whether he would commit to a milestone and he said it was up to the electors. I asked him whether he would commit to a milestone. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No if the member listened to the Minister’s answer he would know that he said that he did not have responsibility as Minister for Economic Development for setting such milestones. 
Hon David Parker 
: If the wage gap is not even heading in the right direction—that is narrowing—but rather will be ever-widening by June next year will he at least admit that his Government has no credible plan and its hollow promises without meaningful milestones are junk? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Although I have absolutely no responsibility for the future I can tell the member that he is right to point out that we have a plan. The plan involves tax reform investment in infrastructure such as broadband and ultra-fast broadband research and development reform of the labour market electricity market reform skills and education cutting red tape and regulation trade agreements Warm Up New Zealand reform of the Resource Management Act the International Growth Fund a focus on skills in the economy focusing of resources on the front line strengthening the science system getting as much leverage as we can out of the Rugby World Cup a smarter Government procurement programme and many many other things. 
Hon David Parker 
: If the Minister is not responsible for setting milestones who is? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is a whole-of-Government exercise and it is clearly set out in the Budget each year. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is very hard for members of the Opposition to ask questions of the whole of Government. We can ask questions only of Ministers. He said he has no responsibility for milestones— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister made it very clear that it is not his ministerial responsibility. Matters to do with the whole of Government are normally matters for the Prime Minister. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My colleagues are happier with your ruling than I am. How can a Minister for Economic Development answer in this House that he does not have responsibility for economic development goals? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that is not a valid point of order. He should not have raised it in that manner. It is absolutely a Minister’s right to determine whose responsibility certain matters are. The Minister made it clear that setting any milestones is not the responsibility of the Minister for Economic Development. That is where the matter ends. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have heard some things on the radio about a change of ministerial warrants. I just want to make sure that it does not happen in this case. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. The member will resume his seat. He is trifling with the House and that will not be tolerated. I warn the honourable member. 
David Garrett 
: Can he confirm that the 2025 Taskforce is to report each year on the progress in catching Australia—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise both to the member asking the question and to the Minister. I ask members to be more reasonable with interjections. I have to be able to hear the question. 
David Garrett 
: Can he confirm that the 2025 Taskforce is to report each year on the progress in catching Australia by 2025 and is he looking forward to that report? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes and broadly yes. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister for Economic Development agree with the belated statements of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance that a substantial increase in savings by New Zealanders is needed to help achieve income parity with Australia and that accordingly another committee needs to be appointed to give National the ideas that it obviously needs? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I always agree with the Prime Minister and with the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. 
Trades Academies—Number Opening in 2011 
7. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: How many trades academies will open in 2011? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 National campaigned on increasing the availability of trades training and we said we would establish at least five trades academies. I am delighted to tell the House that nine trades academies will open in this country in 2011 providing trades and technology programmes for over 800 secondary school students and a further three will open in 2012. As well as providing more career choices for students with no fees the academies will contribute to growing our economy and productivity as young people with better skills enter the labour market. 
Allan Peachey 
: How will the funding for trades academies work? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Trades academies are a collaboration between schools tertiary organisations and industries funded from existing funding streams. Students will be funded for the time they attend the school and for the time they attend the tertiary organisation. This includes a tertiary top-up fee to reflect no fees for participating students. Funding will also be provided for the coordination and administration of the programme. 
Paul Quinn 
: What reports has she seen about the establishment of the Wellington Trades Academy based at WelTec? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have seen a statement from the chief executive of WelTec Dr Linda Sissons who said: “The Trades Academy at WelTec will develop a strong trades and technology base for Wellington industry. … Often times there are amazing work opportunities for young people and the Wellington Trades Academy will provide a great pathway for young people into industry.” I have also seen a report from a hotel manager here in Wellington who said that the Wellington Trades Academy based at WelTec is just what the region needs. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In light of her praise of the academies will she now undertake to approve the 104 organisations she rejected as academies as an attempt to take steps towards matching the 24000 places taken up as Modern Apprenticeships between 2003 and 2008? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: This Government was delighted to have received 117-odd expressions of interest in our trades academies. We have approved 12 and we have legislation before the House at the moment that will enable the rest of those 117 to be implemented plus the many other schools and tertiary institutions around the country that are delighted that this Government has done something to address the issue of trades training for young people rather than being like the previous Government that just wanted to keep them at school until they were 18. 
Afghanistan—Transfer of Prisoners Taken by SAS 
8. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Can he guarantee that no prisoners taken in operations involving the New Zealand Special Air Service in Afghanistan were transferred to the National Directorate of Security in Kabul and tortured? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 Following the decision to redeploy the Special Air Service to Kabul the Government completed discussions with the Government of Afghanistan to establish an agreement regarding the treatment of detainees transferred by the New Zealand SAS forces to Afghan authorities. An agreement was signed between the two Governments requiring that such detainees should be handled in accordance with applicable international and domestic law and that their treatment should be subject to the full scrutiny of the International Committee of the Red Cross and other relevant organisations. To date no detainees have been transferred by the SAS to Afghan authorities which is a reflection of the mentoring and support role played by the SAS in relation to the Crisis Response Unit of the Afghan National Police. The welfare of detainees captured directly by Afghan authorities or transferred to them by other forces is a matter for which others might properly be held to account. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was specifically about joint operations—where the SAS was involved in joint operations with Afghan forces. I asked whether he could provide a guarantee that in that situation these people were not transferred to the directorate and then tortured. He talked about the agreement which was fine and he talked about where the SAS directly captured people but he did not address the question of joint activities. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought the Minister gave a pretty comprehensive reply. The member has several more supplementary questions and this is a classic example of how a supplementary question could be framed to ask specifically that question rather than trying to do it by way of a point of order. I think the member is being a bit unreasonable. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Minister saying that he cannot rule out that prisoners taken in joint operations involving New Zealand forces went on to suffer torture including amputations electric shocks starvation beatings and burns as outlined in London’s High Court? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I am saying to the House that the Government takes direct responsibility for the detainees who are transferred by New Zealand forces. The welfare of detainees captured directly by Afghan authorities or transferred to them by other forces is a matter for which others might properly be held to account. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he therefore agree with the Prime Minister’s comment that when the SAS is involved in joint operations with Afghan forces “it’s not our responsibility when it comes to those people that are detained.”? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I accept that New Zealand has responsibility to ensure appropriate treatment of detainees transferred to Afghan authorities by our forces. I even accept that we should make relevant inquiries about the position of detainees held after an operation in which we have played a part. That is what we are doing currently in relation to the matters raised by the member. But I suggest to the member that for New Zealand to be accountable for the welfare of every detainee held as a result of all of the operations undertaken by the many forces in Afghanistan is a rather greater responsibility than we should carry. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he agree that the Government’s attitude is effectively one of looking the other way while Afghan forces take prisoners off to be tortured—prisoners whom New Zealand forces helped to place into captivity? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I make it very clear that where New Zealand transfers detainees to Afghan authorities we take responsibility for ensuring that appropriate steps are taken in relation to the detainees’ welfare. I even accept that we should make relevant inquiries about detainees held after an operation in which we have been involved. The New Zealand Government is currently involved in making such relevant inquiries. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: In the number of years that the New Zealand SAS has been involved in joint activities with Afghan forces how many inquiries has the Government made as to the well-being of prisoners who were captured by Afghan forces in these joint operations and transferred to the National Directorate of Security? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: The member may well be aware that there were three deployments of the SAS under the time of the previous administration and that the current Government deployed it again in October of last year. If the member wished me to give a comprehensive answer in relation to all of those deployments he would need to give me notice of that question. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Will New Zealand follow the lead of British forces whereby there is a ban on transferring prisoners to the National Directorate of Security in Kabul due to the risk that they would be subjected to torture including amputation electric shocks starvation sleep deprivation beatings and burns? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I am advised that the British authorities have suspended the transfer of detainees to the National Directorate of Security. The advice I have received is that this suspension occurred because of concerns regarding the access of officials to detainees who were held there. If the member feels that that advice invites further scrutiny I agree with him; I am subjecting that response from officials to such further scrutiny. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he think that it is acceptable for New Zealand soldiers to be risking their lives to prop up an Afghan Government that all the evidence from British courts British Governments and Amnesty International shows routinely tortures its citizens? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I think it is fair to say that the New Zealand Government understands that there are some shortcomings in relation to the operation of the Afghan Government. From time to time we are given the opportunity to express those views directly to President Karzai and his Ministers. I have done so personally on more than one occasion and will continue to do so. 
Ministers—Confidence 
9. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yes. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did that answer apply at the time that questions were lodged? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not know what the member is referring to. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did he have confidence in the Hon Heather Roy at the time that questions were lodged this morning? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister has confidence in any Minister. If he did not the person would not have been a Minister. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was the Prime Minister prepared to appoint to his ministry any person whom Rodney Hide nominated to him? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I remind the member that it is the Prime Minister’s prerogative as to who is in his executive. 
Children State Care—Home for Life Package 
10. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What has the Government done to ensure children in State care can have a home for life? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 We have more than 5000 children in Child Youth and Family custody removed from their birth parents because it was not safe for them to be there. Every one of those children deserves a safe and secure home. Last week I announced a Home for Life package. This comprehensive package will support New Zealand families to provide a permanent home for life for a child in State care. 
Katrina Shanks 
: How will the package support families to take on children in care? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: There are over 2000 foster carers currently many of whom may be able to offer a child permanency. This package supports them to do just that. The Home for Life support package includes eight initiatives. A few of them are financial support of $2500 up front a baby care starter pack legal costs assistance with mediation with birth parents parenting seminars respite breaks for carers and a dedicated phone line. These things will make a difference. 
Tax Credits—Income Sharing 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: Who will benefit most— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member. Members are entitled to sit anywhere in this House. We don’t need a barrage of interjections about it. 
11. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: Who will benefit most from the tax credit described in the Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill as “intended to give couples greater freedom to work fewer hours or more flexible hours in order to care for children”? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 The couples who will benefit most are precisely those—couples who want greater freedom to work fewer or more flexible hours in order to care for their children. This legislation and income-sharing generally are about giving people more choices about the way in which they live their lives and determine their family affairs. I cannot for the life of me understand why the member opposite is so opposed to that. 
Stuart Nash 
: How is it fair that under a bill that would cost all taxpayers almost $500 million per year a family with a single earner on a medium wage gets $19 a week while a family with a single earner on $140000 gets $175 a week? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: What the member overlooks conveniently I suspect is that the family in the first of his examples will also be benefiting considerably from the Working for Families package which costs considerably more than income sharing would. 
Stuart Nash 
: Does he agree with Treasury the Ministry of Social Development the Department of Labour Bill English and the Ministry of Women’s Affairs all of which point out serious flaws in the policy with Treasury advising against the introduction of the tax credit because it costs too much and because most of the credits will go to those on the highest incomes? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: No I do not accept that advice. I am surprised the member does given his party’s attitude to Treasury generally. As I said in my primary response this is about giving parents some choices and some options. I would have thought that the party opposite would be all in favour of choice and option—or in fact has nanny State become too strong for it? 
Sue Moroney 
: Is he aware then that both of the couples he gives as examples in the commentary on the Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill would be better off if paid parental leave were to be extended to 6 months at much less cost to the country; will he therefore support the introduction of the bill I have drafted to achieve 6 months’ paid parental leave? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I think I have already separately answered that question in correspondence with the member. I draw to the attention of the House some comments from members of the public in response to this legislation. Let me quote from a couple of messages— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister was not asked what members of the public thought about the proposal. The Minister was asked specifically about the relationship between his legislation and extending paid parental leave. The Minister did say that he had discussed that in correspondence with the member but the House is none the wiser. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member approached me in my non-ministerial capacity about her member’s bill which is yet to be drawn in the ballot as I understand it. I indicated that from a United Future point of view we do support the extension of paid parental leave but that is not part of my ministerial responsibility in dealing with this question—hence my reference at the outset. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister was asked for a comparison. He may not have the information because the paid parental leave issue is not his responsibility. To clear confusion I invite Sue Moroney to repeat her question. 
Sue Moroney 
: Is he aware that both of the couples he gives as examples in the commentary on the Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill would be better off if paid parental leave were to be extended to 6 months at much less cost to the country; will he therefore support the introduction of the bill I have drafted to achieve 6 months’ paid parental leave? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I repeat the answer that I gave beforehand: in respect of the member’s bill which is yet to be drawn from the ballot I have given a response but that response was not given in my ministerial capacity. With regard to the first part of the question I think it is worth drawing to the attention of the House the responses of some real people who have commented since my legislation was drafted because they go to the heart of the point that the member was making. Let me quote from just one such correspondent in the time I have available to me. He says as follows: “My wife is a respected and skilled professional in her own right and she also holds a master’s degree. We made a choice that she would stay at home and take care of our children while I continued to work. It was a large financial impact to us but in researching the effects of her returning to work compared to the negative effects it was the right choice.” They are the sorts of families that will benefit from the income-sharing package. 
Stuart Nash 
: Does the Minister expect this bill to have a third reading in this Parliament? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I expect all legislation once it has been properly considered by a select committee to come back to this House and go through the normal stages prior to being implemented into law. 
Building Sector—Reduction of Bureaucracy 
12. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: What announcements has he made recently around cutting red tape and bureaucracy in the building sector? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Last week I announced that the Government will introduce a range of amendments to the Building Act 2004 to help cut red tape and bureaucracy and make builders more accountable. Without compromising quality and safety these amendments will provide more incentives for builders to build it right first time and will help drive a more efficient and productive sector. These proposed amendments are the result of year-long review of the Building Act which included consultation with all interested parties. Mr Steve Brackenridge a builder who has been in the industry for 35 years said in an interview on  
One News 
 that change was long overdue and he congratulated the Government on actually tackling the problem. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: How will builders be made more accountable for their work? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Some of the incentives to build it right first time include introducing mandatory written contracts for any building work above $20000 that set out expectations warrantees and remedies for how any disputes will be resolved. Those doing the work will be required to explain what if any financial back-up or insurance they have to remedy any faults in the future. These measures will make it easier for homeowners commissioning building work to hold contractors to account for fixing any defects if and when they arise. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Accident Compensation—Sensitive Claims Counselling 
SAS—Allegations of Torture of Prisoners Transferred to Afghan Authorities 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon David Parker seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the announcement that people making new claims for counselling funded by accident compensation will now be able to access up to 16 hours with a counsellor. The announcement is a particular case of recent occurrence that involves ministerial responsibility but it does not alter the process of deciding who qualifies for accident compensation cover. It is in effect part of a continuing process. Development of the sensitive claims process is ongoing and awaits the final report of the independent clinical panel. A continuing matter does not require the immediate attention of the House. The matter can be considered over a longer time frame. The application is therefore declined. 
I have also received a letter from Dr Kennedy Graham seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the revelation that New Zealand’s Special Air Service may have been responsible directly or indirectly for the torture of prisoners in the Afghan National Directorate of Security. The making of an allegation or a media revelation can never constitute a case of recent occurrence. There must be some concrete event or announcement and not just media speculation about it. The urgent debate procedure is not a means of debating matters that may or may not have happened. The event must have occurred recently and there must be an element of urgency to warrant the business of the House being set aside. The application is therefore also declined. 
Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee stage of the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill to be taken as one debate with multiple calls for members and for the vote on each part to be put at the conclusion of the debate before 10 p.m. this evening. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
In Committee 
Parts 1 to 5 schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 The Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill is being rushed through Parliament as a piece of political posturing. It is poll driven. It is populist. It is not based on policy that works. It is discriminatory it is judgmental and it is anti-children and anti-families. Those are the views of so many people up and down New Zealand. This Government has been told so over and over and over again at the Social Services Committee by social commentators by opinion leaders in opinion pieces in newspapers by researchers by academics and by Government agencies like the Human Rights Commission. They have said in one voice: “Dump this bill!”. They are telling the Government to dump this bill because it will not do what the Minister for Social Development and Employment said she wants it to do. It will not achieve what she set out to achieve. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Who said that? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can hear Dr Hutchison interjecting as I speak. He was not on the select committee so he did not hear the submissions most of which came from organisations that I know that Dr Hutchison would support and find very credible. They came to the select committee and said that this bill was wrong and that they opposed it. They said that it will not achieve what the Government said it will achieve. 
We ask why this bill is in the House now. What was the reason for the so-called Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill? What was the reason for it? The Minister has set up a very expensive—very expensive—working party to fund long-term solutions to what she calls dependency. When asked at the select committee what dependency was she could not give a definition. In fact she does not know what dependency is and she was unable to answer that question. 
Labour asks why there is a bill that sets out sanctions and a punitive approach to people on benefits when the Government also has a working party looking at how to solve long-term dependencies. It appears to us that many of the recommendations of the working party which is made up of a very narrow group of so-called experts on welfare will be very much in line with this bill. It is a bit like putting the cart before the horse. 
We think this bill is part of National’s propaganda machine. First of all National identifies the scapegoat. Who are the scapegoats out there to be beaten up on with special reports special reviews and special attention but beneficiaries? National is beating up on people who are invalids people who have been released from mental institutions and people who used to be in IHC homes. It is beating up on people who are sick or who are sole parents caring for children. Those people have become the scapegoats for the National Government in this bill. So first of all National identifies the scapegoats. 
Secondly it heaps lots of criticism on them. We need only to look at the comments from the Hon Judith Collins to know what National thinks of beneficiaries. She said National members are upset when they see people sit around all day watching Sky TV living off the taxpayers letting their children run riot and getting stoned. That was her view on beneficiaries; that was what she said about people who are trying to do their best to raise the most vulnerable children in New Zealand. She thinks beneficiaries sit around watching Sky TV and getting stoned. Well I do not agree with that this party does not agree with that and most New Zealanders do not believe that is what people who are on benefits do. So first of all National heaped criticism on them then it blamed them. 
The next thing National did was use bogus figures to stir up a bogey against beneficiaries. The biggest bogus figure we got was the $50 billion figure which was in the Minister’s working party group report. It said that beneficiaries will cost us $50 billion if they stay on benefits for their entire lives. Let me tell members that if Paula Rebstock was to have stayed in her Commerce Commission job for all her working life she would have cost the taxpayers $12 million! That is about as stupid as saying that beneficiaries will cost us $50 billion. John Armstrong said that in a very good column written by him. That figure is a bogus figure and it has been said to scare people who look at beneficiaries. 
This bill will not achieve what the Minister wants to achieve. First of all it was misnamed. It was not named correctly because one of the strongest early submissions we received was from the Legislation Advisory Committee which advises the Government on all matters to do with legislation. The committee said that this was not a good law and that naming a bill with a meaningless political title meant it meant nothing and that was a very bad track to go down. It said that the title should include the substance of the bill because people would have no idea what the bill was all about if it did not. Saying that the bill is future-focused does not describe what is in the bill. 
Members will note that I have lodged an amendment to clause 1 that gives much more realistic names for the bill. If members look at my amendment they will see that the bill could be called a number of things. It could also be called the “We’re Giving Them a Leg Up Bill” or the “We’re Backing Them Bill”. There are many things that we could call this bill that would go along with the slogans that the Minister constantly uses. The name of the bill was a misnomer. It was not the correct title for this bill. This bill is not about assisting people to get off benefits. It is punitive; it does not provide the tools to get people off benefits. 
We know and there was a very good example of it today that people will work given the opportunity. There were 150 jobs in a supermarket in Mount Roskill today. How many people applied for them? Over 2700 people. People do want to work. Look at the statistics. When we had full employment in New Zealand with unemployment at around 3.8 percent very few people were on benefits. We even had a drop in the number of people who were on the sole parent benefit because they want to work as well. They want to work in jobs that suit their child-caring arrangements and that suit their education. But what has this Government done? It has taken away the education assistance that made it possible for people to get ahead. It has taken away the very education assistance that the Minister herself had which gave her a university degree and which gave her a leg up the ladder. That assistance has been cut by this Government. This bill does not put back that sort of assistance. It does not provide help for beneficiaries to get ahead. We know they want to work given the right opportunities and the right environment. 
One of the most powerful submissions the Social Services Committee received came from the Human Rights Commission. It came from the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner at the Human Rights Commission who had done a focus on work project. This is evidence if the Minister would listen to it. She went out and surveyed 16 regions and 300 employers and she found that there was a total lack of jobs. Jobs are a critical component when one wants to get people off benefits and into work. She found that there were no jobs. She also found evidence of a lack of childcare. So people who are told by this bill that they are required to seek 15 hours of work when their last child is 6 will find that there are no jobs for them and that there is inadequate childcare and inadequate after-school care. Those children are the ones who will be at the bottom of the heap once again. They are the most vulnerable and the most in need of our help and their parents are the ones most in need of our assistance to get them into a position where they can return to the workforce. But this bill is about punishment punishment punishment! There is no pathway forward for unemployed people. 
I know that many of them do want to work and are struggling. They are struggling now and the Minister intends to make it tougher for them. Why would any Government want to do that? Its focus is wrong. This bill is not a future focus; this is a focus on political point-scoring and votes. A Government that really cared about beneficiaries and their children would be looking at providing support for them. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 It has been pretty obvious that the Green Party position on the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill is that it is abusive it degrades beneficiaries and it encourages the community to have a negative and very destructive attitude towards beneficiaries. We saw support for the Government’s position that beneficiaries are somehow inherently bad in the Welfare Working Group’s report which made all sorts of ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims about beneficiaries including mentioning the ridiculous figure of $50 billion which has largely been completely discredited even by fairly conservative media. 
We are working through the bill in the Committee stage and there are a number of amendments on the Table. The Green Party will be supporting the amendments that try to mitigate some of the damage that this legislation is doing. But it is clear that nothing in this bill will address the growing gap between the rich and the poor. The household expenditure and income survey came out yesterday. The Government has failed to make any comment about that. That survey shows that the gap between rich and poor is stagnant and that nothing that this Government has done will impact positively to close that gap. We also know from all of the research that has been done that it is the families on benefits who are at the very bottom. They are the ones on the very lowest incomes. The children of those families are the ones who suffer the worst from poverty. 
This Government argues that the “work first” ideology which is that any work no matter how demeaning no matter how inappropriate and no matter how poorly paid is somehow still good for people and particularly good for the children. That is the argument that this Government makes. But we know from all of the facts and the research that has been done and the experience in Australia for example that that is just not true. There is no evidence that any of the measures in this bill that will threaten sole parents and force them out into inappropriate employment will have any positive impact on them or on their children. In Australia the Government has retreated from the measures that are in this legislation. It has retreated from those measures because it knows that they have failed. Australia is working more towards educating sole parents and providing educational opportunities for those families so that they have a chance to get better work have better incomes and be better able to care for themselves and their families. 
Paula Bennett and I both come from similar situations. We were both sole parents. We both were educated while on the domestic purposes benefit. I am very proud to have been a beneficiary and to have had that support when I needed it. Paula Bennett says the same. But what this legislation does and what Paula Bennett’s policy and this Government’s policy does is take away those exact same opportunities that she and I had. Sole parents on the domestic purposes benefit will not have access to educational opportunities. In fact they will be forced out on threat of losing the very money that they need in order to pay their power bill to pay their rent and to get food on the table for their kids. On threat of losing that very desperately needed income they will be forced into taking inappropriate employment that is likely to be demeaning and not advantage them or the children in any way. That is the effect of what this Government is doing. That is what Paula Bennett is happy to promote as a woman who herself needed that support and received it. 
I still fail to understand why someone who was in exactly this situation which I have been in and which others in this Chamber have been in should take away from other sole parents those same opportunities when we know that by providing education and support particularly to sole parents when their children are young the chances are they will get a better job and a better-paid job once they come off the benefit. It is much better for sole parents and their children in the short and long term to provide support for them rather than threatening to strip them of their meagre income and forcing them into a market place where there just are not the jobs. It has already been discussed by my Labour colleague Annette King that there simply are not the jobs for people to go to. In fact by forcing sole parents out to work like this this legislation drives wages down. It worsens conditions for employees who are vulnerable and it makes it very difficult for employees in this situation to exercise any kind of control over their lives. Parenting is a full-time occupation. If one wants to do a good job of it one needs to be able to do it full time. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 The sad thing about the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill is that it is not about getting beneficiaries back to work. The sad thing about this bill is that it is not about instilling a work ethic in people who do not have one. The sad thing about this bill is that it will do nothing to help into work the ever-growing number of beneficiaries in this country who want to work and are trying to do so in a way that two-parent families can often take for granted. The sad thing about this bill is that it is a nasty nasty piece of political theatre. 
When I heard the Prime Minister and the Minister in the chair the Hon Paula Bennett say that what was wrong with this country was that beneficiaries needed a kick in the pants I was ashamed to be a member of this House. I am ashamed that we have this legislation from a Minister for Social Development and Employment who herself benefited from a system that saw her value as a mother saw her value as someone who needed to be there to raise her daughter acknowledged that sometimes there were barriers to her leaving that system and provided assistance in the form of the training incentive allowance. 
To see that Minister not only take that assistance away from every other solo parent in this country but also introduce legislation that says that beneficiaries are worthless is a shameful day for this House and it is a shameful day for a Minister who has pulled up the ladder behind her and left behind every other solo parent who is in the same situation that she was in. This is not a day of glory for the Parliament of New Zealand. 
The fact is that this legislation is being put in place to hide the fact that the Government has no plan to deal with rising unemployment. It was not that long ago that New Zealand had the lowest rate of unemployment in the world and we did not do that by vilifying beneficiaries. We did not do it by taking some of the most vulnerable people in our country and saying that they are worthless and we will give them a kick in the pants. We did it by trying to create the economic environment that allowed jobs to be made. 
In Mount Roskill today 2700 people applied for 140 supermarket jobs. Why does the Minister continue to tell us that New Zealanders do not want to work when 2700 people queued up for 140 jobs at a supermarket? Last year in South Auckland more than 3000 people queued up for 150 supermarket jobs. New Zealanders want to work but their Government has abandoned them. Worse than that their Government is now blaming them for the fact that they are not in work. Their Government is now saying: “It’s your fault. You’re lazy you’re worthless and that is why you do not have a job.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Oh rubbish! It’s just tripe. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I tell Dr Smith that the reason they do not have jobs is that this Government has no plan to deal with rising unemployment. 
The Government talks about its plan. It talks about research and development. It should tell that to my friend who has a PhD and was fired recently from a Crown research institute because of health cuts. Government members should tell that to the dozens of other scientists in this country who are being fired from Crown research institutes while this Government stands up and says it is doing such a good job in research and development and is creating jobs. Well it is not. 
This legislation is a smokescreen. It is the nastiest type of political smokescreen that we ever see in this House but unfortunately it is one that we have come to expect from a National Government. We can vilify solo parents all we want. We can call them lazy and worthless but we need them to raise their kids. 
Let us talk about the reality of solo parents. I have a parent who went on the domestic purposes benefit after my parents’ marriage broke up. My parent did that because one parent needed to be at home not so much for me because I was old enough to deal with it although it was still hard but because a parent needed to be with my younger brother and sister at a time that is very very difficult for any family and at a time when kids need their parents more than anything else—in the case of a marriage break-up. 
This is often the norm for domestic purposes benefit recipients. They are not baby factories as the Prime Minister called them. They are not baby-factory 14-year-olds popping out kids to make money. They are very often solo parents leaving at the end of their first marriage who need to be with their kids—and their kids need them. They are not worthless. They are carrying out a very important job to make sure that those kids do not end up in such significant trouble in their education that they end up in our justice system. For a Government that constantly trots out the hollow rhetoric of being about families to say that it now does not care that suddenly it is just standard that all kids who grow up in sole parent families at a certain point— 
Debate interrupted. 
Tabling of Documents 
Question No. 3 to Minister—Accident Compensation 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the sensitive claims time line given the questions that were raised during question time today. It is a document that has been prepared by the Accident Compensation Corporation and provided advice to my office and it is the basis on which I gave answers to questions today. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The document will be tabled. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Parts 1 to 5 schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2 ( 
continued 
)  
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I stand in response to some of the rather emotive debate that has gone on around this bill so far. First I say that 28000 people on the benefit will be better off because of this bill pretty much immediately and that is because of the abatement increase from $80 to $100 per week that they can earn. This is a very good day for those people in that they will be recognised for the work they do and they are able to get more of that money in their own pocket and see it as the opportunity that it is. 
This is a bill that recognises fairness that brings equity back into the system and that steps up in support of those people who quite frankly deserve our support and need it most. The bill injects a whole lot around them and gives them the opportunity to take up the training opportunities they need and it provides support around them so that they have the opportunity to look for work. I think it will put the right incentives in place and with that the right sorts of obligations. 
There are exemptions in relation to those things and I heard through the Social Services Committee that there were concerns about those people who perhaps had recently left a relationship and were going through some of the emotional trauma that that can cause. There is an exemption to enable those people to take time and to recognise what that means. There is an exemption in recognition of those who have perhaps come from a violent background and need time to bed in with their children. There are exemptions for those who have children with special needs who perhaps need their parents a bit more. So there are exemptions there for them. 
There is also a clear understanding of what suitable work means. The bill recognises that childcare is needed for those children and that what is needed is the opportunity for people to have work that fits in with the hours that they need that they are able to get to the jobs as they come up and that they have the sort of lines they need so that they can get to them. It is very important that they have that. 
I heard members opposite asking what the definition of suitable work is. Let me give it to them to clear that up. It is that there is an availability of childcare; that it is not employment with excessive hours; that their case managers recognise family commitments and religious commitments which are important for some of those people; and that they are not jobs that offend strongly held views. There are regulations around that as well. The days of the week the type of employment and the skills and experience required are all important justifications to make sure that that job suits the individual. I suppose that is what I wanted to say. 
The thing I will also add here is that there are no penalties for not getting work. I will repeat that one more time because it is really important: there are no penalties whatsoever for not getting work. The only penalties there are for people who are not actually trying. So we are asking people to get themselves work-ready—to be going out and looking for work and to be actively looking to support themselves and their own. Among those on the sickness benefit 9000 currently have a box ticked by their doctors that says they could work part-time; we are asking them to look for work. We believe that it will help them with their wellness. 
Hon Annette King 
: So where are the jobs? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Let me repeat just one more time for that member: there is no penalty for not getting work. I cannot repeat that often enough. I know that it is hard to understand but this is about fairness. You will not get work unless you actually step up and go looking for it. Unless you get yourselves ready you will not be in a position to get jobs. Yes it is not always easy; yes we absolutely recognise that these are tough times. 
I would argue quite strongly that it is not the Government that is stigmatising beneficiaries. Our members believe in getting more for them and we believe in the value they bring to both themselves and their families as well as to the workplace and the people around them. They have something to offer and it is more than having a lifetime on welfare that they then pass on to the next generation. I know that this sounds hard to understand and that the Opposition rallies against it but we will support these people to step up look for those jobs and find those sorts of opportunities in order to break the cycle of dependence that we know wears down families and sees some incredibly tough times for them and their children. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Just before I take the next speaker I say that the presiding officer should not be brought into the debate. The Chair does not need to step up. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 It is very difficult to have to endure the one-liners that come out of the mouth of the Minister for Social Development and Employment when we hear them over and over again with regard to the need for sole parents to step up. I think that we on this side of the Chamber see single mothers on a daily basis who are out there stepping up and doing everything that they need to be doing—and all that they can do—for their children. But unfortunately members on the Government side of the Chamber and the Minister for Social Development and Employment would rather drag those sole parents through the mud and further stigmatise them as well as put out a signal to society that those people are somehow ripping off the system. We on this side of the Chamber would not say all the people out there who have at any point in time accessed welfare have been above board. There have been a few occasions when they have not been. But we cannot assume that these women who are barely able to survive on the amount of money that they receive from welfare are in some way ripping off the system. Instead we would hope that as a Parliament we would be supportive of them. 
We listened to the Minister for Social Development and Employment talk about a few things including the exemptions that can be applied in different circumstances to women who are accessing the domestic purposes benefit. I will talk about a couple of those exemptions because some concerns were raised during the deliberation on this legislation in the Social Services Committee. We discussed them there and I think it is important that we discuss them in this Committee. One of the exemptions is in respect of study. The concern that we on this side of the Chamber have is that the exemption is only for level 4 study and higher levels. Many of the people who access the domestic purposes benefit did not necessarily achieve secondary school qualifications so to assume that they can go either straight out into the workforce or straight into level 4 study is a little negligent. Rather we need to ensure that if they decide to study they can have a pathway through the necessary stages rather than just being thrown into the deep end at level 4. That is one of the concerns that have arisen. 
It is strange to look back on the training incentive allowance and at the changes made there—the very heavy-handed cuts made there—because in the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill the exemption is only for study at levels 4 or above but the training incentive allowance these days can be accessed only by those studying at levels 1 2 or 3. It is absolutely pointless to have the training incentive allowance at all. It makes no sense for it even to be in place because I do not understand who will actually be eligible to access it given what this bill proposes with regard to the study exemption. 
The other exemption that has been given to us—which we have been advised on by the officials and which we have discussed in detail—is around the circumstances of women who are exiting violent relationships. When we discussed that we talked about whether case managers would necessarily be equipped to deal with the individual circumstances of these women—I will say women because they predominately are women—when they come into their offices. I asked a couple of women’s groups when they came to the select committee about how many women would actually walk in to see a case manager whom they did not know—and we should keep in mind that the whole case management load has changed as well so they will not necessary have the same case manager as before—and feel comfortable enough to tell the case manager that they have come in to get the domestic purposes benefit because they are exiting a violent relationship. The case manager will not necessarily ask them that and we can understand why he or she would not. But we also have to understand that many of those women would not feel comfortable necessarily about divulging that information straight away nor would they even know that it will be a criterion for an exemption from work testing in the first place. It is not as though there is a sign up that instructs them about the exemptions. 
So there are serious flaws in this bill including those in the exemptions—the exemptions that the Minister for Social Development and Employment was talking about earlier. These things need to be looked at further but unfortunately we have come out of a select committee process in which they were not paid enough attention at all so we will have exemptions that will not achieve what they are meant to achieve. 
I have talked about study and I have talked about violence but the No. 1 concern that arose from this bill was about the fact that it discriminates based on gender marital status and family status. It is not we on this side of the Chamber who are making that claim; the Attorney-General came out from the get-go and wrote a report that said that in respect of this legislation. It is a sad sad day when we allow through legislation that discriminates on the basis of those three things as if there is nothing wrong with it. As my colleague from the Green Party Metiria Turei said earlier she has come from a background where she accessed the domestic purposes benefit as a single mother. So has the Minister for Social Development and Employment; so have I. All of us know that a lot of challenges come with attempting to raise children by ourselves when we are single parents. To boot single parents while they are down by allowing legislation to go through that discriminates against them and stigmatises them further in society is completely unjust. We wonder what kind of Parliament we are part of when legislation like this is allowed to go through. 
In the last few days two single parents from west Auckland have come through my office. One of them in fact had an article written about her in the  
New Zealand Herald  
this morning. The woman is studying at an Auckland tertiary institution; she is trying to raise her 12-year-old daughter by herself. The article discussed the fact that the woman has gone down from size 10 to size 6 because she has to sacrifice eating in order the pay the bills and raise her daughter. Hekia Parata is laughing about that but I met that woman and this is a true story. I have seen her for myself and heard her story first-hand. Perhaps Hekia Parata should read that article in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 because it is sad— 
Hekia Parata 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not know what the relevant Standing Order is but as I was not laughing at what the member was speaking about I object to having that attributed to me. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will explain to the member that that is not the way in which one addresses that matter. If the member has been misrepresented or misquoted the member can stand up at the end of the call and ask for leave to make a personal statement. But I think that is unnecessary now as the point has been made. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: One thing that this single mother who has gone down from a size 10 to a size 6 because she has been sacrificing food so that she can pay the bills and raise her daughter said was that if the Government had just left well enough alone and had left the training incentive allowance in place then she would have been able to survive quite adequately. She would have had access to about $3800 a year. 
Here is a woman who is— 
Hon Annette King 
: A science degree. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: That is exactly right; she is getting a science degree. It is mentioned in the article as well that her husband the father of her daughter was violent. The woman came out of a violent relationship. She is trying to better herself. She is trying to get ahead so that when she goes into the workforce she can get a job that will provide an adequate income for her and her daughter. She is also trying to be a role model for her daughter and show her that this is what it is about. It is all about getting a good education. She is showing her daughter that mum can do it so the daughter of course will be able to do it as well. Yet this Government would deny people like that woman things like the training incentive allowance and would make life even harder for them down the track in terms of the welfare reforms that it is looking to push through. 
I sat on the select committee and listened to the submissions and I say that the vast majority of the submissions that came through on this legislation were opposed to it. The vast majority of the submissions that came from our social services and our church organisations were opposed to this legislation. They were from respected organisations and individuals and the reason they were opposed to it was that they saw it as being unjust. They saw it as being discriminatory. We had our church organisations stand up and talk about their concerns with regard to this Government and the fact that it continues to devolve increasing loads of responsibility on to those voluntary organisations which just do not have the capacity to deal with the workload that is going through. Their concern is that the Government should be working alongside them to look after the vulnerable and the weak but instead the Government is devolving more and more responsibility to them. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I will try to make a speech that agrees at least in part with all sides of the debate which is no easy thing; I will see how long it takes before the shouting starts. 
Firstly it is certainly a myth that vast hordes of solo mothers—as the old term used to be; I do not really like the word “beneficiaries”—are out there rorting the system and having a wonderful old time. That is a myth. It is certainly a myth that the lifestyle enjoyed by beneficiaries on the domestic purposes benefit—or indeed on any other benefit—is luxurious. That is a myth. Equally it is a myth that no one chooses—or as Ms Sepuloni conceded only a few choose—that lifestyle. 
As the two previous speakers have used anecdotes in their speeches I will use one in mine. In the last 3 weeks or so I ran across an acquaintance whom I had not seen for more than 10 years. I wrote about this in a column that I write elsewhere. The woman was heavily pregnant and I remarked upon that and we went off and had a coffee. I ascertained that this was a planned and welcomed pregnancy that had cost money because it was an in vitro job. 
When I casually asked what the plans were for raising the child my acquaintance who is not an unintelligent woman and not a young woman said that of course she would be applying for the domestic purposes benefit. I asked what she meant by “of course”. I asked whether she understood that that money comes from the rest of the taxpayers and I quoted the late great journalist Frank Haden. He said on many occasions that the “Gummint” as he called it has no money; the “Gummint” uses ours. My acquaintance purported not to understand what I meant. She said that it was her right to raise children on the domestic purposes benefit paid for by the Government. I tried again and explained that the Government has no money; it uses mine it uses Ms King’s and it uses every other worker’s money. At that unfortunately the coffee turned rather frosty. In response to that column I have received several emails from people whom I do not know who have cited similar cases so to say that those kinds of cases are almost unknown or extremely rare is sadly not true. 
The other thing as I said at the beginning of my speech is that it is not a luxurious lifestyle but that is part of the problem. We have created a society where it is seen as acceptable and perhaps not too bad to be on the domestic purposes benefit. The result is impoverished children impoverished mothers and great difficulty with regard to the societal problems that have been addressed by members on the other side of the Chamber. 
I agree with the Labour Party that the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill is almost laughable with regard to the loopholes that it has created. The Labour members would not call them loopholes but whatever those members call them those exemptions can be claimed so as to avoid the consequences of the bill. We need to create a society that reaffirms the old cliché that welfare is a hand up and not a handout. It is not to be considered a lifestyle option. It is not a good idea to plan for it. 
One of the correspondents I have heard from over the past few days said that she was astounded that at the careers evening at her daughter’s school—an upper decile school—it was considered an acceptable career option to be a solo mother. That is appalling. It is appalling on a whole pile of levels. It is appalling for the taxpayer but mostly it is appalling for the child. Imagine saying— 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Where’s the bloke in all this? 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Well Ms Sepuloni insisted on talking about women. We will talk about parents; it does not matter—we will say a solo parent. Imagine creating a system as we have where a viable career option is to be a solo parent. What a disgraceful situation we have got ourselves into. 
This bill goes nowhere near far enough. I was sitting listening to the Minister for Social Development and Employment speaking and thinking that as a lawyer I could drive a truck through all those exemptions. It will not be hard for people to find their way out of working. We need a far more fundamental attitudinal change and this bill does not achieve that. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. Kia ora tatou katoa. I am really glad to take a call on the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill. Last week in Whanganui I launched a leaflet in support of the rights of beneficiaries. I launched it with the Whanganui People’s Centre and the Whanganui Disability Resources Centre. The people there were very glad that for once somebody was getting up and saying something positive about their human rights and about the fact that they pay taxes the fact that they contribute in their local economies and the fact that many of them are doing a great job as volunteers caring for elderly family members and children. They are very tired of being told that there is something very wrong with doing that. We never talk in this House about wealth dependency which is another issue but we talk a lot about what is wrong with the poor. 
But I will be quite specific and talk about the bill today because that is what we are here to do. I agree with David Garrett the previous speaker that the real debate is not being had. I would not agree with his conclusions or with his rhetoric perhaps but the real debate is whether we can get outside blame and look at the causes of poverty in a realistic way. If an economist like Gareth Morgan can talk about the need for a universal basic income as a possible idea I ask whether we can talk about something like that and whether that would be the best way to deliver it instead of insisting on finding out who is to blame for the fact that the welfare system costs me as a taxpayer money. I am happy to pay because I want to live in a decent society a civilised society where the vulnerable and the people who are looking after kids are worth something. I ask why we do not put the benefit up if we think that people are too poor instead of starting to attack beneficiaries. 
After 4 years in Tai Rawhiti dealing with Work and Income I am afraid I must say that the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s description of what Work and Income might do with this bill is a fantasy. The reality is that on the ground we have overworked staff and many many people coming through the door who suffer from beneficiary abuse—and that is not always the fault of the staff. We have to change the culture in our society if we want Work and Income to deliver fairness and justice. 
But let us get on to the specifics of the bill. Sickness beneficiaries in particular are under the gun. In clause 31 the bill provides for reduction of a work-tested benefit by 50 percent if a beneficiary fails to comply with a work test. The Minister said that of course that will be the case if someone is not seen to be looking for work. How on earth will that be defined by a case manager? If people say they are looking for work will the case manager disbelieve them? If there is no work to be found as in places like the East Coast what will they do? How will they decide whether a person is the deserving poor or the undeserving poor? We already have a punishing culture towards beneficiaries; anyone who has worked in the field knows that. 
Other provisions of the bill will apply to sickness beneficiaries who are assessed as able to undertake part-time work. If those people fail to meet Work and Income’s requirements they will be in trouble. If we take 50 percent away from sickness beneficiaries who are already struggling especially when GST is about to go up what are they left with? A young man came into our office when I was an advocate and asked whether we could help him get some kind of benefit otherwise he would go out to do a burglary. That was how desperate he was. We can romanticise the Work and Income experience and say the staff are there to facilitate people getting appropriate work but I am sorry that is not what happens on the ground. Now that we have 60 percent of the total unemployment figure coming from Maori unemployed on the East Coast we know that that is not what happens to people. 
We also know that doctors are being encouraged to see sickness beneficiaries as work-ready and if they make one statement that they could do a few hours a day do members know where those people can end up? I do because I worked in this field before this bill was introduced. We end up with people who have epilepsy working in the fields picking capsicums and having epileptic fits; and people who have morbid obesity being told they can stand all day on a cool-store floor. That is what part-time work-readiness means on the East Coast in Work and Income. 
Let us be honest: if we cut the income of people who are sick we will not make them better. If we do not find the right work and do not invest in disability—as we do not—we will not be able to create the right environment for those people. Those people do want to work because who wants to be called a lazy bludger loser bottom of the heap beneficiary? No one does because it has no status even though some of us try to give respect to those people and even though some of us work to gain that respect for those people. They would like to work but not at the expense of their families and their health. 
As we have seen with accident compensation medical opinions about a person’s capacity for work can vary. They can vary from practitioner to practitioner from day to day and from week to week meaning that people with chronic illnesses have good days and bad days just as politicians do. We may wonder how many good days we have in this place when we start talking about punishing the poor further. A designated doctor sees only a snapshot of a person’s health on the day of the consultation and is more likely to get it wrong. That is the designated doctor who has a bias towards saying it is great for people’s health to go out to work. That is not true if people are sick. 
Suppose the designated doctor gets it wrong because even a person’s regular general practitioner especially when under pressure of suggestion from Work and Income’s regional health adviser as to the individual beneficiary’s capacity for work can get it wrong. Who will pay for that? Everybody in the end will pay if we send unfit people into a workplace where there are no jobs or if we say they are not working hard enough and cut their benefit by 50 percent. If the medical assessor gets it wrong the beneficiary is subject to the work test and will fail it not because of any fault of his or her own but because the assessment was wrong in the first place. 
I say “Track it back.” It is all very well for the Minister to say that the beneficiary has the right of appeal to a medical appeal board over the decision to work test and a right of review to the subsequent decision but the medical appeal board and benefits review committee hearings take a long time to organise. Frequently they do not happen within a month of the appeal. The beneficiary may also need to obtain a second opinion from a specialist to support his or her contention of being unfit to work. Sometimes it might take a month to see a specialist so in the meantime what are people living on? And what is happening to their state of confidence about their ability to pay their bills not to mention to care for their children? 
The appeals process is good for people who know how to appeal. Sometimes the most vulnerable beneficiaries are not literate so what is their capacity to appeal? I know there are not advocates all over this country because there are only a few of those people who can advocate for beneficiaries. Will an illiterate person fill out an appeal form and then wait to see a specialist? Hello! That is what will happen. In the meantime under clause 31 of the bill the person’s benefit will have been reduced to zero not because he or she did not comply with the work test but because the work test was wrongly imposed in the first place. 
I ask the Minister what she will do to prevent that from happening. Will there be directions that sanctions are not to be imposed on sickness beneficiaries who are contesting the imposition of a work test? That would be really interesting to know because otherwise we are penalising those people before they have had a chance to establish whether in fact they are ready for work. Or are we content to sit back and see beneficiaries lose their homes sell off their possessions or be forced into crime and prostitution? That is what clause 31 will do to sickness beneficiaries who are wrongly subjected to a work test. 
We have to go into the minutiae here to look at what happens on the front line every day. We have to walk into Work and Income. Outside the Ruatoria office of Work and Income my organisation saw 50 people who were too scared to walk through the door and that was before this bill was introduced. Those people were intimidated because of the risk that if they said the wrong thing if they had not brought the right paperwork or if they were not sufficiently literate they could lose a benefit they needed to survive because there were not thousands of jobs at Ruatoria. 
Hekia Parata 
: You’re so unfair to the staff there. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY 
: The staff at the Ruatoria office might do their best but in the end those people were intimidated by the system and that system is not set up to support those people. 
There are many people who go into Work and Income with a multiplicity of issues and they need to be defended and protected by the law of the land—just as the staff do too. They are all victims if we have a punishing and blaming system. We can do it differently. We can do it a lot differently. We can start creating real work that is appropriate to people but it will not work if we start from the premise that punishment and sanctions inspire change. They inspire despair manipulation and anger. It does not inspire the idea that all of us no matter what our economic status our state of health or our well-being are valuable. We need to live in a society that values all people and allows us to have time to do things that do not always bring in money. 
As parents it is so important that we can be home for our kids. On the one hand we are saying to parents they should get their kids off the street and on the other hand we are saying we will cut their benefits if they are not showing a sufficiently relentless focus on finding a job. We cannot legislate those contradictions and expect to have the respect of the people of this country if that is how we approach this issue. We need a new and fresh debate about how we will create real living wages affordable benefits and affordable jobs. 
To get a job people need to have resources. They need to have the ability to travel in rural areas and they need clothes that are suitable for workplaces. In order to get there they do not need to be punished; they need to be inspired and supported. If people think that the culture of Work and Income is about inspiring and supporting the vulnerable they have not been there lately. Believe me a lot of us have and we are saying that ever since Christine Rankin there has been a culture of negativity towards beneficiaries. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is interesting to note just how broken this place can be if we look at it from the other side of the Chamber. All we hear in the debate on the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill from members opposite is that anyone who does not have a job needs to be completely mollycoddled and should never be encouraged to stand on his or her own two feet. Members opposite say that to ask people to do anything at all to assist in their own situation is being harsh and mean and that it is the only province of the political right. 
Let us look for instance at the speeches from previous speakers who have made the point that we on this side of the Chamber are apparently stigmatising those who are out of work. Let us have a little look at stigmatisation. We know that members on the other side of the Chamber need people to be poor and pissed off so that they will continue to vote Labour. Members opposite cannot afford to let poor people have aspirations to do better for themselves and their families because they are afraid that when they do those people will realise that the pattern of electoral history is to keep returning the party opposite to power. It was in Government for 9 long years and never increased the abatement rate at all. The previous Labour Government did nothing to encourage those people to go out and do what little they could in the time they had available to increase their household incomes—even just a little bit. 
The other thing members opposite are really good at when it comes to stigmatisation is saying that anyone who works for the Ministry of Social Development is evil does not care does not listen will not speak and will never do anything for people they come across. Well I go into my Ministry of Social Development offices on regular occasions and my office staff and I speak and advocate for those people who need assistance. I find people who are willing to help who care about their clients and who work hard to encourage those clients to enhance their own situation. But not according to that side of the Chamber. Members opposite want to relegate those clients into believing that there is nothing they could or should do to enhance their situation. 
We know that one thing that encourages a person’s self-esteem and the aspirations of those around them is a job. What do we hear from the other side of the Chamber? There are no jobs. It suits Labour to say there are no jobs so people should not bother looking for a job. They should not present for an interview! If we listen to the previous speaker Catherine Delahunty we hear that apparently job seekers have no clothes to wear to a job interview because life on the benefit is absolutely so poor and so terrible. Well I do not aspire to be on a benefit. My children have aspired to be on a benefit at times and they have done their darnedest not to go there. 
The point is that those people care. They want to get out and get a job and they find the wherewithal to do it. We should do everything we can to encourage them. Members opposite know that nothing in this legislation penalises somebody who tries to get a job and cannot get one. Absolutely nothing prevents that person from presenting for a job and getting it. 
Members on the other side of the Chamber we find as much as they talk about work and jobs undervalue the aspiration and the enhancement brought to people’s lifestyles by working. They do that constantly. The message that members opposite give out time and time again is that there is no work. Well there is work. In some places it is difficult to find but it is there. We have a history in this country of people needing work travelling to find it. They may need to move addresses but members opposite say they could never do that. It would be the most terrible thing that anyone could ever do! Yet in all our family trees we see people who at one time or another have changed their situation so that they can find work. They have retrained travelled moved house or done something to get work and they have benefited from it. 
It is very very difficult to find current statistics but we know that not too long ago the average income of a sole person household was $16900. Anything we can do to encourage people in need of work to find work to encourage young people who live within their care and in those communities and to see those people better themselves is a very good thing. We have aspirations for those people; we want to see them do well. We will give them an incentive to do that; that side of the Chamber had 9 long years and did not give them one. This legislation is an enhancement of National’s policy and indictment on Labour’s. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 It is funny—we are all trying to do the same thing but we have different approaches. When I hear about this Government’s approach I simply say that today is a sad day for the Government. The Minister in the chair the Minister for Social Development and Employment wants to be known when she leaves this place for what she has done to make New Zealand a better place. If this is the bill that will brand the Minister I think she needs to hang her head in shame. 
Chester Borrows talked about statistics but I say to him that the statistics are starkly evident and worsening while this sort of trivial legislation comes before the Committee. I must say that I feel sorry for the policy advisers all the workers in the ministry and all the case managers out there who were working to change the culture of the ministry over the last 9 years and who will now have to enforce this punitive unfair and unjust legislation. 
I will read out the statistics for Mr Borrows. Unemployment has risen to nearly 160000 people. They are out of work. They do not want to be out of work. On the other hand the Government has absolutely no plan and no milestones to find jobs and stimulate the economy. The Minister for Economic Development the Hon Gerry Brownlee said today in the House that he had no milestones other than an aspiration to close the gap with Australia by 2025. He said today that that is the only milestone. When the economy expands—it is quite simple I say to the Minister—more jobs are available and benefit numbers fall. We saw it over the 9 years that Labour was in Government. I think it is stark that that is the issue that the National Government is focusing on. 
I will tell the Committee what we heard from the Minister of Education today. She stood up and crowed about trades academies. There is no trades academy in Rotorua. Youth and Maori unemployment in Rotorua is an embarrassment and the people who are trying to get work simply will not get work. They will not get training. They will not get skills. But the Government is smearing around a little bit of good news. The Minister said there were 12 trades academies but that is not good enough. That focus on education should have been on taking the cap off tertiary placements and putting back the adult and community education that this Government cut—those are the things that this Government is showing it is not interested in. 
I will mention another thing because the Minister of Women’s Affairs Pansy Wong is in the Chamber today. I had one fabulous year as the Minister of Women’s Affairs and I said that the health of a mother is paramount in terms of the health of her children. I tell the Minister of Women’s Affairs that we worked with the Ministry of Social Development and the Ministry of Health and we developed a youth pregnancy and parenting plan. What has Pansy Wong done in the 18 months since she became the Minister of Women’s Affairs to implement the targets in the youth pregnancy and parenting plan? That plan was about wrapping services around young people instead of stigmatising them like the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill does. 
Also the Minister of Health has cut funding to youth health centres where young people go to get advice about avoiding the risk of pregnancy. If that funding is cut around the country where can those young people go? 
The Government continues to keep its head in the sand saying that young people want to get pregnant in order to get a benefit. Well that is rubbish. I say to the Minister that I set up the Rotorua School for Young Parents—and the Minister now takes all the credit for the work that has been done for young parents. That school was about young women who got trapped by pregnancy who saw that education was their only way out of that conundrum and who found themselves alone without the support of family and friends and often without the support of the child’s father. 
I tell the Minister that this bill does absolutely nothing for those mothers who are trying to better themselves through education trying to get a break trying to get a foot into work and to step up as that Minister says. This legislation stomps on beneficiaries stigmatises them further and implements nothing practical other than the increasing of the abatement. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 It was amazing to hear the comments made by Chester Borrows a few minutes ago. He characterised the Labour Party as being interested in keeping all people “poor and pissed off”. It was a pathetic statement from that member. He ought to know full well that the work that has been done by this party over a long period of time has produced many of the leaders of New Zealand today and captains of industry who have done exceptionally well. They have no interest in doing what he says we are interested in; they still support the very principles that this party stands for. 
He is however right in the sense that people want to work and want to work hard. I wonder why Mr Borrows and members opposite lose sight of that fact. A very very short time ago—and many members will remember it very well—New Zealand had the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD. How did that happen? It happened because the climate was created for people to have jobs and people worked. In fact the unemployment numbers were so low that I do not think Work and Income could have done much better. It is still proven today that New Zealanders want to work. They want to get out there get a job and do well. In fact the figures that Mr Phil Goff quoted this morning—about 2700 people applying for 150 jobs—demonstrate that point. 
What has changed is that the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill requires people who are on the unemployment benefit to reapply for it every year. Why is that necessary? Is it not simply to be absolutely punitive and to demonstrate the Government’s right-wing ideology that punishes those who somehow for a short period are supported by the State? Work and Income has all of the tools already and it works exceptionally well in triaging people who are on the unemployment benefit by giving them plans to develop themselves by putting them into training programmes and by making sure they have all of the requirements to get into a job and to keep it. That is the approach to take rather than the punitive one that this bill takes. 
It is an observation that there is an amazing lack of appreciation of the life that many beneficiaries lead in New Zealand. This is despite the fact that the Minister in the chair herself the Hon Paula Bennett has been in that position in her early life. Oh how quickly they forget. When the Minister was in that position—I knew her then and I knew exactly the advantages that were available to her—she availed herself of all of those advantages and so she should. I believe Labour promoted those policies. The Minister had every right to get a tertiary education to have support to bring up her child and to move to where she is at today. Why then do members such as the Minister—and others who have passed through this Chamber—adopt a conservative punitive approach towards this group of mainly women and towards their children by putting them under the grill? 
Nothing in this bill can be said to be developmental for the life of a solo mother who is bringing up a child; there is nothing in it. Yet for some reason people of a conservative ilk—and the Minister is one—forget the advantages they took from the State and refuse to allow others to have them. It is all very clever. They disguise it in the frame that this will be good for beneficiaries and it will help them to improve themselves. 
Who supports this bill? The Minister ought to reflect on this also. Certainly Government members of the Social Services Committee did not reflect on it. I would like those members to take a call and tell us who they recall supported the major aspects of the bill. They were not there. 
The bill is branded as an exercise in fairness and as having an unrelenting focus on work. What is fair about this bill? It needs to be explained. Certainly the report from the Government’s own Attorney-General says that it is unfair. In terms of this unrelenting focus on work the Government ought to realise something. We go through a life cycle and at different points of the life cycle we have different needs and different experiences. We draw assistance differently and we contribute differently—that is how it is. From birth to death we go through those phases. 
It was amazing to see the people who did not support the bill. Maybe the Minister ought to take advice from the person who taught her social policy. Professor Michael O’Brien said that this bill has no redeeming features and ought to be withdrawn. That is excellent advice from the Minister’s own professor. If there is to be an unrelenting focus on work then with the growth in unemployment why is there no unrelenting focus on the creation of employment? If the Minister were serious about that it would produce the same results that the last Government produced and reduce unemployment to negligible levels. People who can work would be able to. But that is not what this Government is interested in. 
In the absence of all of that in many of the policies that this Government is following there is an underlying philosophy of being punitive of picking off one sector of our society and advantaging another. That is amazing. Eventually it destroys the very thing this society tries to create. Why cannot we all let down the ladder that we climbed up rather than when we get up to the top pulling it away from those who are trying to climb up the same ladder? That would be a generous gift. I know of women colleagues in the Labour Party and in the Green Party who have had this experience and they talk passionately about it and about the many cases they know about. They do not forget that. They have done well. They are here as members of Parliament but they remember the struggle. They have made a promise to themselves that they will do everything in this Chamber to ensure that others have the same advantages. 
The bill also demonstrates an amazing disregard for the life of a solo parent who is trying to bring up a child. I am a man and I have only observed others doing this. I have worked with many in my professional life and I have taught many as well. When one has worked with people who are in that particular situation one goes home and simply marvels at how some of those women particularly solo mothers can manage two or three children do a whole bunch of volunteer work keep the family connections growing and still do well on the smell of an oily rag. Members then come into this Chamber and are confronted with the policy that this bill reflects which is simply saying that beneficiaries ought to do better. They have to get back into work and the Government will command that that be so. It demonstrates an amazing disregard for what those women do. 
I have a 13-month-old granddaughter. I see the efforts my daughter makes to bring up her child and she has a husband and us as grandparents. Imagine what it is like for parents who are on their own and trying to do this. This bill says that after a parent’s youngest child goes to school at age 6 that parent will be free to work from the time his or her child starts school until he or she returns home. This assumes that parents have nothing else to do to prepare for the life of one two or three children and to do the amazing amount of voluntary work that these women in particular undertake. Labour has proposed an amendment to define voluntary work as work so that when women are doing voluntary work they will not be caught by the provisions of this bill. Many submitters submitted on that particular point and we will raise it again. Thank you. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I am sure it will not come as a surprise to the Committee that I stand along with my colleagues to oppose the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge all the earlier speakers certainly those from this side of the Chamber for the great contributions that they have made. I urge the Minister in the chair the Hon Paula Bennett to listen to what has been said because common sense has to prevail on this issue. The one position that the Minister heralds as a wonderful wonderful thing is the benefit abatement provision in terms of income thresholds but we know that the increase in GST will wipe that out for a start. Once again people on benefits will be behind the eight ball. 
The main objective of these changes astounds me because the Government states that the main objective is to ensure a fairer system of social assistance with an “unrelenting focus on work”. Well that has to be one of the funniest things that I have heard in this Chamber apart from hearing Nick Smith answering questions about accident compensation in question time. It would be up there would it not? 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Sad. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Sad-funny. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It is sad-funny. It is peculiar-funny and that is what the Government is about. It is a very very peculiar Government. On the one hand it says it has an unrelenting focus on work and on the other hand it creates no jobs. It says it has an unrelenting focus on work but it gives employers the ability to sack people in their first 3 months of employment. If we look at what has happened today we find that Phil Goff spoke about his visit to a supermarket opening in his electorate of Mount Roskill. There were 150 jobs and that is great but it just about became a health and safety issue because 2500 people applied for those 150 jobs and people could have been mown down in the rush. That is an absolute indictment on this Government. It is absolutely appalling. 
Then we can look at the domestic purposes benefit provision that says once a woman’s youngest child is 6 years old that woman should be back at work. I know that my colleague the wonderful Carmel Sepuloni talked about that. When my youngest child was 6 years old I went back to work. I tell the Committee that it was not easy to do so. If this Government is so intent in its unrelenting focus on getting people into work even though there is no job creation then why did it not support the legislation on flexible work hours? If this Government wants to pretend that it really fosters good working relationships then I would love it if Kate Wilkinson took a call on that issue. If the Government wants to foster good working relationships why did it not support the legislation on flexible work hours when it came in? No it did not. It wants to take a punitive approach to people getting into work. 
Labour’s track record is that when a Government provides support training and opportunities people will take advantage of them. The previous Labour Government gave people those incentives and unemployment dropped dramatically. Let us look at early childhood education. Many people who want to get back into work by taking advantage of our early childhood policy find there has been a dumbing down of the provisions: there have been funding cuts and indeed there have been cuts to the quality of early childhood education. This Government puts no money where its mouth is. In fact that would be a pretty fair comment. For the Minister who has put this bill forward it is all about using a mouth; it is all about using a big mouth. It is all about “stepping up”. There is lots and lots of using a big mouth—a big mouth about stepping up. I ask the Minister to take a call and tell us just how someone is supposed to step up when the Government uses every available opportunity to dump on people. If people step up it jumps on them and pushes them down. That is what this Government does. 
I see some of the Government members opposite. I see that Katrina Shanks looks perturbed—and Katrina often looks quite perturbed because of this Government. Indeed a number of Government members look perturbed about this Government. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: They are embarrassed. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: They are more than embarrassed; they are ashamed. But those Government members who are not ashamed should be. This bill does nothing at all to help people to get into work. If those members want to see people being helped to get into work they should look at the initiatives that the previous Labour Government brought in. We brought in initiatives such as support for working mothers and paid parental leave. But that was opposed by National. We brought in early childhood initiatives but the Hon Paula Bennett was the biggest opponent of early childhood education. That was absolutely shocking. Then of all things although she took every advantage every opportunity that she had in terms of the training incentive allowance to further her own career what did she do? She pulled up the ladder after herself. How the hang can people step up when there is no ladder because the Minister has pulled it up? 
We have seen some doozy bills from the Government. But this bill is up there; it is as bad as it gets. Would members agree? 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: I agree with that. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I am really proud that we agree. Carmel Sepuloni Darien Fenton Rajen Prasad and Su’a William Sio all agree that people need to have opportunities in order to reach their full potential. We know about the dignity of work and the dignity of having a good job. I always remember something that Ken Douglas told us—and he is probably vilified by the National Government. When Ken Douglas got his first job his grandad told him to look after that job because somebody had worked very very hard to create it and the terms and conditions around it. This Government has made an absolute virtue out of decimating workplace rights and workplace pay. This Government has opposed every initiative to improve conditions of work the ability to work and the ability to train. 
I heard Steve Chadwick say earlier that nearly 160000 people are out of work. When we received that information from our research unit the figure was 159000. Given the way that this Government is going I am sure the figure will be up to 160000 by now because it escalates day by day. This Government said it would create jobs and had an unrelenting focus on work. Well I have news for this Government: if it wants people to have an unrelenting focus on work then it has to have an unrelenting focus on creating jobs so that they can work. There are no jobs no plans no training no support and nothing that helps people to get into work and to gain dignity from working. But if people do get a job hanging over their head they have the thought that at any time within the first 3 months they can be dumped for any reason whatsoever. If they managed to be one of the 150 people who got a job at the supermarket today—out of the 2500 who applied—there is no protection. There is no ability for them to be told that their employer may have some concerns about their work so they should lift your performance and step up. No they can be dumped within the first 3 months in their job. That measure comes from a Government that says it has an unrelenting focus on work. It is an absolute joke. 
Members on this side of the Chamber will continue to oppose this bill. I thank Mr Chairperson Roy for allowing me to take two calls. I know that this issue is something that he feels quite passionate about. We appreciate it that he has allowed members on this side to take those calls. I urge Government members to put up step up or shut up. If they cannot justify this bill then we urge them to listen to the common-sense profound deep and meaningful arguments from members on our side who say this legislation will not work. We say it is just a bit of good old-fashioned beneficiary-bashing. The National Government seems to think there is a lot of merit in doing that. As I have said before we oppose this bill. I am sure we will hear a lot more about it from the Labour members. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I will respond and put some of the facts on the table. Currently around 6000 jobs are registered with Work and Income and around 1200 come in every week. Last month alone we saw more than 4000 people come off the unemployment benefit for the reason of finding work—more than 4000 people just last month. We are triaging away. Of those who come into Work and Income to go on to a benefit up to 40 percent currently are going away; they do not need a benefit because they have found work. 
I will put some perspective around sole parents and their capacity to work. Thirty-five percent of sole parents work full-time 52 percent are employed and 10000 people who are currently on the domestic purposes benefit earn more than $80 a week. I will give those numbers again because they give a little bit of perspective on where we are at and what we are dealing with. 
To put some context around those numbers I do not underestimate the size of what we are trying to do. I do not underestimate how people’s confidence can be low how hard it is to go out and ask for someone to give them a job. I do not underestimate the courage it takes to get out there and put oneself forward when one has perhaps been unemployed for quite some time. That does not mean that I believe those people cannot do it. That does not mean that I will not believe in their capacity to have a better life than what such limited income and opportunities there are on the benefit provide. I believe in the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill which we have put forward. I think it gives a level of fairness the right sorts of obligations and the right sorts of incentives. 
I will put this issue in perspective with regard to the calls that I often get and what I have been hearing so far today. Thirty-five percent of sole parents are working full-time 52 percent are currently employed and 10000 people on the domestic purposes benefit earn over $80 per week. What we are doing is—[ 
Interruption 
] That member knows what this bill is doing. I know that the Committee recognises that the bill is raising those abatement thresholds. It is giving beneficiaries an opportunity to earn more and keep it in their pockets. I know that the Committee recognises that we are legislating for CPI increases—something that has never been done before. It locks that in and makes sure that people are recognised. 
I also acknowledge out-of-school care and recreation. We are looking at after-school care. We recognise that we can put a bit more money in there we can get rid of some of the bureaucracy and we can make sure that they are getting that level of support. We are also addressing a whole lot of the issues of the independent youth benefit. I felt strongly about the independent youth benefit. I felt that there was an obligation on those who are aged below 18 to be in education or training first of all—for some it may be a job. Education and training will now be compulsory for those under the age of 18 who receive State help. Whereas it has been optional before we are moving towards making it compulsory. Those are parts of the bill that I think are fair and are moving in the right direction. 
I also bring to the Committee’s attention some of the financial benefits that the changes to this bill can make which are very real. For example let us look at the financial benefit from work as of 1 October when this is introduced for a sole parent with two children over 6 perhaps living in South Auckland and earning the minimum wage. If that person was on a benefit and not working they may get around $278 a week on the domestic purposes benefit a family tax credit of around $149 an accommodation supplement of $165 temporary additional support of $14.73 and temporary GST assistance of $5.62. That is a total of $612.60. On a benefit working 15 hours a week on the minimum wage—I am not trying to dress it up to make it look any better than it is—they would still get the domestic purposes benefit of about $250 a week and their wage or salary would be about $153. The others stay as they are except that they lose the $14.73 temporary assistance. They are getting a total of $724 a week. We are talking about them being $110 a week better off. They also continue to have access to an accommodation supplement which is included in that $110 figure. They will also get access to childcare assistance. There is often that discrepancy for people who may not understand that they can still keep assistance from Work and Income if they work; it is not just one or the other. 
As I have already stated we have more work coming into Work and Income on a weekly basis now than we had at this time last year. We now have 86 industry partnerships working directly with industry and with employers who want to help us employ people and get the right training involved. Seventeen have stepped up and said that they want to work exclusively with sole parents. They want to recognise them as a workforce of the future they think that they have something to give and are of value and they want to work alongside them. 
We also recognise Job Ops and what it has brought. Around 7200 people have taken up job opportunities with employers. Of them at the moment anywhere between 75 and 80 percent come off and do not go back on to a benefit. That has made a significant difference. In the Budget we introduced another 6000 places. A financial budget of about $24.7 million went into that initiative. As the Committee will be aware we also recently reintroduced the Community Max programme. There are 1500 places going into rural communities. We have just reintroduced another 1500 places on that which we know are making a difference. A whole lot of other programmes are also going along. Some of the members may have seen changes to the Training Opportunities Programme which we recently introduced. We are moving some of those opportunities into more employment-focused training programmes. 
We believe that we can work with those providers in a different way directly related to employers. We can get quite local in terms of what work is coming up and where it is likely to be and get better at focusing and getting future work going. We can make sure that work is available for those who receive benefits and we can help them move towards it. 
Once it is balanced once people look at this bill for what it is actually giving and recognise exactly the volume of work that is coming in but also recognise that these are not the easiest of times I believe they will see that things will get better. There will be more opportunities for people. This bill will be part of that future focus and recognising the opportunities for those people. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I find it particularly telling that at no point in Minister Bennett’s contribution did she address any of the areas of this bill the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill where we have expressed our opposition. At no point did she talk about any of the additional testing that has been put in place. She simply addressed issues around the abatement which we have said we do not contest; we are in absolute agreement. The fact that the Minister has chosen not to talk about those more controversial aspects of this bill is I think particularly telling—it does indeed say it all. 
Before I go on to the substantive points of my initial address to the Chamber I want to reflect on some statements that were made previously by Chester Borrows a member of this House whom I frequently work with and whom I have a great deal of respect for. But I have to say that I do not believe for a second that Mr Borrows believed anything he said during his contribution. I do not think I need to remind the Chamber as to who brought down benefit numbers to the lowest level in decades. It was Labour. It was Labour that brought down benefit numbers in its last term of Government. I refuse to be lectured by the Government about aspiration in that context because it was the previous Labour Government that brought down benefit numbers. 
The Government can talk and chant about the pure rhetoric of aspiration. It may talk about aspiration; we were the ones who made it happen. It is the numbers that matter and I have seen nothing on that side of the House to demonstrate that the rhetoric has been translated into anything tangible except words. 
National constantly claims that it believes in the so-called aspiration of equal opportunity. Where is the equal opportunity in being one of 2700 applicants for one job at Countdown? Where is the equal opportunity in that? There is no aspiration in this bill there is no dignity in this bill and there is no opportunity in this bill. If the Minister would like to refute that when it comes to the work-testing elements of this bill and when it comes to what we are doing to sickness beneficiaries I would be interested in hearing from her because we not disputing abatement rates on this side of the Chamber. 
I have to say that if nothing else I do see some consistency in some of the policies that we see being put forward by the National Government. There are similar approaches in this bill to what we have seen in terms of national standards in our primary schools. We are spending significant amounts of money measuring an issue categorising failure and not doing much more. We are doing nothing to fix the heart of the problem and in doing so we are compounding the issue. I welcome members on that side of the Chamber to contest that point if they choose to. 
I agree with the Minister that context matters and that is why it is important that we do not just throw out numbers about how many jobs are being put on the books at Work and Income. We also need to talk about how many people are going on to the books at Work and Income. Context matters in this situation particularly given that we are in a recession. I refuse to believe that the hardest times have hit us already. We are seeing it truly bite at this particular period which is why context matters. 
My interest is that if this bill really is about getting folks off the benefit surely our test should be about the impact it would have on the groups that are currently without work and are seeking work. There are other elements to the argument including in particular those on the invalids benefit and those on the sickness benefit and I look forward to coming back to those. But in terms of those who wish to work but are out of work what impact will this bill have? That should be our true test. If we are going to talk about that group of people let us be honest and acknowledge that we are talking about Maori Pasifika women and young people. They are the groups that have been impacted the most by this recession and they are manifesting most heavily in our unemployment figures at the moment. Those are the groups that we should be discussing. 
In my view this bill does absolutely nothing to change the situation that those groups find themselves in. That leads to questions as to the real motive for this bill—but I believe that other members on my side of the Chamber have discussed the fact that it was a manifesto statement and was not backed up by evidence or research and we can go into more detail on that. But clearly it is not about jobs and has not been about jobs. 
If we look at young people in particular we see that they have experienced a rapid increase in unemployment. Although we see a rate of unemployment of about 6.8 percent across the board—in Auckland it is 8.7 percent—for young people specifically it is 13.7 percent. Although we have seen some fluctuation in the younger end of that spectrum for the 20 to 24-year-olds it has gone up 2.6 percent since the last March quarter measurement. That is a total of 68200 people. The Minister talks numbers so I tell her that 68200 is the number of unemployed young people that we are talking about at the moment. 
All the initiatives the Government has put forward may have been noble attempts but they are a flash in the pan when we look at those numbers. There are 60000 young people who are not in employment education or training. The Government may add compulsion to its independent youth benefit—compulsion to be in training work and education—but that concerns about 1500 young people. There are 60000 in total and most of them are not receiving any form of Government support to get into work training or education. 
We know the impact on young people of lingering on benefits for long periods of time. The 1990s showed us what happens when a young person stays on a benefit for 12 months or more. Really that is the first point at which this bill will bite for that young person. According to this bill which is meant to be assisting people into work the first thing that will happen for young people who have been on the unemployment benefit for 12 months is that they will get an extra work assessment. That is not good enough in my book. Firstly it is far too late to give genuine assistance because if that young person is on an unemployment benefit we would naturally assume that that young person is lacking the skills needed in our now progressively higher-skilled workplace. We are losing our unskilled jobs in New Zealand and if young people lack the skills and the work experience simply adding another work assessment after 12 months of floundering without anything will do very very little. 
Over a year ago now when the Government undertook its Job Summit members on this side of the House decided to look specifically at youth unemployment. One of the initiatives that we handed to the Government to assess was something that the UK is doing. Any young person who is out of work for 12 months or more is guaranteed if he or she signs up to work alongside the equivalent of Work and Income a placement in education training or work. The Government may claim that that is its Youth Guarantee but it is far from it. There are 2000 places according to the Government and 60000 who are seeking work and those 2000 placements are often unsupported. 
Young people who have not previously done well in education are being chucked into polytechs to tick a box for the Government and they are failing or not even filling the placements that exist. If we ask anyone who runs a polytech institution that is the story we will get. Those young people are not being supported to succeed in those roles. 
The second thing the Government did was say that if people are not coming in through a Youth Guarantee they may not be getting in at all because it has capped places in tertiary education and in our polytechs. We are turning young people away. This is a fundamental shift in what has otherwise been a universal policy in New Zealand—that is if people make the bar for tertiary education in New Zealand they will be accepted. The National Government has changed that by stealth. [ 
Interruption 
] It has absolutely changed that. Grant Robertson has been campaigning on this fact. 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: Sorry Labour did it in 2008. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Mr Joyce may claim that that is not the case but it absolutely is. Any member of this House who has seen the letter from the University of Canterbury will know that there has been a fundamental shift in the policy of tertiary education in this country and that Minister is entirely responsible for it. That will be the shame of that Government and the legacy it leaves for our young people and I would welcome an address by Mr Joyce so he can tell the Committee why he thinks I am wrong. 
If young people are our measure as an overrepresented group in the unemployment statistics the first point at which this bill assists them is after 12 months of being on an unemployment benefit. But by that point we would already be seeing the damage done by the loss of dignity the loss of employment the loss of skills and the loss of the ability to build their futures. In my mind that is not just a failure; it is an epic failure. If we want to look at genuine initiatives to help our young people we can look no further than across the ditch. Unlike us—our Government has capped the ability to get into tertiary education—Australia has spent billions on skills training and education. Australia recognised that that is where investment should go during a recession and not the reverse which is what we did here. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 I acknowledge Jacinda Ardern’s challenge to the Minister for Tertiary Education and I hope he takes it up. What we are seeing in New Zealand for the first time ever is universities closing the door to students who want to study who are prepared to take a loan and who have the qualifications. But no the door is closed to them. I would like to ask the Minister what those students will do because those jobs are just not out there. We know that there are 60000 young people who are not in work. I ask what those young people will do. Will they go on the dole? 
In this debate I would like to specifically address clause 16 of the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill which will impose work testing on sickness beneficiaries who are assessed as being capable of undertaking part-time work. This proposal seems to be a knee-jerk response to increasing numbers of sickness beneficiaries. The increasing number of people on sickness or disability related welfare assistance is a trend that is occurring throughout the developed world. The reasons are complex and many but this Government claims it has the magic bullet through assessing beneficiaries’ capacity for work and forcing those who are assessed as being able to work to do so. The Social Services Committee saw no evidence for this proposal and it is unlikely to be successful in stopping the growth of sickness beneficiary numbers. It is not an evidence-based approach; it is a faith-based approach rooted in National’s neo-liberal ideology and the bigoted view that beneficiaries are lazy bludgers who deserve a “good kick in the pants” to use the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s phrase. 
As far as the evidence overseas goes a number of submitters at the select committee referred to a similar approach taken in Australia in 2006. An evaluation of that policy revealed that it was spectacularly unsuccessful in reducing Australia’s disability support and pension numbers. 
This bill will not do the job. It is not good legislation and we are proud to be opposing it this evening. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I will go back to the very first submission that was made several months ago to the Social Services Committee on the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill by the Legislation Advisory Committee of the Law Commission. Its job is to look at legislation and give advice to the Government. I have found in my experience that it gives extremely sound advice on legislation and most Governments listen to it. 
It said that the Social Security Act itself was the worst statute that it has ever seen and that this Parliament has seen. It said that it is a dog’s breakfast it is incomprehensible it has been amended close to 50 times it is a disgrace it needs to be repealed rather than revised and it is incumbent on Parliament to produce good-quality laws. I say to the Minister in the chair the Hon Paula Bennett that rather than put through the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill which is yet another series of amendments to the original Act she should take the opportunity to be the Minister that does a whole rewrite of the Social Security Act. It is a wonderful opportunity to work across Parliament to get agreement on what ought to be in a totally rewritten Act. 
I had that opportunity with the rewrite of the Policing Act. Over a 2-year period we were able with the help of the National Party in Opposition and the other political parties to rewrite the legislation in a way that we got agreement on every issue except one which was whether police officers could be local body candidates. With that one exception the entire bill which was 50 years old was rewritten by this Parliament with wide buy-in on the approach that we would take. 
I say to the Minister that this is a fantastic opportunity to rewrite the Social Security Act and for her to be the Minister that does that rather than bringing in more amendments to legislation that was described as a dog’s breakfast incomprehensible and a disgrace. There would be far more cooperation and agreement if such a process was put in place. We need to look at what ought to be part of modern legislation for the 21st century and ask what we are trying to achieve from social security legislation. I do not believe that any members of Parliament do not want us to have a good sound social security system for those who need it. That has been in place for many years—a social security system to support people when they need it. It has lots of patches in it lots of things that do not work well and lots of contradictions. Why not rewrite it? All this bill does is add a few more patches to this very tatty coat. I think that through these amendments the Minister is losing sight of what we have social security for. 
What is really sad about this legislation is that those who will suffer the most from it will be the children. I would like us to stop for a moment and think about where we put children in New Zealand in terms of legislation. I believe that the child of a beneficiary is just as important as any child I have had as my grandchildren as a child of a member of this Committee or as a child of any New Zealander. Those children are just as valuable. Those children deserve the same investment in their lives as we would want to see put into the lives of our children and our grandchildren. 
Tim Macindoe 
: That’s why this bill offers them more hope. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is why this bill is not right I say to the member for Hamilton West. It does not have the key elements that would support a child who is being raised in a sole parent family for example. 
What is needed? We need to ensure that the carers of the children have the opportunity to move into the workforce. What do they need to move into the workforce? They need education and training. One of the amendments that I have put forward amends new section 102 in clause 27 by adding subclause (2)(a) to treat education as if it were work. If people are getting training and education then it should be treated as if it were work because they are looking to move themselves from receiving the benefit to being able to support their family with an education. That is the first thing. 
If they have education and they need to be retrained then their retraining should be invested in. They should be told that they can start it quite early and we can help them train so that when they go into the workforce they have a job that supports their family. One of the problems when people are pushed into work at a low-paid job say for 15 hours a week is that they are not any better off. First of all at 15 hours a week they do not get the in-work tax credit. So if we are sending them back to work it should be for at least 20 hours because then they would be eligible for the in-work tax credit and there is a little more assistance for them. Helping them get training and education in order for them to get a job that will take them out of poverty and that will give them a career path would be one of the two key elements that could be put in place through legislation. 
The second element is strong parenting support. The Minister has been a parent on her own; many members in this House have identified themselves as sole parents and so was I. I was not a sole parent on a benefit; I was a sole parent working and raising a child on my own. I know how hard that is. I know how torn parents are when they are trying to go to their children’s sports games trying to do their job and trying to provide for them. Sole parents know they are it in the main for their children. I know how difficult that is so we need to have parenting support alongside them—parenting information and education. We are really bad with giving that support in New Zealand. In some countries parenting education is universally available to every parent in a whole variety of different ways. 
People need adequate income to raise children. We have seen some extremely sad stories appearing. I do not believe that people who write these stories are necessarily sympathetic to beneficiaries but they show that there are beneficiaries who have insufficient income to care for those children. 
When it comes to jobs I ask the Minister what she thinks about the refugee women who are on a sole benefit. I have a lot of them in my electorate. They have come from places like Somalia. They came because they were single women with children but no partner. They do not speak English. It is very hard to get a job. They will not move off the benefit in a hurry but when their child is 6 the pressure that goes on them if they have not got into the workforce is huge. They need a lot of support with income parenting and so on. 
The other thing that is needed is quality childcare. Do we want the children of beneficiaries to be put into low-quality childcare just so we can get the parents to work? Why should they not have access to high-quality childcare and after-school care when their children go to school? I ask members to look at this bill. They will see that the standards for out-of-school care are being reduced so that there only needs to be one person looking after children in out-of-school care. They can do it now in private homes. I thought we had tried to get away from that approach because it opens it up to all sorts of problems and the likelihood of abuse. Having high-quality out-of-school care is very much part of what should be provided. 
There needs to be flexibility. Sole parents want flexibility to care for their children and be with them after school. They want a job where they can have school holidays. Who will look after their children when they are on their own? They also need all those early intervention services. Those are just some examples of what would be put into good legislation if the Government truly wanted to move people from the benefit into long-term employment with the ability to take primary responsibility for themselves and their family. That is what a Government should put alongside sole parents in order for them to take that primary responsibility not this approach which has seen a cut to the training incentive allowance. A punitive approach will be put in place if people do not take up jobs. This approach does not provide enough in childcare; it does not give quality assistance to these people. It has more of a compulsory budgeting approach if they get themselves into trouble rather than working alongside them. I ask the Minister to take the opportunity to rewrite the Act and for her not to do any more of this piecemeal legislation change. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I fully support what the Hon Annette King has been talking about in terms of children in that children regardless of the source of their parents’ income deserve the same support. They deserve a warm dry home they deserve a good high-quality public education they deserve childcare and health care and no children should be separated from their entitlements as citizens simply because of the source of their parents’ income. I have to say that even under the last Government the separation around treating children differently because of the income source of the family was a fact. One of the options mentioned earlier was that if work testing requires 20 hours instead of 15 hours then it would be in line with a capacity to get access to the in-work tax credit. 
The poorest families are the beneficiary families. Since the 1991 benefit cuts by the National Government came into force benefits have not been restored to anything like a liveable provision for families. As a result the in-work tax credit has worked for some families but it has not been extended to beneficiary families and the Poverty Action Coalition estimates some billion dollars has been taken out of those families because the in-work tax credit was not available to the beneficiary families who most desperately need it. So there has been a continuous series of treating the children of beneficiaries differently from other children and now we see it with Peter Dunne’s ridiculous idea in relation to income splitting which will simply exacerbate the gap in that somehow it is OK for the children of wealthy families to have access to a full-time parent but beneficiary children will not. Because of the work-testing regime in this legislation the children of beneficiaries are being discriminated against by this Government. 
Part of the theory around the future focus bill and work testing has been supported unsurprisingly by the right-wing Welfare Working Group which released its report early last week. One of the quotes from that report stated that the introduction of work testing in the late 1990s by at the time National alongside the introduction of more generous childcare assistance saw a reduction in numbers of people on the domestic purposes benefit. It said that the reduction had flattened out when the work test was replaced by a planning requirement. But actually if we look at the information provided in the report—at the facts—we can see something quite different. The graph that accompanied this report showed a very small reduction in domestic purposes benefit numbers from the introduction of the domestic purposes benefit work-test but that reduction flattened out very quickly. The numbers remained flat through to the replacement of the work test by the planning requirement in 2003 and through to the introduction of the enhanced Working for Families and the childcare assistance packages from October 2004. 
Then numbers on the domestic purposes benefit plummeted because there was access to support for sole parents who were able to go into longer periods of part-time work that could provide them with a decent income with support through childcare and Working for Families. We saw a dropping off in the gap between rich and poor as a result of Working for Families too which helped to provide that buffer. Because there has not been an extension and efforts put into those who are right at the very bottom further from that we have seen the gap between rich and poor stagnate now so it is not decreasing. In fact I suggest that it will get worse once we see the impact of this year’s Budget. 
The Welfare Working Group has been spinning the idea that work testing will reduce benefit numbers but in fact the evidence shows that that is just not true. Numbers on the domestic purposes benefit will drop when there is greater employment—that is when people can move into jobs because jobs are available and pay well enough such that they can care for their families and when there are financial incentives like an enhanced tax credit and childcare assistance. But this bill does not do any of that. This bill simply threatens sole parents with the loss of a meagre and desperately needed income. 
We are often talking here about people who do not have savings and do not have huge amounts of assets—people for whom losing a benefit for a week is enough to drive them into extreme poverty. These are people who already have to scrimp and save. We have seen in the newspaper today a story about a woman who is not eating because she cannot afford to if she wants to train— 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: A west Auckland woman as well! 
METIRIA TUREI 
: She is a west Auckland woman. My colleague Carmel Sepuloni is holding up a photograph in the newspaper report of a woman who is not eating sufficiently because she is trying to use the very scarce resources she has to care for her child and to train herself so that she will then be able to get a better-paid job so she can care for her family. That is the kind of life that beneficiaries are living right now. They are going without. All that this legislation does is make what I think is a very clear statement to the community that beneficiaries are just bludgers and they are not making an effort. 
Women like the woman pictured in the newspaper today are an indication of sole parents across the board. Parents who need help right now to care for their kids and who are working very hard to get themselves into a better situation on very meagre resources have not been dealt with at all by this Government. They are suffering as a result but are still persevering to do what is best for their families. They are the sole parents in this country and they deserve our support not our denigration. 
Part of the problem with this legislation of course is that even the regulatory impact statement shows that there is no evidence that work testing the domestic purposes benefit like this will increase beneficiaries’ income encourage them off the benefit or be good for their children. In fact what we will see and what we saw from last time are child welfare issues as a result of work testing. Some sole parents because the fear of losing their benefit were forced into taking risks with some of their children. There were serious welfare concerns that no Government then further investigated including the National Government of today. It has imposed a work test on domestic purposes beneficiaries and sole parents again knowing that serious child welfare issues arose last time this happened but it has failed to investigate and check that out. That means that in this legislation which I described as structural abuse before and I will do so again the Government is knowingly putting in place a programme that is likely to result in serious child welfare issues but it does not care. It does not care and it will not do anything about it. 
What the Government does do is provide strange incentives. For example last week there was an announcement that foster parents will get extra support to enable them to care full-time for foster children and that is fantastic but why is it that foster children are entitled to have someone take care of them full-time but a child of a beneficiary is not? What is it about this Government’s judgment about the children of beneficiaries that it can say that the children of beneficiaries are not entitled to a full-time parent but every other child is? Peter Dunne says that the children of rich families are entitled to a full-time parent. Paula Bennett says that foster children are entitled to full-time care but what about the children of beneficiaries? Under this legislation this Government says that those children are not entitled to a full-time parent to care for them so they can be productive healthy members of our community. 
So what is the Government doing? In my view it is a form of structural abuse. It is disappointing for us to have to see that and be in this Chamber while this legislation is being discussed but it is worse for those families. It is entrenching poverty it is entrenching poor welfare issues it is entrenching structural systems of abuse and it is being dictated by a National Government that believes at heart that beneficiary children are not entitled to the same support and the same entitlements as citizens as other children are. That is what this legislation does and that is what it says to the community: the children of beneficiaries are not entitled to the same level of support the same entitlements the same good health the same good education the same good food and the same good housing as other children are. 
Where does that kind of attitude come from? Why would a National Government or any Government take an attitude like that? Why are these children so different from other people’s children? What have they done to deserve a Government that will force their families on the threat of losing desperately needed income into unsuitable inappropriate work? Paula Bennett argued before that there are all these exemptions. That is not the case. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 There is absolutely no basis for the previous speaker Metiria Turei to come to that conclusion. In fact it is quite the opposite. This Government certainly does care. This Minister does care and it is because we do not want to condemn one more child in this country to the tyranny of low expectations which for far too long characterised the previous Government and those who supported it that we are determined to act. I wonder what Michael Joseph Savage and those who worked with him in the first Labour Government would think of the heirs to their legacy because it is very depressing to see just how far Labour has slipped away from what the social security system was first set up to do. This bill and this debate show the very clear division between Labour’s view and the vision of the National-led Government which says “Let’s help everyone we can out of that predicament. Let us do everything we can to encourage a much better outcome greater aspiration greater hope. Let us never never descend to the level where we say we will put this group of people in the too-hard basket we will not care about them and we will patronise them with a meagre lifestyle on welfare.” 
That sadly is what the Labour Opposition and those who support it are arguing for by opposing the provisions of this bill. Opposition speakers have gone all over the place on this bill so far in talking about what is not in it and they have failed to focus on what we are trying to do—that is getting young people particularly but all those people who are trapped on welfare into something that actually gives them the opportunity to take responsibility for themselves that gives them hope and that gives them a much brighter future. 
National is delivering on its promise upon which we were elected to reform the welfare system. We are committed to a system that supports people when they need it most. There is no question about that. Not one member on this side of the Chamber would shy away from that obligation but we also equally want to encourage people back into work as soon as they are able to work. That is exactly what Michael Joseph Savage and the first Labour Government instituted their social security system to do. That is what those members had in mind and it is the current Labour members who have moved far away from that. 
We have heard criticism of the Welfare Working Group which is looking at ways to address long-term welfare dependency. Yet for some extraordinary reason Labour members oppose that objective. I ask myself whether Labour members recognise third-generation and fourth-generation welfare dependency as a problem. Why do not members opposite want to do something about that issue? Why are they willing to sit back and do nothing? There is nothing more hopeless and nothing more depressing than the thought of being trapped in that intergenerational welfare dependency and feeling that politicians do not care to want to do something about it? That is not good enough for the people of New Zealand and it is certainly not good enough for those people this bill is designed to assist. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: 19000 more out of work in the last 3 months. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Steve Chadwick continues to interject. When she was on her feet a while ago she said that this bill stigmatises people. But I tell her that no it does not; it gives them incentives and it gives them rewards. It recognises that securing a job is the best path to security and the best path to aspiration and self-esteem. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Where are the jobs? 
TIM MACINDOE 
: There are jobs out there but I tell Mr Horomia that for those who cannot find work nothing will change. The welfare will still be there. That is what it should be there for. But the suggestion that we should not be trying to help even one person into a job when it is there and when that person can take responsibility is a shameful thing for that member to suggest. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Shame on you! 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Far from that member sitting there calling out “Shame on you!” which Mr Horomia has done endlessly all afternoon I say shame on you Mr Horomia for not wanting to do more for your people. 
It was very disappointing to hear my colleague Dr Prasad criticise the thoughtful and very constructive contribution—I thought the very compassionate contribution—of my admirable colleague Chester Borrows a man for whom I have great admiration and respect. Dr Prasad suggested that this bill was punitive. It is not punitive to anyone who is incapable of securing work. There is nothing punitive about it because for anybody who is incapable of securing work nothing will change; the protection will still be there. It is not punitive to those who are capable of seeking work but who are genuinely struggling to gain employment. They too will continue to be assisted. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 That speaker quite clearly said— 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: Shameful speech! 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: —shamefully—that this bill had issues relevant to the tyranny of low expectations. That member is really following the Minister responsible for this bill who has produced some of the most shameful legislation in this Parliament. It is shameful and those members know that. There is more than third-party support but that member said that the bill was about National’s manifesto. It is about the manifesto but the manifesto also stated four other key things. It stated there was an edict to improve the economy but National has no plan so that has not happened. National said that it would create more jobs and that has not happened. There were two or three other issues. It is fascinating when we read this legislation to see that it is premised on a strong labour market. Well that is amazing because the unemployment rate generally is running at 6 percent. For Maori and for Pacific Island people it is tracking up higher and knocking 11 percent. In Wairoa the rate is at nearly 60 percent. How the hang does the Government expect to find people a job there when there is no basis for employment? This is good old right-necked National Party weeping manifesto stuff. It is outrageous. 
The member said that this bill will help people out of poverty but I see Mr Joyce sitting over there and I wonder what is behind the capping of those places in universities and wherever. Nanaia Mahuta Kelvin Davis and I were privileged this morning to talk to about 35 middle-aged—mature-aged—women whose average age I would say was about 40. It is fascinating that this increasing push is about the rangatahi the youth only but there is a trick and a trap in that too because at the end of the day we feed it because it is cheap. 
If that is lined up with the 90-day bill what do we get? We get uncertainty we get insecurity in the labour market and we get all those relevant issues. 
Tim Macindoe 
: You get a much greater prospect of a job. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Yet that gentleman talks about the prospects of a job. I tell him that the great leader of the Labour Party Phil Goff went to open a food market this morning. 
Tim Macindoe 
: He’s already told us that. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: And I will tell the member again so that he understands the picture because it is surreal. There were 150 jobs there and 2500 lined up for them. How the hang can the Government push through this legislation when that happens? That is a disgrace. It was the same at the KFC place down there and the same at the vegetable place. 
Chester Borrows 
: The penalties don’t apply if they don’t get a job. Read the bill. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That member knows that since he was a policeman the situation has got worse. He understands that. It has got worse. I tell the Minister that the bill certainly does not have much in it I am afraid to say. But third-party support in this country is growing and parents are paying for youngsters out of their own pockets. 
Then we have the income-splitting notion which is relevant to this bill I tell my dear friend. It is relevant. But it is income-splitting for whom? It is only for the rich people. It is only for the well-off. Members can tell me how many working-class parents can split their income at the moment and I will tell them about the Pacific Islanders and the Maori in this country who are being trashed into the dungeons of doom by this misconstrued legislation and by a Minister who does not care and who should know better. If we couple together all of those issues with the Minister of Finance’s continual singing of the song that there is not much money and the attack on the Public Service what do members reckon is coming up? 
It is unfair. It is amazing that the Attorney-General this Minister’s colleague said that this bill was discriminatory and that it was a disgrace. The Presbyterian Church has said that it is not too sure where the hang this legislation will be run. It has said that the bill is one of the worst bits of legislation that it has ever read or ever heard about. This bill really is a simple exercise in targeting beneficiaries—sole parents. Where is the protection for the child? When a child is 6 years old everything is supposed to be tickety-boo. But on this side of the Chamber we can talk about ensuring that income-related rents were there that 14 weeks of maternity leave was real and that at the end of the day people’s rights were intact. 
The unemployment rate is at 159000 at the moment so if we are coupling this legislation with a very very weak labour market which is one of the weakest we have had in the last 16 years I ask how the hang this is going to work. How will this legislation work when the people at Te Wananga o Aotearoa were telling us this morning that they were not too sure where their certification will head to and Mr Joyce capped them. So the Government is talking about skilling and about opening up trades academies but it has shortened the 14000 apprenticeships that were running and a lot of those apprentices did not finish their apprenticeships when the National Government came in because it cut the funding. It cut part of the funding; that is what happened. 
Virtually all of the Government departments that were consulted on this gave advice that was totally contrary to what the Minister wanted to bring in. In 1936 there was no domestic purpose benefit and it seems to be heading back that way now. Who protects those people? There is real competition in the search for a job. Mr Joyce always makes the mistake of thinking that other people do not understand what is going on. We do understand. On behalf of all those working-class families and of all those people Maori and Pacific I say that they are being ill-treated. It is a disgrace. Government members need to go out in the regions like me. I walked past two Work and Income offices the other day. People were sitting on the bloody street lined up. They were sitting out on the street waiting for their turn. Then we have this huffing and puffing from the Government which says that this will be good for beneficiaries. 
People are supposed to reapply for the benefit after 12 months. That is all very well but the stoke in the economy is not happening. The GDP is slipping the macro is put asunder and a whole lot of small and medium sized businesses are closing—80 in Hawke’s Bay and nine in Gisborne. What is that all about? 
The Government is getting into cheap labour. Those members know that they are knocking them out. The Minister of Finance said that the biggest ministry in this country will soon be the justice department. People will start thieving. People will start going on the hunt for their families when they are treated like this so the Government needs to be clear about crime. 
Chester Borrows 
: All someone else’s fault. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: No not necessarily—people need to own it. But the majority should not pass judgment on the minority just because they are in the seat that the member is in I tell my friend. The member was a policeman. I was in community development and the member used to talk sense. He is learning a lot of nonsense from Ministers like the Minister in the chair the Minister for Social Development and Employment. The member needs to stop it. The member needs to understand that. 
With regard to the loss of percentage like people losing 50 percent off their benefit if they do not turn up for an interview I say that these interviews have been going on for a long long time. This has been going on since before the Belmont theory about labour markets and creating jobs came down here and it just seems that the officials are being bullied to do this. 
I need to tell the Minister that this is incredible unjust legislation. The bill appears to limit the right to be free from discrimination. These limitations can be justified under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. People will argue that. The Attorney-General in this country is telling the Government to wake up and stop doing this and the Government will not listen. It is a bit like Heather what’s her name and that other fellow who has been punishing people through the super-city stuff and all that. Presbyterian Support stated in detail “we find it unconscionable that any government in New Zealand would propose measures that will inevitably increase poverty and hardship for some of the poorest children in this country and further penalise those in the most unfortunate of life circumstances.” That was not the Business Roundtable. That was not the Maori Council. That was not the Maori wardens. That was a recognised organisation that has supported those people those beneficiaries. The widows are put at a disadvantage so I ask where we are coming from with that. 
I need to tell members that this bill is just unbelievable. Somebody over there mentioned intergenerational adjustment. Well I will tell members about intergenerational adjustment. Two hundred years on from being colonised things start changing. If one is not given a fair go when that change comes—and I mihi to our great leader in Ngati Porou who passed away today—when the old people start moving on things change. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just query whether Shane Jones should be occupying his leader’s seat so early in the coup. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: There will be no interjections—a point of order has been called. 
Hon Annette King 
: Silly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I will decide. The member will not interrupt. The point is irrelevant and Mr Heatley is interrupting the flow of the debate. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Any member in this Chamber who says that the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill will provide hope for solo mothers and families is a fool. I would have to say that I agree with my elders who say: “Ia ka le ulu o le vale ae fa‘asau le toto fa‘avalevalea” which literally means with regard to any fools who say that this bill will provide hope to families out in the community that we need to club them on the head and allow the foolish blood to flow. 
When I also hear members on that side of the Chamber say that this bill provides incentives and rewards I am reminded of how people train dogs. They give them a bit of meat. They get them to do jumps or something and then they provide a little bit of meat. When I hear those words coming from members on that side of the Chamber I am disgusted at the way they promote this bill. This bill will not do any of the things that members opposite say it will do. 
Government members claim that this bill is underpinned by principles of fairness and an unrelenting focus on work. Well neither claim is true. It is unfair and the Attorney-General who is a member of that Government has judged it to be discriminatory. He stated that this bill appears to limit the right to be free from discrimination and that that limitation cannot be justified under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
The commentary on the bill talks about an unrelenting focus on work and there is an assumption that there are jobs for people to go into but we know that that is not true. We know that the unemployment figure has risen to 6.8 percent as of last month and that 159000 people are unemployed. That number is growing certainly in my neighbourhood where we continue to see that families are struggling and suffering because of the failure of this Government to come up with any viable credible plan to ensure that people have work to go to and that the jobs created enable people to earn an income that will sustain them and their families. 
I emphasise what the Hon Annette King has said which is that if this Government was serious about doing something with our families our solo parents then it needs to focus on and value children. We need to focus on and value parenthood. This bill does not value kids. This bill does not value parenthood. Every submitter I listened to from an organisation that works in our community such as the citizens advice bureaux the community law centres the budgeting services and the Salvation Army has opposed this bill. I will read something that Presbyterian Support New Zealand said. It stated that “we find it unconscionable that any government in New Zealand would propose measures that will inevitably increase poverty and hardship for some of the poorest children in this country and further penalise those in the most unfortunate of life circumstances.” 
When I hear members opposite say that this bill will encourage solo parents to get into work I have to say that that is a lie. Those statements are false. This bill if we are to read it properly forces coerces and bullies single parents into trying to find jobs that just are not there. 
When I asked some of the submitters on this bill whether there were jobs out there that would cater for single parents who had children at school and whether those employers would be flexible enough to allow a parent to take time out to prepare their children for school and to be available to meet them when they returned home the answer was no. They said that there are not employers out there who are willing to be flexible. The jobs are not available and the kind of pay that parents need to be able to earn in order to sustain their families is just not available. 
Earlier my colleague referred to an article from today’s  
Herald 
 that was written by Simon Collins and entitled: “When tightening the belt is not enough.” This article which I show to members now and which I recommend that all people read sets out the budget of a solo parent who is attempting to better herself by going to school. After receiving what income is available to her from Work and Income as a solo parent and after working out her costs which include rent petrol repayments on debt her child’s bus fare phone costs parking costs medical costs and water bills—and without taking into account food at this stage—that solo parent is at a deficit of $50. If she adds in $100 for food she has a deficit of $150. The article suggests that that mother has had to sacrifice food and has lost a significant amount of weight simply to make ends meet. 
That problem is not confined to that one person. She is one person and there are many like her in my community including one family who have approached my local citizens advice bureau. The bureau told me that people can manage the bills but they cannot then afford food or any minor luxuries such as taking a trip to the zoo. That is the situation that many families now face. It is good that there is some focus in this bill on ensuring that benefits move in line with the rate of inflation. 
We agree with all other submitters that a benefit is not something that people want to be on for the rest of their lives. In fact we would be hard-pressed to find any individual any mother or father who wants to spend the rest of their life on a benefit. They want to work. They want to be able to provide for their children but I have to ask what this Government is doing to enable those people to get jobs. Would it not have been better for this Government to invest in education; to put back the money it has removed from adult and community education to ensure there is money for early childhood education and to ensure that we give every child the opportunity to go to university or polytechnic and get a degree? That is what we should be focusing on if we want a stronger society and if we want strong families to be able to have a better future in this country. 
I have to ask whether there is a conspiracy from this Government to keep the browns without education—to keep them locked in a situation where they do not have the opportunity to receive early childhood education and where they are cut off from the opportunity to have a tertiary education. Now the Government is saying we have to force every beneficiary to get into a job—when there are no jobs and when this Government is introducing legislation that will drive down wages. 
If this Government continues to take away vital and important opportunities from people who are struggling what will it mean for those who do not have an education and do not have the opportunity to better themselves? If this Government is serious about moving this country forward and if it is serious about looking after families and children—our children—it should put away this bill. Let us go back to the drawing board and focus on investment in education: early childhood tertiary community education and education in the workforce. That is not what the Government is doing but we say it is what it ought to be doing. This bill will make things worse for ordinary families. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I absolutely agree with the member who has just resumed his seat Su’a William Sio that the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill will make things worse. If there is anything that can be done to ensure that people are not on the welfare system it is getting them into work finding them fair-paying jobs and creating good employment conditions so that they can keep their jobs. The reality of the matter is that the Government does not have a plan to create jobs so there are no jobs. That is why unemployment has gone up why 68000 young people are currently unemployed and why Maori unemployment has gone up to 16 percent. The reality of the situation as colleagues speaking before me have pointed out is that the Government has done nothing to create employment where the people we are concerned about can be treated fairly in the workplace. That is not happening now. This bill will do nothing to give them a fair shot in the workplace. 
I am concerned about the punitive aspects of the bill. If people’s benefits can be cut by 50 percent if they do not turn up to a work test we have to ask ourselves whether they are being treated fairly. I went to the citizens advice bureau in Papakura and it told me that many of the beneficiaries cannot ring the 0800 number for Work and Income because they only have cell phones. Instead they come into the citizens advice bureau and use its phone to ring the 0800 number. We know that many of the people we are representing talking about and backing move homes and when they move homes they change addresses. Often when they change addresses they cannot update their address details because it is a temporary placement. 
What happens if a letter is sent to their old address they do not get the letter and they do not turn up to a work test? I ask whether those people will have 50 percent of their benefit cut off because they have not received that information. I suspect they are not being treated fairly. What if a mother with her children in wintertime who is saving the credit on her cell phone for emergency calls to the doctor has only $20 on her top-up card? People like her are not able to make a call to Work and Income to say that they need to update their details. 
I think there are aspects of this bill that are punitive and that do not take into account some of the real-life situations and challenges that many of those who are on the benefit face every day. Those people are struggling to pay rents. I will give members an example. In Ngaruawahia people are paying up to $360— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: How much? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: —$360 in Ngaruawahia—for a three-bedroom rental home because there are not enough Housing New Zealand homes available. 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: Where is the Minister of Housing? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Well the situation is that many of the people who I represent have cell phones. When we talk about contacting beneficiaries about some of the challenges they face with paying rents or having to move homes because rentals are too high we are talking about needing to be able to contact those people all the time. Often that is not the case and certainly that is the feedback we get from some Work and Income offices. Those are some of the difficulties and challenges with working with those particular people. There are punitive aspects to this bill that I think should be reconsidered and members before me have pointed to that particular situation. 
I want to highlight what is happening in the Waikato region with the domestic purposes benefit the invalids benefit and the independent youth benefit. If we look at the July statistics from 2008 2009 and 2010 we see that they have all gone up. It concerns me that the work-testing aspects of this bill affecting those on the domestic purposes benefit do not take into account the fact that we have a very serious issue and challenge with those groups of beneficiaries who really want to make a go of it. What has the Minister for Social Development and Employment done? She has cut the training incentive allowance. She has let foundation courses be funded but not level 4 or above. The great reality that the Minister might want to be aware of certainly in my patch is that wananga are offering foundation courses for free because they do not have the tertiary incentive allowance but students would like it if they wanted to pursue a degree-based course in early childhood education social work and social services. 
That is what real opportunity looks like for women on the domestic purposes benefit in the Waikato area but this Minister has not recognised it. She will work test them. There are not any jobs out there but she will work test them. Well that is fine but I tell the Minister that I would much rather that she tell us in her capacity as the Minister for Social Development and Employment how those jobs will be created. Let us look at Community Max and Job Ops. The 90-day trial period does not apply. If it is good enough for Community Max and Job Ops— 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: It does for Job Ops. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: The Minister says that the trial period applies for Job Ops. I am reading the last paragraph of information for Job Ops criteria. It says: “A Job Ops opportunity cannot be accepted if the employment agreement attached to the job contains the 90-day employment trial provision.” The Minister should understand her own policy. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: It’s old. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Well it may be old but it is on the Minister’s website. If it is old it needs to be updated because it is on the Minister’s website. Fantastic—the Minister does not know how current her information is. The reality is that Community Max and Job Ops are short-term solutions to a long-term challenge of ensuring that people are in real jobs and get real wages. That is not happening. There are Community Max initiatives that have placed young people for a 6-month period. Yes about 40 percent of placements in my region have seen good outcomes but the great majority have not led to employment. They have not led to further training and jobs cannot be found. The Minister needs to look at that because it is a short-term fix to a long-term challenge. We need to ensure that the first opportunity for young people in the labour market has to be a positive one. 
The 90-day trial period legislation is but one example that has the potential to critically damage people’s employment prospects when they go into jobs. They are not given a reason if they are dismissed and I ask what that will do to their confidence and what they can say on their CV. The Community Max initiative and the Job Ops scheme is a short-term solution to a long-term challenge. We need young people employed in real jobs with real wages and for them to be treated fairly in the workplace. Those things all go together I tell the Minister. One cannot separate out issues to do with industrial relations and the 90-day trial period legislation from those schemes. The Minister is setting them up to fail. She does not want to recognise that but that is the situation she is putting young people into. 
The Minister can wrap up those initiatives in all the nice language that she wants but I tell her that when we look at the types of Community Max initiatives that are in the Waikato—I have visited some of them and I am yet to visit others—we see that some initiatives have been to beautify marae or help kohanga reo but many of them have not created jobs. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of that. In fact in rolling out the Community Max scheme in my particular electorate the Minister has picked some winners and has ensured that they have retained their funding because they are taking on a lot of young people. It will make them and their stats look good. It is a cosmetic solution to the real challenges out there. 
I am concerned about the bill and what it will not do. It will not ensure that people are treated fairly when they are on the benefit. Members before me have spoken about that very well. It is discriminatory and punitive. It will not take into account the real-life challenges that beneficiaries face and it is a retrograde step. But more fundamentally it does not partner the message that should be coming from the Government to plan for growth and jobs. That message is not being heard and you are trying to provide a cosmetic fix to that problem through your Community Max and Job Ops I tell the Minister. We can see right through it and what is worse we can hear the constituents in our communities say that they want to work. They want to get a job but the jobs are not there. Phil Goff highlighted the fact that 2500-odd people applied for 150 jobs at New World. We know that people want to work and we want to back them into work. We know that the solution should be around social development— 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have hesitated but it has struck me the number of times that the Chairperson has been brought into this debate. It has happened repeatedly during the member’s speech. I am sure that she means the Minister. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you. It has occurred over the course of this afternoon. I have not pulled people up for it but the member is right. Members cannot bring the Chair into the debate. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: I am sure that if the honourable member checks the  
Hansard 
 she will see that I followed the references to “you” with “Minister”. We know that this bill will not make an iota of difference to those on the benefit. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to rise and speak in the Committee stage of the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill. I thank the Minister in the chair the Minister for Social Development and Employment for the hard work she has put in. I thank her on behalf of taxpayers in New Zealand not only those who work hard in this country and who pay their taxes so that we can afford to pay benefits to those who are less fortunate but also the beneficiaries who for far too long have believed that they have been trapped in an established system but who want to genuinely do better for themselves and their families. I thank the Minister for her hard work. 
The previous speaker Nanaia Mahuta said that unemployment had increased in New Zealand because of things that this Government has done. I tell that member that slightly before 2008 a recession hit New Zealand. New Zealand went into recession before other countries in the world but in 2008 a recession hit the whole world. The unemployment rates of the majority of countries that one would describe as having a modern economy went up. I know that the previous Labour Government over 9 years did everything it possibly could so that the New Zealand economy could no longer be defined or described as a modern economy but we were left with quite some mess. This is the start of the direction towards helping New Zealanders to help themselves. 
Before I get to a couple of points that I think are important to make at this stage of the debate I recognise that Mr Sio made quite a good speech earlier. However I was not convinced that he believed everything he said. He was probably asked to stand up and rattle out a few things that his research department had given him. He said that there are New Zealanders who are not educated who have not been given chances and who do not have experience; therefore there are no jobs for them. It sounded to me like the Labour Opposition was saying that that is good enough. Well it might be good enough for those members but this Government is about helping New Zealanders and making sure that they have educational opportunities. In the Budget this year more money was put into education. Members opposite do not want to recognise that but the public realise that more money was put into education. It is about helping people to help themselves. 
The other very important point here is that this legislation is about an election promise to reform the welfare system which we made in 2007 and 2008. If members opposite do not like that perhaps they should have worked harder and campaigned harder in 2008. At the very least when they were in Government they should have listened more to what New Zealanders wanted and to their ambitions. This legislation like what we campaigned on focuses on what people can do not what they cannot do. I am proud as are my colleagues on this side of the Chamber that we in New Zealand have a system of social welfare that helps people when they need it the most. We also need a system that encourages and assists people to do better for themselves and for their families and that does not create welfare dependency when it is not necessary. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Who wrote that? 
TODD McCLAY 
: I tell Mrs Chadwick that I wrote that myself as it is something that I believe in. If that member listens to people around the country she will hear that they are aspirational and want change as well. We need a system that encourages and assists people to do better for themselves. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I would like to respond to some of the comments and contributions made by the backbench members of the Government such as they have been. I feel that the National backbench members are being very much treated like mushrooms. They have been kept in the dark and fed a lot of manure. When we listen to the contributions of some of those members we realise that they know very little about this bill. 
Let me start with Tim Macindoe who made a very impassioned speech before dinner. He said that the Labour Party did not understand this bill and that this bill would give beneficiaries in New Zealand great hope and great aspirations. From this little bill they will get such great hope and great aspirations. But I want to know how. How will they get this great hope and great aspirations? How does this bill give a beneficiary a job? That is what Mr Macindoe said—that this bill will give them a job. What job I ask Mr Macindoe comes out of this bill? 
If National backbench members believe that we create jobs by passing some amendments to legislation that has been described by the Legislation Advisory Committee as a disgrace because it has had over 50 amendments to it already then they have strange beliefs about job creation. There has to be a plan for job creation and there has to be a plan for the economy. I notice that National got a plan on Saturday. John Key put out his quick six-point plan. It was so recently written that the date on it was 1 August. This plan had nothing about how the Government was going to create jobs. So how will these poor beneficiaries get great hope and great aspirations out of this legislation? 
The key to moving people off any benefit is to have jobs for them to go to. We have heard from all around New Zealand—from the provinces from the far north to the south—that there are no jobs for people to walk into. Beneficiaries will not have this great hope and this great aspiration because there are no jobs for them. So what is this bill all about? It is supposed to be about the principles of fairness and an unrelenting focus on work. Well as I have just told the Government there is no good in having an unrelenting focus on work when by the Minister’s own comments we have a real shortage of jobs. 
There are around 68000 unemployed people and young people—people under 25—cannot get a job. There are around 60000 people on the unemployment benefit who cannot get a job. But we know they will work if there are jobs out there. We cannot believe the idea that there is an unrelenting focus on jobs because there is no plan for jobs there is nothing happening for jobs and there is one silly little bill that talks about it. 
The next issue is around fairness. I point out to the Minister the submission that came from the Law Society. I do not believe that the Law Society is an organisation that makes submissions to bills lightly but it made a submission on this bill. The Law Society opposed this bill because it is not fair. It is not fair because it discriminates—that is what the society said. 
Amy Adams 
: They didn’t like the Electoral Finance Act either but that didn’t stop you. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I say to the member for Ashburton or whatever it is called that the bill discriminates against men and that is the point that the Law Society made. This bill discriminates—[ 
Interruption 
] Well she is very like the former member there. She is very keen on having some very hard legislation for beneficiaries. 
I believe that Amy Adams is a lawyer so she might be interested in the Law Society’s submission. The society said that this bill discriminates against men. Does the member believe it discriminates against men? Well the Social Services Committee did the submissioners did the Human Rights Commission did the Law Society did and—can we believe this—the Attorney-General did. The Attorney-General one of National’s own Ministers also said that the bill discriminates. He said it discriminates against men because under the work test in the bill a widower can be work tested but a widow will not be. The Law Society said that that is discrimination. 
Why would we bring in a work test that discriminates against one sector of society in such a blatant and obvious way? The Minister’s answer was honest. She said that it was the National Government’s decision. There was no rationale no reasoning no evidence no research and no science behind the decision. It was just something the National Government wanted to do and then its members argued that New Zealanders would understand. Well this is the 21st century and we believe that men and women are pretty much equal. We on this side of the Chamber believe that if the Government is bringing in a bill it should at least not discriminate on gender—because it discriminates in lots of other ways as well. The bill also discriminates against single women. That is what the Law Society said; it discriminates against single women. 
This bill has been panned by the organisations that we would normally listen to. They say it is not a fair bill. Then we had comments from the Minister herself. She said that this was a rather emotive debate. I have to tell the Minister that there are some very very strong feelings out there in the community about the way this Government is treating beneficiaries. It started with the Minister’s own attitude towards sole parents. She thought fit to release personal information to teach them a lesson for speaking up. That is why she released the information. They knew they were up against a Minister and a Government that had it in for beneficiaries. So when the Minister says it is an emotive debate I tell her to read some of the stories that are coming out in newspapers around New Zealand—some of them very sad—about the way beneficiaries are treated and how they believe they will be treated. 
The Minister also left us rather confused as to what the bill does. She said—and she has made many speeches saying this—that the bill will have an unrelenting focus on jobs. She has said that the Government will end the dream for beneficiaries and give them a kick in the backside. Then today in her first contribution she said that actually the bill will not do that at all. She said people will not be made to work. Does the Minister know that at this very moment—and I can provide the information for her if she wishes—New Zealanders who are on the invalids benefit are being assessed by her department and put on the sickness benefit? 
A person has to be pretty ill to get onto the invalids benefit. That person has to be unable to work long term. Those New Zealanders who are on the invalids benefit are being assessed and put on the sickness benefit. Then what happens to them under this bill? They can be work tested. Under this bill people on the invalids benefit are not being work tested; only sickness beneficiaries are. By moving beneficiaries off the invalids benefit and putting them on the sickness benefit the department can now say that they are fit to work. We are talking about people who have long-term chronic mental illness. We are talking about people who have intellectual disabilities. We are talking about people who have been on the invalids benefit for quite a number of years and are likely to always be on the invalids benefit. 
The Prime Minister made a speech—he put out a press statement—and said that this Government will not make anybody work who does not want to work. He put out a statement saying that. I believe that most New Zealanders want to work when they have the opportunity to do so but if the plan is to remove some of those people who are on the invalids benefit and put them on to the sickness benefit for the purpose of then saying they are fit to do part-time work then I believe the Government should be honest about it. The Government should tell the people of New Zealand what it is doing. 
I would like to comment just briefly on Mr Garrett’s contribution to this bill. He took an even-handed approach but I was quite interested in his story about the woman who had in vitro fertilisation and was going to go on the domestic purposes benefit. Something about that story does not quite add up. There are a number of criteria around receiving in vitro fertilisation including the woman’s relationship. If it was not done by the State then she paid for it. If she paid for the in vitro fertilisation treatment then obviously she has some money. She does not represent the people we are talking about who are on the benefit. I do not know many people who have had enough money to pay for in vitro fertilisation get themselves pregnant and then say they are going on the domestic purposes benefit. Most people who end up on the domestic purposes benefit come out of broken relationships and broken marriages. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I would like to address a number of the provisions of the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill in the remaining period of the Committee stage. One of those is clause 13 which set out the income tests. A couple of Government MPs and even the Minister for Social Development and Employment reiterated that this is apparently the realisation of an election promise but it is not. National made promises that it has not kept. I want to talk about one of those. The promises that National has not kept are those that would provide the greatest support for those who need it. In 2008 the National Party promised to increase the threshold at which benefits would be reduced when a beneficiary earns an income. The promise was to lift the abatement rate—the amount the person could earn—from $80 to $100. It was one of the very few National welfare policies that the Green Party agreed with. We did not think it went far enough but it was a good start. In fact if it had been CPI-indexed that abatement threshold should be at least $150 a week. Still it was a step in the right direction. 
This bill raises that abatement threshold for some beneficiaries but not all. The promise made at the election by National was for all beneficiaries to have that abatement lifted from $80 to at least $100. Unemployment and sickness beneficiaries who earn over $100 a week from the work test or from any work they do will now be $14 a week worse off because National broke its promise. National broke its promise to the poorest people in this country—the ones that it is now forcing to work for at least 15 hours a week. By forcing them into work for 15 hours a week and by not raising the abatement threshold the National Government is forcing people to work for actually nothing. Not only that but National has not met its promise; it is forcing them to work for a significant disadvantage. To be frank having been a beneficiary myself on unemployment benefit and on the domestic purposes benefit $14 a week to lose is a significant amount when one is on the very bare bones. 
Not only will the fact that National broke its promise impact negatively on the finances of beneficiaries but also it will act as a disincentive for them to undertake additional work. Why would anyone work for nothing in a job that is demeaning and one that the person has been forced into on threat of losing his or her income? I see that the chair of the Social Services Committee shakes her head. Maybe she does not quite realise what it is like to be on a benefit and to be forced to take demeaning and degrading work at very low pay then be under threat of losing the very meagre income that they have knowing that they are working for zero or even less than zero. In fact those people will not be making sufficient income even by working those 15 hours to be able to take care of themselves and their family. This policy impoverishes those people even more. It disenfranchises them even more. That is the “all stick and no carrot” approach to welfare in legislation and in the policy of the Government. 
National said it was very serious about getting beneficiaries into work. First of all it said it would have a plan for creating jobs which it does not. Second National said it would provide a financial incentive for people to go out and get work should it be available but there is none. There is no work for unemployment and sickness beneficiaries because the abatement rates are not going to be lifted for them. This Government has broken its promise to the poorest people in our country. It is obvious that there are no jobs so of course this whole bill will fail anyway. The Minister has never produced any evidence to show that the provisions in this legislation will encourage beneficiaries off the benefit and into work because there is none. In fact all of the evidence suggests quite the opposite. 
In the previous 12 months the Green Party has produced three separate economic packages designed to provide jobs in recessionary times that are both environmentally and socially useful. The Government has completely failed to deliver on any of its promises around job creation. It has refused to acknowledge any of the other good ideas around what could create jobs and could help to relieve the very severe poverty that thousands of New Zealanders and their children suffer every day. Instead the Government has produced this legislation that punishes beneficiaries for needing State support. In addition it has broken its promise by failing to make it viable for people to work. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I just want to respond to a few things that were discussed earlier by members on the other side of the Chamber. I go back to something Mr Borrows was saying together with a few other MPs about our basically not having aspirations for people who are on benefits and not caring about them and their progression in terms of moving beyond being on a benefit. I point out that that is absolute rubbish. There is one thing that very clearly highlights the contradiction between what that Government says and what it does when we look back at the cutting of the training incentive allowance. I shall talk about that a little bit because it highlights the absolute lack of common sense that that Government has demonstrated in its cuts in its “reprioritising” of funding if one wants to call it that. I shall discuss the success of that training incentive allowance and the fact that the Government cut it and then look at where we are now. 
Just over a year ago the National Government moved to make its heavy-handed cuts to the training incentive allowance. A study of that scheme was done between 1996 and 2001 and it found that for recipients of the domestic purposes benefit the training incentive allowance was successful in helping beneficiaries to gain greater self-confidence in removing financial barriers to education and in reducing the amount of time spent by recipients on the benefit. On average the amount of time spent on the benefit decreased and the amount of time spent in paid employment increased over time for recipients of the training incentive allowance suggesting that the scheme was effective in increasing workforce participation. An average of 26 fewer weeks were spent on the benefit over the 6 years following the receipt of the training incentive allowance compared with beneficiaries who did not receive the allowance. 
When we look at that evidence at that report it makes no sense for the Government to have cut that scheme particularly when it is talking about long-term welfare dependency and saying that its actions are because it wishes to ensure there are not so many people dependent on welfare. Following that when two women came out and spoke about the fact that the cuts were detrimental to them in their lives the Minister for Social Development and Employment had no problem with dragging them through the mud putting their details out there publicly and basically just punishing them using that same kind of punitive approach towards them that she is doing right now with the welfare reforms. 
I think it is important to point out that because it highlights the lack of compassion that that Government has shown towards single mothers in particular and also that the Government’s moves have made no sense at all. They have gone against the research with regard to things like the cuts to the training incentive allowance despite the fact that we have reports that show that it was a successful initiative. 
We have heard from across the Chamber tonight stories of different single parents and I think most of us who are logical and rational would agree that single parents just want to get on with raising their kids. They do not enjoy being used as the Government’s scapegoat to divert attention away from the fact that the Government has done nothing to address unemployment and poverty in this country yet those people find themselves in that situation. 
In terms of this bill there are some provisions that we support and we have discussed that. We support the increasing of benefit abatement income thresholds and the annual CPI adjustment of certain benefits. What we are fundamentally opposed to are the provisions on work testing and the discriminatory nature of the bill. When we look at what it means in terms of discrimination the woman who was on a widows benefit—someone whose partner has passed away—will not be work tested but the woman whose partner is still alive but no longer with her will be work tested. It is fair to say—and members on this side at least would all agree—that it is an arbitrary separation and serves only to perpetuate the negative stigma of sole parenting. 
Also of concern is the Minister’s inability to adequately define welfare dependency and that came up during the Social Services Committee hearing when we questioned the Minister about a definition of “welfare dependency” particularly long-term welfare dependency to see whether it meant having been on a benefit for 5 years or having been on a benefit for 7 years or longer. 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
: 
 I stand here and look at the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill on behalf of the senior citizens of this country. I am concerned more than anything else about the impact that this bill will have on senior citizens. 
In the course of my role in Parliament I frequently visit Grey Power groups around the country. One of the things that they are concerned about in terms of the provisions of this bill is the impact on young families. If members talk to them they will see that many of them because of the state of the economy and because there is huge high unemployment find that their own families are out of work. This is not about providing a safety net. This is not about providing a pathway. There is no plan from this Government to look after the most vulnerable in our society. 
Although we support some provisions of this bill such as increasing benefit abatement income thresholds and the annual CPI adjustment of certain benefits we are fundamentally opposed to the provisions on work testing and the discriminatory nature of this bill. This bill is nothing more than an attack on beneficiaries. Where are the jobs? Where are the jobs? If we talk to anybody over the age of 55 who does not have a job they will tell us just how difficult it is to get one. If one gets laid off at 55 one is on the dole—an unemployment benefit—for the rest of one’s life because it is just so difficult. Here we have a Government that is playing pure politics with the most vulnerable in our society: those who have families and those who do not have work. It tries to pander to the electoral vote of the populace and that is not good enough—it is not good enough at all. 
One of the things that concerned me greatly in reading the submissions to the Social Services Committee on the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill was something I saw from Presbyterian Support New Zealand. I will quote this because it goes right to the heart of the matter: “we find it unconscionable that any government in New Zealand would propose measures that will inevitably increase poverty and hardship for some of the poorest children in this country and further penalise those in the most unfortunate of life circumstances.” 
Our senior citizens struggle now with accident compensation cuts and increases in GST and many of them today bring up their grandchildren. They bring up their grandchildren and at the— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What’s “GS Tree”? 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON 
: I am not dreaming. I am not dreaming about the many grandparents bringing up their grandchildren. Many families out there suffer and in those cases it is often the grandparents who end up looking after the children. Here we have a bill that is so discriminatory that it will penalise grandparents as well. Minister Bennett says that it will not. Well I would like the Minister to take a call to tell us on this side of the Chamber how it will not actually penalise them. 
Grandparents have come to see me in my office. They are concerned about some of the provisions of this bill. Some of them are over the age of 55 and they may well be work tested. Where is someone over the age of 55 or even 60 to get a job? There seems to be a preoccupation with youth in this country without looking at the concerns of older New Zealanders. That is an unfair way to look at senior citizens and the contribution that they have made to this country. In fact it is discrimination. The way that older people are treated is an insidious form of discrimination. 
I ask the Minister to take a call to give me and this side of the Chamber an indication that a senior person over the age of 55 who is asked to bring up his or her grandchildren will not be penalised and that he or she will be able to continue to care for those children. All of us in here know that a family is an important unit of society and one of the greatest jobs that a mother can do is to bring up her children. What does the Catholic Church say? “Give me the child to the age of 7 and I will give you the person for life.” 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call tonight in the Committee stage of the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill. I have sat here for a while now and listened to the debate around me. It has been interesting because if one were to sit here and watch this debate on television tonight or to listen to it on the radio one would think that National does not have a heart that National does not want to help the most vulnerable that National does not care about the mums at home living on their own that National does not care about those on the unemployment benefit and that National does not care about those on the sickness benefit. Well actually we do. Being a little bit aspirational about giving people pathways to improve their lives is a good thing; it is not a bad thing. 
I think that Labour members believe that if we can keep people in poverty if we can keep them in welfare then that is the best we can do for them. But keeping people in welfare is not the best we can do for them. In fact if the previous Labour Government had not made such a mess of our economy 4 years ago we would be in a much better state now; we would be seeing through the recession in a much better way and there would be more jobs. That is the reality of it. 
I want to respond to what Ross Robertson said about those who are 50 or 60 and about how hard it is for them to get jobs. It is. It is hard for everybody out there to get jobs at the moment; no one is denying that. But this legislation is saying that we believe there are jobs and there will be more and more jobs as we get through the recession. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: No it’s not happening. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Is it not interesting? Darren Hughes the previous member for Otaki says there will be no more jobs. Well I tell him that there will be more jobs in New Zealand and that jobs are growing under a National Government. If saying that there are no more jobs out there is the best that he can do for New Zealand then that is why he is in Opposition and why we are in Government because we will be developing more jobs. 
As for Ross Robertson’s comments about those seniors who cannot get into employment I say that many people are employing people over 50. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: It’s not happening Katrina. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: It is interesting that Darren Hughes sits there again and shakes his head. I employ somebody over 60 in my office. So he can sit there and shake his head but it does happen. Those people still contribute a lot to our society and they still have a lot to offer. 
It was interesting when we sat on the select committee and had many submitters come in and talk to us. Many of them gave good insights into their own personal experiences or came as representatives for other groups. I will touch on what the Child Poverty Action group said which was really interesting. One of the statements its representatives made which I wrote down because I asked them to repeat it was that they did not believe that long-term beneficiaries were better off in work. If that is what they truly believe—that long-term beneficiaries are not better off in work—and that is quoting what they said then I am sorry but I disagree with them; they have got it totally wrong. 
Other groups came in the Auckland Women’s Centre and the Women’s Health Action group. They came in and gave submissions to the committee. What they said was really interesting. They said that solo mums can be good mums and work in jobs at the same time—and they can. They were endorsing that it is OK for solo mums to go out there and get a job and work and that solo mums can do both; they can balance working and motherhood. That is what the Auckland Women’s Centre and the Women’s Health Action group said. If we listen to the messages they are sending we hear that they are quite powerful messages because they are backing women and that is not a bad thing. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Who? 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: The members are asking who. For the third time I will repeat myself. If those members stopped badgering me maybe their colleagues would hear me when I say it was the Auckland Women’s Centre and the Women’s Health Action group. They said that solo mums can be good mums and they can work in good jobs at the same time. 
Those groups are backing women and National is backing women. National backs those people on the unemployment benefit and those on the sickness benefit because we believe that there is a pathway for them to have a better life. Thank you. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to review a couple of specific factors. Firstly I would be really happy if the Government could explain to me which one of the following—the lowest unemployment in the OECD the wiping out of Crown debt and the most consistent growth since World War II—constitutes poor economic management. All we have heard from Government members is a blame game. Quite frankly people in the middle of a recession are sick of hearing the Government claiming that it was left with poor books because it was quite the opposite. Had it not been for the sound economic management of Michael Cullen we would be in dire straits right now. It is time for the Government to show some leadership and demonstrate to us that it has a plan. The blame game has to stop. 
Secondly I would like to hear one of the Government members explain to me at what point the Labour Opposition has said that we do not back people who are on benefits who we naturally assume want to get off those benefits. The assumption seems to me to be all on that side of the Chamber. If someone could explain to me how we are not backing those people I would be quite grateful. I am bemused. For me it is not about rhetoric; it is about the fact that just today we saw 2700 applicants for 150 jobs at Countdown. Members of the Government can talk all they like about aspiration but unless they are providing the situation and the context in which people are able to aspire and achieve all they are giving me is words. That is all we have heard from the opposite side today. 
The Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill makes assumptions about people’s position their status and their context. Although I have already talked at some length about some of the assumptions and how badly wrong the Government has got all of this when it assumes that people do not wish to work I would rather rely on some of the thoughtful words from groups like the Human Rights Commission. It said: “The most obvious flaw with this proposal was the assumption that work would be available when many of the measures in this Bill are due to take effect.” The example today demonstrates to us that although there may be a miniscule handful of jobs it is not sufficient. I quote again: “For example the proposed date for the commencement of the part time work test for sole parents on the Domestic Purposes Benefit whose youngest child is six years old is 4 October 2010 …”. If the Minister for Social Development and Employment is willing to stand up and tell me that by 4 October 2010 we are likely to see an incredible increase in the number of jobs coming through Work and Income’s door one that outweighs the number of people being added to its books that is an assurance I would welcome. At this point I have grave grave doubts. 
We also heard from the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services that “The Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill fails to recognise the link between macro economic conditions and Unemployment Benefit trends. Changes to the benefit system that seek to address perceptions that beneficiaries are ‘unmotivated’ and ‘lack a work ethic’ will therefore fail because the premises are flawed. When the economy expands and more jobs are available benefit numbers fall.” We have already demonstrated that. We do not need to rely on rhetoric in that regard. In the 9 years of the previous Labour Government we saw the greatest drop in benefit numbers when our unemployment rate was one of the lowest in the OECD. There is a natural intuitive correlation between the two and we already have the numbers to prove that that is the case. 
I want to go on to some of the Government’s own statements via the regulatory impact statement that demonstrate that even the policy makers think the assumptions in this bill are flawed. But in case I run out of time I want to put a question directly to the Minister on an issue she raised earlier around the independent youth benefit. The obligations set out in I believe clause 17 take out some of the discretion around the independent youth benefit and place greater requirements around the beneficiary being involved in education training or work. I welcome more of a discussion on that but I want to try to understand where the Government’s priorities for criteria for the independent youth benefit now sit. Earlier in the year we heard the Prime Minister say that there would be a new threshold for the independent youth benefit and it sat around a young person being psychologically tested and found to be in a circumstance that required them to be on the independent youth benefit. It is quite a high threshold; perhaps the young person has been abused or suffers from mental illness. But now we see that the Government has no longer explained— 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 It was interesting to listen to the speech from Katrina Shanks a little earlier on in this debate on the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill. I rather suspect that Government members make too much of aspiration. It seems to me that they use that word in a way that is designed to explain everything that is nice and good and nothing else. It is like voting for motherhood and apple pie. There was an assumption in what Katrina said that there is no aspiration on this side of the Chamber. We do not need to talk about it on this side of the Chamber but on that side of the Chamber that is all they talk about. 
Katrina Shanks was saying what a mess Labour made when we were in Government. But we had the lowest unemployment in the OECD—take a bow New Zealand—and why do those members not acknowledge that? We did not talk about aspiration; we simply did it. It was done in such a way that anybody who wanted a job was able to get one. We do not talk about aspiration; we do aspiration. How awful it is for members opposite that the previous Labour Government had to subsidise New Zealand’s low-wage system through Working for Families. Some members opposite may remember the $50000-a-year Waihi family consisting of two professionals and two children who could not make ends meet. It was the prelude to all of the work that gave form to Working for Families. I do not hear that in the comments from the other side. The members there say that this side is not aspirational at all but they have all the licence to use that term. The other side talks— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: So we’re not allowed to think like that? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: That member has low aspirations; he only shouts. He does not deserve any comment. 
I would call Tim Macindoe a friend and a gentleman in the Chamber. However Mr Macindoe said that we should get everybody back to work—who would argue with that—and that we should do everything we need to do as a nation State to get everybody back to work. I say to Mr Macindoe that no one would disagree with that. That is what we have been trying to do. But I would like Mr Macindoe and others from the Social Services Committee to answer why we need this punitive approach. I ask why we need this approach that eventually only gives a tremendous amount of power to case managers at Work and Income. Those are the people who will have the power. They are not particularly highly trained for the kind of work that those members want them to do—although they are very effective so I am not criticising Work and Income. 
In my earlier speech I talked about what this bill is about. It provides a window to two alternative futures for New Zealand. There is the one that this side proposes and the one that that side proposes. However let us give members opposite an opportunity to prove me wrong. Members on this side have put up a number of very very useful amendments designed to ask the Minister to think very hard about what this bill is about. She should take the amendments to really achieve the kinds of aims she has. I agree with Mr Macindoe that we would like to get everybody back to work. But so far all that the Minister in the chair the Hon Paula Bennett has done is play with her cellphone read Cabinet papers or what is on her phone and take two calls to simply tell us what we already know. This is the opportunity for the Minister in the chair to argue with us to take up the questions this side has posed time and time again and to begin to answer them but the Minister does not care. Of course she does not care in the sense that she does not care to answer these questions. I would not accuse her of not caring about the issue which would be unkind— 
Amy Adams 
: You just did! 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I just took it back. The Minister does not care enough to answer the questions. But I invite the Minister and the members opposite to consider some of these questions. There is major contention here. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 In the mail yesterday I received the latest copy of the Presbyterian Support magazine  
People Helping People 
. There will be many members in this House who have had dealings with Presbyterian Support and I doubt there would be any hard-working member who has not called on Presbyterian Support at some time. There is a very good editorial in the magazine written by Vaughan Milner the chief executive that I recommend the Minister in the chair the Minister for Social Development and Employment read. He said that he has had 36 years’ involvement in social services. He said: “What I have learnt is that living without adequate income and being blamed in the process is debilitating demoralising and degrading—particularly when combined with some of the many challenges that life throws us like poor mental or physical health relationship problems grief or trauma. I have seen that the overwhelming majority of parents who subsist on a benefit are capable budgeters and caring parents. They are contributing to the community through doing their best to raise their children to be functional adults. They and their children do not deserve to be pushed to the margins of the community”. But I say to the Minister in the chair that that is exactly what the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill is doing to those beneficiaries. 
I will go through three main submissions that we heard at the Social Services Committee as I think they are pertinent to this debate. One of the submissions was from Presbyterian Support which had real concerns about the signals that this bill sends to beneficiaries saying that sole parents having to go out to work is more important than caring for children. I think that is quite a powerful message from this organisation. It is asking where the concern is for the children alongside the need to go out to work. Is caring for children a job or not? Is it a worthwhile job or not? It said there is a conflict in what is being said in other policies about the importance of children. Presbyterian Support went on to say that children will be disadvantaged by this bill. 
The next submission I would like to mention came from the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services. Many of the people who work in these organisations have dedicated a lot of their lives to working with the most disadvantaged in our community. When we have a Government that says it listens to the community I want to know why it is not listening to these voices. Are they not important? Does it not believe them? Do all the years of experience of working with people who are at the bottom of the heap not count for anything? The New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services said that the Government should focus on what works not on what does not work. No research has been provided to show that this approach will do what the Minister said and I have to say that the council was not alone in this view. 
As members know when a bill is provided to this House a regulatory impact statement is also provided. What did that regulatory impact statement state? It stated “There is no research currently available which accurately quantifies the size of the behavioural response from these changes in policies”. In other words we do not know whether it will change a single thing. That was from the regulatory impact statement which was tabled in this House. So this bill has resulted very much from the Government’s approach of licking its finger and holding it up in the wind to see which way the wind is blowing—oh the wind is blowing against beneficiaries so let us bring in a bill that gives them a bit more of a bashing! 
The New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services went on to say that it does not see the appropriate aspects in this bill. It cannot see any appropriate aspects in this bill particularly for children and it urged us not to proceed with the bill. The council said that there is a wealth of evidence that the bill will not result in the outcomes wanted—a wealth of evidence. It provided us with research from 1998 on the widows benefit. 
The next submission I would like to mention to the Minister is the one from the Salvation Army. Who in this House does not have admiration for the work of the Salvation Army? It works with people involved in drug addiction right through to people who are homeless. If there is a group in New Zealand society that most of us have had contact with as members of Parliament it is the Salvation Army. It said that this bill will mean the care of children will suffer when the pressure comes on sole parents to go out to work. If the Minister it said was to use the flexibility that already exists in policy then this bill would not be needed. Have members opposite heard that? If the Government used the flexibility that exists in the current policy then it would not need to have this legislation. 
The Salvation Army went on to say that sanctions were not appropriate because what the bill was doing was making moral judgments particularly moral judgments about widows versus sole parents. Widows equal good; sole parents equal bad. The sanctions apply to sole parents but there are no sanctions for widows. Most sole parents are women. So one group of women are good and one group of women are bad. The Salvation Army went on to say that populism is not an appropriate basis for making policy. It is populism that has led this policy to be brought in through legislation. The Salvation Army also asked what is needed. Better education is needed to help people get off those benefits and in time when they have had the education and the training they can move into a job and take primary responsibility for their families. The Salvation Army said that early childhood education will not be available for many of these parents who are being forced back to work. 
The last submission I want to mention came from the Child Advocacy Group. It said the benefit of parents staying at home with children should not be undermined. This is absolutely at the centre of what we ought to be advocating for in New Zealand—the importance of saying that caring for children is one of the most if not the most fundamental tasks we want parents to undertake. There should not be an unrelenting focus on work; there should be an unrelenting focus on being good parents and bringing up their children with the assistance that can be provided. That is what it ought to be about. It is the children who are being marginalised by this policy. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Who are at school! Be at home when they’re at home. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes Mr Woodhouse can get agitated but he is voting for this bill and that member opposite will be responsible for marginalising a whole group of children in New Zealand because they are not as good as his children. They are not as good as other member’s children because they belong to beneficiaries. The Child Advocacy Group went on to say that research and analysis are needed before starting because children will be hit the hardest. That group does a lot of work with children I say to Mr Woodhouse. That is what it said to the Social Services Committee. Research and analysis are needed before we start because the children will be hit the hardest by this bill. 
The Child Advocacy Group went on to say that 10 years ago the United States brought in this approach to welfare. It said there were 8 million children between the ages of 5 and 14 when a sanction regime like this was brought in in the United States who had inadequate supervision because their parents had to go out to work. Those single parents were often late and they worked night shifts that were not suitable. The unrelenting focus on work will impact on the children in New Zealand. This has come from the submissions I have read out which are just some that we heard at the select committee. They were much longer in length and there were many many more of them. 
There were something like three submissions in favour of this bill. Even Lindsay Mitchell who used to be a member of the ACT Party and who is said to be a social welfare commentator on the far right did not agree with this bill. She did not agree with it because it does not go far enough but everybody else did not agree with it because it does not do what the Government sets out to do. It is a piece of political puffery. It is a piece of populism. It does not provide for the most vulnerable in our society—for children. The children of beneficiaries will be the losers. The Government can attack their parents. It can say that their parents are losers and shirkers who do not want to work that they are lazy and they ought to get a job but having said that it should stop and think who the bill will affect. It will be the children of those beneficiaries. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I want to clarify a few things because I think that anyone listening in just then might have quite a misconception about what this bill actually does. We are talking about part-time work-testing for those on the domestic purposes benefit when their youngest child turns 6. What we are asking those people to do is to be ready to look for work and then to be actively looking for work when it is there. No benefits will be cut and no changes will be made if they are stepping up and looking for work. So I just clarify that. The likeness to the US was completely misleading. We are talking about part-time work-testing for those who can find a job when their youngest child is 6. I want to be clear about that sort of thing. 
Another comment we have heard a bit tonight has been that when the jobs are there the number of beneficiaries will go down and it will be fine and everything else. Certainly we saw that the number of people on the unemployment benefit was reduced in those best of times. We saw a very limited reduction in the number on the domestic purposes benefit but that was more as a result of Working for Families when we saw a few thousand people move off the domestic purposes benefit as that was more accessible for them. 
But let us be quite clear about a couple of other things. In that same period there was an increase of 45 percent in the number of people on the sickness benefit. At a time when New Zealanders are not becoming more sick when they are starting to live longer and when we have better access to health care and more technology that helps us to keep well we saw a 45 percent increase in the number of those on the sickness benefit. In that same period we saw the number of people on an invalids benefit increase by 53 percent. Although the number of people on the unemployment benefit went down the number of people on the sickness benefit increased by 45 percent and the number on the invalids benefit increased by 53 percent. We need to look at the issues there and ask ourselves what we are doing for those people. We need to look at how we can get some of those people well. We need to look at what they can do instead of what they cannot do. We need to focus on the positive aspects instead of just putting them on a benefit leaving them alone and not looking at them again. 
I will give the Committee some examples of what happened with the sickness benefit. In one Work and Income office that I visited I talked to a case manager who was responsible for sickness benefits. She said that a few weeks earlier she had written to those whom a doctor had said could work part-time. She invited them to come in and see her to talk about making a plan of what her office might do to help them get into work longer term about the sorts of help they might need and about what her office could do. She sat down and individually wrote to all of those from that particular office who were on the sickness benefit who might be able to do some part-time work but not a single one of them replied. Not a single one of those people asked for that assistance. 
What we are saying to people is reasonable and it is fair. We are asking them to work closely with their case managers. We have put on another 303 case managers within Work and Income since we have been in Government. We are saying to those people: “Let us work with you to concentrate on what you can do. When those jobs are there let us make sure that you are putting your best foot forward.” We have done work on CVs and on making sure that people are presenting themselves as well as they can and we have worked with them to help them into jobs. That is reasonable. If people are looking for work and are not able to find it then their benefits will not be changed. Their benefits will not be changed. That is reasonable and fair. 
In the debate tonight we have heard a lot of stuff about me. That is all fine I kind of like being talked about but it interests me because I do not base policy decisions on personal experiences that I may or may not have had. I look at what I believe is best for New Zealanders and at what will move them forward and I recognise what they can do. I do not sit here and try to throw stones at other members as to what their personal situations were. I have not done it in the past and I am not going to start now. 
What I will say though in response to the comments thrown out by the Opposition members—comments like “lazy” and a whole lot of other derogatory comments—is that I just blank them out because they are so nonsensical that I cannot believe that those members think they can throw those comments around and believe that the public would think that that is what we are saying. We constantly hear derogatory comments being thrown out towards those who are receiving State assistance and benefits but quite frankly I do not buy into them at all. If that is what members opposite want to accuse other members of saying about people then that is fine but it is not actually true. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Who has said that? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I could name four or five Labour members who have made those sorts of derogatory comments. Those comments do not apply to members on this side of the Chamber in relation to what they want to do and what they want to say. 
We are looking at some changes that will make a significant difference for those who are looking for assistance and help where they need it. We have not talked too much about the implementation of this bill when it becomes an Act and how we do that because that is what will make a significant difference. For example there is the interpretation of “suitable work” and what that means for people. 
There is the recognition that people will need more help with childcare. We will have to look at some home-based care for after school and at how that happens. If we want to have a debate in this Chamber that means something how about we debate whether there should be some sort of allowance for those who have childcare that they use informally with family and friends. I have not heard any of that sort of stuff raised by the Opposition but I am looking at that quite closely and I think it is a worthwhile debate to have. I ask whether we should be recognising some of that informal care and at how we work with people on that. 
When we look at people going into work and getting ahead in life I ask whether we look at the types of jobs that might be suitable for them. How can we work with them when their youngest child is 2 or 3 years of age and is starting to go into early childhood education? Can we get people into training then? Parents can get their children to school when they are 5 and by the time their children are 6 the parents are work-ready. That is the type of vision I have and it is why we have introduced this bill. 
We recognise that on 27 September when this legislation is implemented there simply will not be 42000 part-time jobs for all of those who will be work tested. It is called staging it in over a period of time and believing that these people can work towards having a more fulfilling life and getting off benefits and I categorically believe that that can happen. We will work with 4500 people at any one time. We will start with those who have been in the workforce more recently and who have qualifications that mean they can move more easily into jobs. We will also work with some of those who are at the much harder end. We are quite determined to wrap services around teen parents. We introduced a nearly $15 million package in the last Budget but equally we are getting case managers who will work specifically with teen parents and in some situations with iwi on how we can wrap those sorts of services around those people and help them get back into work. 
The implementation of this bill will be critical. It will be the most important thing that we can do. I have not heard anything about that from the Opposition. I have not heard any concern coming through as to how we stage this implementation whom we help the most and how we make sure we are addressing and getting to the areas that need it most. But there is a plan it is one that will work and it will happen over time. I think that this is a positive thing and I am happy to take any other questions. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a speech made by the Hon Judith Collins in which she sets out her views about beneficiaries sitting around watching Sky TV living off the taxpayer letting their children run riot and getting stoned. Who was criticising beneficiaries? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I will start at the very beginning by asking how the Minister dares to accuse Labour of stereotyping beneficiaries. Paula Bennett sat in the National caucus when Don Brash talked about beneficiaries breeding for business—solo mothers breeding for business. That was what a National member said but what did Paula Bennett have to say about that? Absolutely nothing—so how dare she stand in this Chamber and accuse Labour of stereotyping beneficiaries. 
The Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill is about National resorting to the type of thing it loves to do. There is nothing that National loves to do more than bash beneficiaries and kick people when they are down and that is what this bill is all about. It is about kicking people when they are down. It is not about lifting them up it is not about giving them a go and it is not about finding them a real job because if the jobs were there New Zealanders would take them. 
New Zealanders want to work. Thousands of people have been lining up outside supermarkets looking for work. If the jobs were there they would take them. But this Government has not created jobs. It has not closed the wage gap with Australia. The only gap it has closed with Australia is the unemployment gap. We used to have an unemployment rate that was lower than Australia’s but under this Government it is higher and the gap is getting wider. The unemployment rate went from 6 percent to 6.8 percent in the last quarter alone. What is the National Government doing about that? It is not doing a heck of a lot. It would rather pick on beneficiaries and tell them they lack ambition because they are not out there applying for jobs that do not exist. If the jobs were there people would be applying for them. But the jobs are not there. 
What have we had from National? We had a Job Summit. But no jobs came out of the Job Summit. In fact the Government did not even bother to measure whether any jobs came out of the Job Summit. There was the cycleway but it was an absolute flop. How many jobs came out of the cycleway? There were not many if any. Then the Government was going to mine national parks. But not many jobs were coming out of that. If the jobs were there beneficiaries would be looking for them and applying for them. 
Can anyone on the National benches explain the fact that thousands of people recently lined up outside a supermarket looking for work? There is not an answer from them not a word. Those members have no explanation for the fact that thousands of people have been lining up looking for jobs and that the jobs are not there. Where is the plan to create jobs? But there is a plan to pick on people who cannot find jobs kick them when they are down say they lack ambition because they are unemployed and say that they should stop breeding for business. 
Paula Bennett said that this debate would get ugly. Well most of the ugly comments about beneficiaries have come from members opposite—National members. As Annette King pointed out Judith Collins was the one who talked about beneficiaries sitting around watching Sky television and getting stoned. That was when the debate got ugly. It was when the National members waded into it and started stereotyping beneficiaries and kicking people when they are down. 
In the Labour Party we do not take that approach. We think we should actually enable people to find work. We should help them raise their skills. We should intervene early. Early childhood education is critical but what has the National Government done? It has cut funding to early childhood education and it has cut a whole raft of second-chance learning opportunities. Night classes used to provide a stepping stone for people on benefits to get back into work. 
I would be interested in the Minister’s comments about night classes. They provided a stepping stone for people who might have been out of work for some time. Night classes helped people to lift their skills and to catch up in some instances. People need new computing skills as technology changes and they could go to night classes and get those skills but that rug has totally been pulled out from under them by the National Government. Night classes have gone altogether in the Hutt Valley. There is not a single night class for a beneficiary in my electorate who wants to raise his or her skills before going back into work. There is not a single night class that beneficiaries can go to. 
The training incentive allowance has been cut by Paula Bennett. That was a second-chance opportunity for people to get back into work through developing skills so that they can get real jobs—real jobs not some make-work scheme and not something that the Government is dreaming is there but simply does not exist. 
Real jobs require some skill levels but the Government is doing nothing to help people to get them. That is the case even at the higher end of the job market. People who have found themselves out of work and have thought they would take the opportunity to upskill and maybe go to university have found the doors closed. The doors to the universities have been closed. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I will put some questions to the Minister in the chair the Minister for Social Development and Employment and I would like to get a couple of answers. 
One of the questions that I have regards the support the Government will be giving to sole parents or domestic purposes benefit recipients in order for them to study. I raised this question earlier in the night but I have not had a response yet from the Minister and I would like a response. Why will the legislation allow for supporting domestic purposes benefit recipients for study at only level 4 or higher and not at levels 1 2 and 3? How do we allow them to prepare adequately for study at level 4 or higher if they do not have any secondary school qualifications and they are not supported to get levels 1 2 and 3? That is one thing I put to the Minister. 
I also ask how it makes sense then to maintain the training incentive allowance only for those studying at levels 1 2 and 3 when they will no longer be supported to study at those levels if they are domestic purposes benefit recipients. Those are the No. 1 questions I put to the Minister and I would like a response in respect of those questions. 
Moving on I will touch on a few other things. One of them is the fact that last night I was at a Pacific Women’s Watch meeting. I spoke to the women about the impact of the welfare reforms on single mothers because they were quite interested in hearing about that. The thing that came up not only in my speech but also from the audience attending last night was the complete disregard this legislation shows for the valuable contribution to our society that is made by people for whom caring for children the sick or the elderly is in fact their primary yet unpaid work at this time in their lives. 
We have talked a lot about the importance of work and of supporting beneficiaries to go out there and take up work. We on this side of the Chamber support that. We are supportive of it which is why we put Working for Families into place. But we do not believe that we should underestimate the importance of a mother staying home and looking after her children if that is what she feels she needs to do. I bring up again the fact that in the Minister’s own maiden speech she said that parents should have the right to choose—the right to choose to work full-time the right to choose to work part-time and the right to choose to stay home and raise their children if they wish. That is the issue we need to discuss here. We are not saying that we do not support women to get out into the workforce; we are saying that if they decide that what is best for them is being at home because of their circumstances or the needs of their particular children then we should support them in doing that. 
It is not always going to be the case that getting out into the workforce is the best thing. I can think of some examples. I can think of one friend who has seven children and whose husband left her 2 years ago. She did not expect that to happen. For her to go out into the workforce and be expected still to run a household and run around after her seven children and look after them adequately is I think a bit unfair. If she wants to get out into the workforce that is up to her. But if she decides that with seven children she needs to be at home then I think that that is a fair call and we should be supporting her on that decision. 
Earlier I heard Mr Woodhouse interjecting. He said that children go to school and that it is during those hours that parents should be able to go out and work. Well unfortunately we do not necessarily have jobs that fit around the schedules of children and their school hours so we will not always have that choice. On top of that when we look at the individual circumstances of rather large families—and we can go back to that woman with seven kids—we can never predict when children are going to be sick or when the mother will be called upon for support at school. How often can a mother—say one with seven children—get away with saying to her boss that her children are sick? Even when a mother has only one child or two or three we know how often those things happen and how often we need to be at school for whatever reason. Can members imagine having seven children and the expectations and demands that will be placed on a mother in that situation? I think it is a little naive of Mr Woodhouse to assume that every parent can get out there and work during school hours because that is not always the case. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. Na te mea koi nei te wa tuatahi i tu au i roto i te Whare i tenei ahiahi kei te tangi atu ki taku tipuna ki a Takuta Te Kapunga Dewes; katahi noa nei ka mate i Te Tai Rawhiti. Na reira he poroporoaki paku he poroporoaki iti tenei ki a ia. Haere haere haere atu ra. Ka hoki mai ki a tatou. 
[ 
Because this is the first time I have stood in the House this afternoon I grieve for my ancestor Doctor Te Kapunga Dewes who has just passed away up in the East Coast. This is a small farewell from me to him. Depart depart and farewell. Now back to us 
.]  
I see that Luamanuvao Winnie Laban is in the Chamber. This is the first time I have had the opportunity to publicly congratulate her on her appointment at Victoria University and to wish her very well in that new appointment. Nga mihi ki a koe. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Is this a campaign launch? 
HEKIA PARATA 
: Actually it is courtesy thank you. Turning back to the kaupapa of today—the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill which we have been discussing—I have been watching on television with increasing amazement at the way the Opposition has characterised this very sensible bill. I am delighted that the Minister for Social Development and Employment took a call a few minutes ago to remind the public who hopefully have been tuning in and listening of what this bill is actually about because it bears no resemblance to the kinds of descriptions and characterisations that members of the Opposition have indulged themselves with nor to the kinds of blame and assertions that those members have found themselves sinking to in describing what we on this side of the Chamber are doing. 
Yes we are committed to supporting those who are unable to support themselves. Yes we think that is a fair and appropriate commitment which we take on on behalf of the taxpayers who provide the funds that make that possible. And yes we are committed to the idea that being on a benefit lifestyle that provides a 2-week horizon is not a quality of life for anyone. We would like those people who find themselves in the situation of requiring a benefit as a lifeline and not a lifestyle to be given the opportunity to be encouraged to take up work. What is unreasonable about part-time work-testing for a parent on the domestic purposes benefit with a child over 6? What is unreasonable about that? What is heinous about that? Why is it acceptable for sole parents who are not on the domestic purposes benefit and whose child is 6 or younger and who are in work to be doing that? Do we think they are callously disregarding the needs of their children? No we do not yet the Opposition seems to feel that when we talk about parents on the domestic purposes benefit being required to go and see whether work is available to prepare themselves for work then that is somehow unacceptable. There is a principle of reciprocity in the way that this democracy operates. I have been paying taxes— 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: She should have as much choice to decide whether she goes out to work or whether she stays home to look after her children. 
HEKIA PARATA 
: It might be helpful if the member from the Opposition had the courtesy to listen to someone apart from herself and I would like the opportunity to contribute my 5 minutes to this debate. 
I have paid taxes since my early teenage years as have many members in this Chamber. I am happy to pay taxes that will contribute to helping the public services of this country even to the provision of benefits as are many other taxpayers. But at some point in that arrangement some reciprocity is expected. I feel that this bill has set the line at the appropriate place. It says that where parents on the domestic purposes benefit have a child who is 6 years old or older it is entirely acceptable to expect that those parents might make themselves work-ready. As the Minister has already clarified if there is no suitable work then there will be no penalty. If they are unable to find it their benefit will not be cut. What would any reasonable person—and I use the word “reasonable” definitively because clearly reason has escaped members on that side of the Chamber—find wrong with that? 
Similarly there will be a part-time work test for sickness beneficiaries who have been medically assessed as being able to work for 15 hours per week or more. What is unreasonable about that? Indeed much of the research tells us that participating in work is as much a part of the prescription of returning to good health as any kind of medical or clinical intervention that might be required would be. What is unreasonable about that? This Government stands absolutely behind this bill and this Minister in taking these steps in encouraging those people whom otherwise members on that side of the Chamber would be prepared to see languishing on a 2-week lifestyle. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 If this debate was really about getting beneficiaries into work then the Government should be showing us its plan to create growth and grow jobs. The reality is that it is all very well to talk about the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill but the context in which the Government promotes beneficiaries into jobs has to have the other part of the equation which is to ask where the jobs are. 
People who are listening to the debate want to know what the Government’s plan is to create jobs in small communities so that beneficiaries have real choices for real wages and real jobs and a fair go. We on this side of the Chamber know that yes beneficiaries want to work but no the Government is not doing anything to create jobs. There is nothing simpler than that message so I ask why the Government does not get it. Everyone else gets it but the Government does not get it. This bill should not just talk about opportunities for beneficiaries without creating those opportunities which are jobs and employment. 
The Minister for Social Development and Employment was quick to get to her feet and talk about all the good things that are being done to support mums on the domestic purposes benefit into work. Like her I too have visited a number of teen parent units throughout the country. I want to know why the Minister has cut the Young Parent Childcare Payment. Why did she cut it? Why did she take away an allowance that goes to young parents to enable them to get their children to a childcare centre and to study as well? That is what she has done. That is the little glimmer of light that she has snuffed out for those young parents. Often the aspiration of those teen parents is to go into higher education often to polytech or university. 
I ask why the Minister cut out the entitlement for the training incentive allowance that funded courses at level 4 and above. Yes teen parents want to work but they know that they need to get a better and higher qualification to create a better opportunity for them and their little whanau—a better quality of life. There has been no answer to that from the Minister. 
What is worse is that the Minister has failed to come up with a plan for teen parents to tell them where the jobs are. She is all one-sided in the debate. She says that the Government wants to get beneficiaries off the benefit and into work—we agree with that—but there has been no response about where the jobs are and that is really important. 
The member who spoke before me Hekia Parata talked about work testing sickness beneficiaries. A lot of people who know how the system works know that people who have come from full-time employment on to the sickness benefit will not stay on it for long. They want to get back into full-time employment. They are not who we are talking about. 
I suspect that we are talking about a high proportion of sickness beneficiaries—and this is the feedback from many Work and Income offices—who have some form of mental illness. The difficulty is that even if those people are medically assessed to work for 15 hours employers are not flexible enough to respond to their needs in the workplace. We are talking about highly functioning people who may at times have bouts of depression or some type of mental illness that prevents them from working a full part-time 15-hour shift. The question to the Minister is that although those people can be medically assessed as being able to work for 15 hours the workplace may not be responsive enough to deal and to cope with the challenges that some people face in their everyday life to work a full 15-hour period. We have had no response whatsoever from the Minister on that simple point. They are real people who face challenges and who are medically assessed to work but they cannot find a job or an employer that is responsive to their needs. They cannot find an employer who says he or she will accept that a person will work for 15 hours one week because the person may ring up the next week to say that he or she is having a bad week and just cannot make it. Will the employer will be responsive? I suspect not. 
We are treating some of the most vulnerable people in a way that I think is unfair and that could actually be detrimental to their ongoing quality of life and well-being. We are not talking about the proportion of people who are on the sickness benefit for a period of time who then go back into full-time employment. Most people who come from full-time employment will want to be on the sickness benefit for only a short time because they know there is a full-time job there. I suspect we are talking about the greater proportion of people on the sickness benefit those who are in the category that I have already spoken about. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair. I feel it is really important that we look at the context when we start debating the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill. I heard a lot of rhetoric back in my room listening to the TV with everybody claiming to have been abused. But the people who are actually being abused are not the people in this House. The voices of the people who are being abused are not being heard. The people who are being abused are vulnerable people as Nanaia Mahuta just said and our responsibility as legislators is to look at the context and at the situation we face in this country in terms of employment unemployment sickness and caring for children. 
This bill should be contributing to positive change. I am sure there are people in National who believe that is what they are doing but I say in all sincerity as somebody who has spent 5 years working with beneficiaries that it will not work. We can do what feels good and what is ideologically consistent with party policy but if it will not work then all we are really doing is compounding the issues. 
A wider debate is going on that affects this bill and that is the debate involving the Welfare Working Group and the Alternative Welfare Working Group. Those parties are debating the wider issues. The Alternative Welfare Working Group is coming up with recognition that the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill as it used to be called—and I cannot remember what the bill is called now but I know that it is a bill about sanctioning work testing—will not work. It simply will not improve conditions for people at the bottom of the heap. 
We know that the bill will not work because we know that the disabled cannot get employment that is suitable for their disability. We have only to talk to the disability advocate groups. It is not rocket science. We have only to talk to the Disabled Persons Assembly which is represented on the Alternative Welfare Working Group by Wendy Wicks. Members should ask Wendy why people with disabilities have so many challenges in finding appropriate work in the workplace and why her position is not being heard by the other working party and is not reflected in this bill. Ask her that question. If we want to know about other vulnerable people we should talk to the staff of Caritas the Catholic social services organisation. They do not have a desire to attack the Government. They do not want to be seen to be supporting any political party. They do not have an axe to grind about poverty; they have a spiritual and moral commitment to look after the most vulnerable. So perhaps their voices alongside beneficiaries’ voices might be worth hearing as well. 
I stand here proudly to acknowledge my former colleague Sue Bradford who has given most of her life to this issue and who is on the Alternative Welfare Working Group. Her voice should be heard by the other working group and be reflected in this bill. But we are not hearing the voice of experience; we are hearing the voice of ideology. 
It is random to start talking about work testing people when work testing is a failed experiment that other countries such as Australia are moving away from not because of their moral and spiritual commitment to the poor but because it simply has not reduced the number of people on benefits. If we want to be pragmatic about this we have to look at what actually works to reduce the number of beneficiaries. If we are about cutting costs we should be pragmatic look at what does not work and not reintroduce it into Aotearoa New Zealand when Australia is walking away from it. It is not a logical process to be following. We should look at the people on the Alternative Welfare Working Group and ask for the views of its members such as the Rev. Muru Walters who is tangata whenua and is representing his Church. None of those people are speaking lightly out of some sectarian desire to attack the Government’s position. They are doing it because they are very concerned that the most vulnerable people will be retraumatised. 
Hon Annette King 
: And they’re experienced. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY 
: And those people have spent their lives doing what we in this House do not do. They have spent their lives at the front line without any recognition status or necessarily salaries such as we get paid. Every day they are trying to feed the people who are the most vulnerable. 
The Green Party is really concerned about this legislation. We were hopeful that it would be amended but when it came out of the select committee process it had not been amended so we are very very disappointed. We should not entrench injustice when we have the opportunity for change. We might all be on the same page about wanting to create real jobs so that people have better lives—we might all agree with that—but at the select committee group after group and person after person from Sir Geoffrey Palmer who said the legislation was ridiculous right through to all of the advocacy groups said that the legislation was unfortunate. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 Like many members I was listening to this debate in my office and I felt compelled to come down and take a call after hearing National member after National member decry the fact that they have been misunderstood on the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill. Well I understood what the Hon Paula Bennett and the Rt Hon John Key meant when they said this bill was meant to give beneficiaries “a kick in the pants”. I understood them very well and what National members do not like is that we have called this bill what it is. We have called a dog whistle a dog whistle because that is all that this legislation is. This legislation will not do anything to create jobs or help beneficiaries to get back into work. 
The only reason that this legislation was introduced was that the Government was feeling the pressure and thought it would trot out the old favourite of beneficiary bashing. It has worked well for National in the past it has deflected attention in the past and the Government was sure it would work again so Government members came out and said they would give beneficiaries a kick up the backside. But do members know what? New Zealanders did not respond in the way that the Government had hoped they would because New Zealanders know that there are no jobs out there. They can see the unfairness of the Government’s saying to people who want to work and who are on a benefit that it will punish them for the fact that it has done nothing to stop the increasing trend in unemployment. 
In fact the issue goes further than that because if we are really serious about getting people off a benefit and back into work we would look at all the impediments that beneficiaries face. We all see those people coming through our offices all the time—people who desperately want to work but who cannot. Sure there will be a couple of bad apples; there have been a couple of bad apples in this place as well. Not every situation is perfect and not everyone will be perfect. But the overwhelming majority of people whom I see coming through my office are desperate and they want to work. Interestingly enough they cannot get in to see their own MP so maybe the reason that the National Government is so detached from reality on this issue is that it is not speaking to the people who are most affected by unemployment and who want to get into work the most. 
Instead of reducing the barriers to employment the National Government has thrown up many many more. It is hard for people to get back into work if they are solo parents and face childcare costs that they cannot afford. It is hard for them to get back into work if they cannot get their kids into early childhood education yet what did this Government do? It cut the funding for early childhood education. How will that help beneficiaries to get back into work? The Government also cut the training incentive allowance which was an allowance specifically designed to reduce the costs that stop beneficiaries from getting back into work. All the Government’s own reports told it that in terms of value for money that policy was one of the best policies that existed— 
Hon Annette King 
: Even Treasury. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Even Treasury said it was one of the best policies that existed to get people from welfare back into work. Paula Bennett knows that because she used the training incentive allowance herself when she was a solo mum to get back into work—and good on her. What did she do? She cut it. Adult and community education—night classes—was one of the biggest pathways back into skills training for beneficiaries and what happened? It disappeared; it has gone. A Kiwi institution was destroyed overnight by an education Minister. 
Why is the Government introducing legislation that when it was announced was about kicking beneficiaries in the pants but now that the Minister is speaking in the Chamber apparently does not do anything? All of this debate is just hype according to the Minister because the bill does not actually do anything at all. I say to the Minister that this legislation cannot be both. Either it is the “kick in the pants” that the Government said it would be for beneficiaries or it does nothing which is what the Minister and other National members are telling us in the Chamber tonight. That is what this Government does. The Prime Minister John Key leads by example on this. He goes around the country and tells people what they want to hear. When he needs to do the redneck dog-whistle thing he does that but when he is standing in front of a group of social service providers people who work with beneficiaries or people who are unemployed all of a sudden it is a softer face. We cannot have that from our Prime Minister and from our Government. The Government cannot be all things to all people. Either it is kicking beneficiaries in the pants which appeals to part of its voting bloc or it is not doing anything in this legislation other than apparently being “touchy-feely” and really really valuing beneficiaries. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 The people who will be affected by the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill were promised a brighter future. They were promised a brighter future by National but they have no jobs; they have this bill. I ask how that is the brighter future they were promised. Well quite simply it is not the brighter future because that National Government has got it wrong. It sold the electorate a line and now it cannot deliver because it has no plan to create the jobs. Instead it will target those very people whom the Government have now put on the scrap heap. It is targeting them with this bill and it has got it very very wrong. 
I will speak about an issue that has not been well traversed yet in this debate and that is childcare. It all started here with this bill. This was the first time that we learnt that this Government was completely insincere when it said that childcare and early childhood education was a top priority. This bill was the first indication in writing that the Government was insincere. In this bill the Government has cut $57 million and transferred that cost on to families for childcare. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: How much? 
SUE MORONEY 
: The figure is $57 million which affects 11000 families. At that point it was called the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill. Well the future focus for those 11000 families is that they will be out of pocket to the collective tune of $57 million. Treasury said that that is just the Government transferring the cost on to parents. It is transferring the costs on to parents all right. Those parents cannot afford it. They cannot afford the increase in GST that is coming up they cannot afford this $57 million and they certainly cannot afford the additional $295 million that this Government is cutting out of early childhood education and putting on those very same families as well. Is that a brighter future? I do not think so. This is absolutely not a brighter future. 
The Minister actually jumped the gun with this one. Here we are still in the Committee stage of this bill yet way back in April the Ministry of Education posted on its website how much the early childhood education sector would need to adjust its funding by. We have not even passed this bill in this Parliament and way back in April the sector was being informed officially by the Ministry of Education that $57 million was being cut and that it had better find a way to replace that money. I met with an early childhood educator last week who had a visit from the ministry to sit down and go through the figures for this cut of $57 million. What the sector commonly refers to as the “WINZ subsidy”—even though the department has been called Work and Income for some time now—has been cut. Even though this bill has not been passed ministry officials are going around the country as we speak working with owners of childcare centres and early childhood education facilities to tell them exactly what that cut will look like and to try to help them manage it. 
Mind you that is a little bit better than the Ministry of Education. It is completely keeping at arm’s length those very same providers and pretending that it has nothing to do with the $295 million that is coming out of that sector because of the funding cuts that were made to Vote Education at the same time. This is the cumulative effect of the things that this bill does with not only early childhood education but also out-of-school care. This cut in childcare subsidy also applies for children up to the age of 13 whose families access those subsidies to keep them in out-of-school care. They need that out-of-school care subsidy because by and large those parents are working. They are doing what the Government pretends it wants them to do. They are in paid employment and they are trying to keep their children in a safe environment while they are in paid employment. For that brighter future for those families this Government cuts the subsidy and reduces the income thresholds that this subsidy applies to. Of course they have no brighter future. What about women? They are once again unfairly targeted by this. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I will not be too long. [ 
Interruption 
] It was 58 days ago actually. I want to speak about some of the more disingenuous comments made by Labour members tonight. 
Todd McClay 
: Which ones are you going to pick? There have been so many. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: There have been a few have there not? More important I want to talk about the personal attacks on the Minister for Social Development and Employment first of all for being on the domestic purposes benefit. Well at least she has had experience. Some of those people across the way have never had any experience. Some of them went straight from school into university and straight in here. I ask where they got their learning from. Was it from the streets or the hard stories out there? No they made it up at the universities. I tell some of those members across the way that some members on this side of the Chamber including the Minister went to the school of hard knocks and the university of life. 
To get it down to specifics in the day that our lovely Minister was on the domestic purposes benefit there was no such thing as interest-free loans for students. There was absolutely no such thing. There were no childcare subsidies in the Minister’s day and guess what? Even the accommodation supplement in those days which had just come in was not as good as it is now. 
I love it how Labour gets up—I was going to say on its hind legs but I had better not say that—and rattles off how bad it is that the Minister has taken away the training incentive allowance because she got it and other people will not. Well I tell members opposite that when the Minister was on the domestic purposes benefit she was getting not a few dollars less but hundreds of dollars less than what a person on the domestic purposes benefit gets today. If we put it in those words we see that that is the disingenuous mode and korero from the other side. 
I point out that Labour members do not have any experience. Nine years in Government would have taught them one of two things. Firstly it would have taught them that if they were doing a good job they would have got another 3 years. Like George Gregan said I would just love to say that we will have another 3 years and that side will not and I will tell the Committee why. It does not matter how sick or under the weather Chris Carter may be feeling; he was absolutely right. 
Sue Moroney 
: So arrogant. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh no. That has nothing to do with arrogance; it has to do with listening to the people in the caucus who are thrown out and whom we may not want to listen to any more. I think that Labour members have not a leg to stand on. There is no experience. Not one Labour member has any experience. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Oh really? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well at least the Minister knows her way around west Auckland and she was not parachuted in without a map. At least she knows where to go. At least she knows her way around and she was not parachuted into that electorate. She won it fair and square. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I want to speak on clause 23 which concerns advance payment regulations but before I do I will address some of the comments made by Tau Henare. He made claims about people’s lives that were unjustified and plainly incorrect. I have been on the unemployment benefit and I have been a sole parent on the domestic purposes benefit. I had the opportunity to receive the training incentive allowance and I trained at university so that I would not spend the rest of my life working at McDonald’s on the minimum wage. As a young woman who did not have any school qualifications like many young Maori women of that time I had the opportunity to have a tertiary education. Many young Maori women still leave school without gaining any qualifications but none the less they have the opportunity to train in order to get a good qualification because they have the necessary support and can therefore get a good job and take care of their family. That is what I did and that is what thousands of sole parents do. They use the opportunity to train so that they can do better for themselves and for their families. 
But we would not know that from the rhetoric of the Welfare Working Group—the very right-wing and very radical anti-beneficiary Welfare Working Group—which supports faith-based legislation like this bill. The Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill punishes sole parents and gives a licence to the community to denigrate sole parents. That is despite the fact that the Minister herself was a sole parent and understands the circumstances of women like herself and myself when we were younger and in need of support. 
Clause 23 is about the regulations relating to the granting of advance payments of benefits. This regulation effectively requires some beneficiaries who are considered to have become too reliant on advances to be compulsorily required on the advice of their case manager to seek budgeting advice. The advance payment of benefits is intended to meet the immediate needs of beneficiaries recognising that many beneficiaries will have exhausted their savings if indeed they ever had any because of the low rates of the main benefit paid. 
Since National slashed benefits in the early 1990s—I was working with beneficiaries at that time and I saw the devastation that that cruelty caused—there has not been a significant increase in benefits. Benefits are not able to be lived on. They are insufficient to enable people to care for themselves and for their families. The reliance on advance payments becomes more acute over time especially because it becomes more and more difficult to manage on a meagre income that is insufficient to take care of basic needs. 
This Government in proposing clause 23 has clearly not learnt from Minister Maharey in the last Labour Government. Minister Maharey abolished the special benefit which was a discretionary benefit and gave an opportunity for case managers to consider the particular circumstances of the beneficiary who needed extra support. It was replaced with the regulated temporary additional support allowance which removed a level of discretion from the third-tier welfare assistance programme. What this Government does not understand and what was unfortunate about Minister Maharey’s decision is that we cannot use regulation to deal with the totality of human experience especially when we are talking about very low incomes and when people have ordinary lives that they have to live and simply do not have the income to pay the power bill pay the rent and put decent food on the table. 
The discretionary aspect of third-tier assistance is a last resort because people are absolutely desperate when they come in for temporary additional support. But when we take that away people fall through the cracks. Those people are desperately in need of a little bit of extra money to cover the very very basic costs so that their power is not cut off in the middle of winter so that they can heat their homes effectively and so that their kids do not get sick and spend the next 3 weeks off school while they get medicines and care for them and cannot do the things that they normally do. This additional support is just for basic stuff so that people are able to get through their daily lives. People fall through the cracks because of the removal of the discretion around those benefits. They regularly become dependent on food banks and they get into debt perhaps to family members. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 There was a lot of irony in Tau Henare’s speech this evening I thought. He berated members opposite for mentioning the fact that Paula Bennett had been a sole parent beneficiary but then spent his entire speech talking about it. The Minister also bemoaned the fact that she had been brought into the debate but I have to tell her that she put herself into the debate a long time ago when she proudly said that she had been a sole parent on a benefit and that on that benefit she had managed to get an education and to lift herself up and that today she was a Minister of the Crown in the New Zealand Parliament and should be applauded for that. So I say to the Minister that she brought herself into the debate and if it is mentioned by members on this side of the Chamber then it is because we see it as an OK thing to do because she did it. Other members including me have tonight talked about their experiences. 
Tau Henare said that the Minister came from the school of hard knocks. But I have to say that she also came from a university education and we have been saying to members opposite that if this bill is going to do what National claims then where is the plan to get people into work? I want to go into that issue in a moment. 
First of all I want to answer some points made by Hekia Parata. She said in her speech that there needs to be reciprocity. When the Crown is providing assistance to those who are on a benefit then there is some obligation on their part and I agree with her. But I ask that member what is magical about the youngest child being 6. I had one child and it was a lot easier to be able to do other things when she was 6. But if I had been a sole parent and had had a 6-year-old a 7-year-old a 9-year-old and an 11-year-old the situation would have been totally different. Setting a policy around the youngest child being 6 does not take account of the other circumstances within that family situation. That is why it was said in submissions—which the member would have heard—that if we were to use the policy that exists now within the Ministry of Social Development we would have the flexibility to do exactly what this Government wants to do without actually bringing in legislation. 
Members on this side of the Chamber believe that every New Zealander should have the chance of the Kiwi dream of having a decent job. We want New Zealanders to have a decent job with decent pay. But how do we put a person who is on a benefit on that path? We do not do it by telling them that they have to be work tested when their youngest child is 6 regardless of the circumstances and that they need to be able to do 15 hours of work a week. It does not matter what the job is it does not matter what the impact is it does not matter whether there is adequate childcare and so on. So I say to members opposite that if they are going to bring in this policy then where is the plan to make it work? It is not in the legislation; it is not in anything that the Minister has said to date about how these people will be assisted into jobs when the jobs come. 
I bring the Committee’s attention to a number of amendments that Labour has put forward on this bill. I say to the Minister that if she is going to bring in this policy why does she not change the 15 hours of work a week to 20 hours before the part-time work test is applied? Just a few moments ago the Minister in her own speech said that the reason sole parents went off the sole parent benefit was Working for Families. Does the Minister recall that? That is what she said. She said that sole parents went off the benefit because of Working for Families. What does Working for Families provide? It provides that those people who undertake 20 hours of part-time work a week are eligible for the in-work tax credit. Why does the Minister not make the part-time work test apply at 20 hours of work a week? If that does what the Minister said it does why not apply the 20 hours rather than the 15 hours? I urge the Maori Party the ACT Party— 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I will note a couple of quick things particularly in relation to the Green member’s contribution about advance payments and hardship in clause 23. In the election manifesto we came into Government on we said we were going to have compulsory budgeting for those who had had I think two or more advance payments. We looked at that with the benefit of hindsight and we saw that it was not realistic. 
I acknowledge what the Green member was saying in that actually we look at them— 
Metiria Turei 
: What if they don’t have the money? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I was trying to address what the member had said and was giving another perspective. What we were trying to do with clause 23 and what we have done is say that it is a budgeting activity. It might be more that people are sitting down with their case managers and working out what is working for them. I also thought that process might actually help them to make sure they are getting all of their entitlements. We are making sure they are getting everything. 
The other thing that we are doing with the budgeting activity is taking account of the things that are available via the Internet. One just needs to look at the Sorted website and those sorts of sites to see that they can provide opportunities for people. We also want to look at what we can do to assist people when they get further down the track so there is budgeting assistance for them there. 
In recognition of the honourable member who has just spoken Mrs King I will address the issue of 15 or 20 hours of work. The official part-time figure is 15 hours; that is where that figure came from. It is a minimum. I could not agree more that the jump for an extra 5 hours makes an incredible difference for those who are on the domestic purposes benefit but 15 hours is the official part-time figure. That is why it was chosen. It also fits in with some of the hours that they can get with jobs—for example 2 full-time days of 7 hours. It recognises some of those differences and 15 hours is a minimum. We certainly see the financial benefits of those on benefits going into 20 hours’ work. I have no hesitation in recommending that. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 The Minister for Social Development and Employment can at this stage change the minimum hours to 20 and I suggest that the Minister does that. There is nothing magical about 15 hours either. I say she should make it 20 hours. The Minister could put forward an amendment to the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill; she is in charge of her own legislation. 
The next thing I say to the Minister is that when the issue of the abatement level was brought up at the Social Services Committee—and her members on that committee would have told the Minister this—it was told that lifting the abatement level from $80 a week to $100 a week does not take account of the increase that there has been through the CPI over the years since the level was last changed. Some people have said the abatement level should be $160 a week but the consensus at the select committee was that it should be $130 a week. Why does the Minister not increase it to $130 a week? I see she has had the Minister of Finance put a financial veto on that but that would be the fair thing to do. 
The next issue is the commencement date of 27 September I believe. Why does the Minister not extend the commencement date out to line it up with the Government’s own unemployment benefit predictions? We have talked a lot tonight about the fact that there are not a lot of jobs out there for people around New Zealand. There are not a lot of jobs particularly in the provinces and in some of the smaller places in New Zealand. The Minister would have heard from Shane Jones about unemployment in the far north where it is almost in double figures. So why does the Minister not extend the commencement date out to line it up with the unemployment beneficiary predictions that are in the Budget documents this year? Those Budget documents show that the number of people on the unemployment benefit will still be higher in 2014 than it was when the Minister took office. It will be higher in 2014 than it was when we left Government. So there will be a large number of people on the unemployment benefit who want to obtain jobs in a market where there will still be few jobs. Even if the Minister does not want to go as far as doing that why does she not push out the date at which the Government will bring this legislation into force? I think the Government will start to look very silly when it does not achieve what it says this legislation will achieve. 
I also would like the Minister to consider the submission that asked her to please look at the evidence. She was asked to look at the evidence of what works and what does not work. One of the pieces of information that came from Massey University was that change comes from the availability of work not from sanctions. So the availability of work for beneficiaries has to be the prerequisite to get them into work rather than sanctions. 
My last comment is that I believe that most beneficiaries in New Zealand want to have a job. That has been shown. Did people see the woman tonight on television who has just got a job at the supermarket in Mount Roskill? She has been trying to get a job for 2 long years— 
H V Ross Robertson 
: 2500 applied! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: —and 2700 people lined up to work in the supermarket. She got one of the jobs and the smile on her face was huge because she wanted to have a job. She wanted to work; she did not want to be on a benefit. She in my view reflects the view of many people around New Zealand who want to have a job. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: So she was made unemployed under Labour. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: She may well have become unemployed when we were in Government I tell Dr Smith but when we left Government New Zealand had the lowest unemployment rate in the Western World. It is now under this Government going up every month. So I would not harp on about that if I were Dr Smith. It will be another bit of misinformation that he provides to the House. That woman got a job. Most beneficiaries want to have a job but this legislation will not make a single job available for them. 
I say the Minister should base her legislation on evidence. I also say the Minister has not provided any evidence that this legislation will work. The Government has been told that over and over again. The Government’s own regulatory impact statement stated that there is no evidence of that and its own Attorney-General who is its top legal person has said this legislation is discriminatory. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Just to follow on from my earlier discussion about the advance payment of benefits the Minister in the chair the Hon Paula Bennett stood up to say that people can do a budgeting activity—which is not very different from budgeting advice or trying to organise for beneficiaries to rearrange their money better—knowing as she does full well that there simply is not enough money and that beneficiaries seek support through advances in various forms because they do not have enough money to cover the very basics. Of course we saw an example of exactly that today in the newspaper. Although the Minister will spin this measure as being one to try to help beneficiaries at the root of what she is says and at the root of the provision in clause 23 of the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill is the assumption that if beneficiaries cannot manage on an income that is insufficient that must be entirely their fault. It is assumed that they must obviously be people who are not doing a good enough job of managing on money that simply cannot be stretched any further to cover the very basics. 
The Minister herself would understand what that means having been in a similar situation to that previously as do I and as do others in this Chamber who have been in similar situations. We understand what it means to not have enough money to cover the very basics and to need help. In the current situation with the regulated temporary additional support we now have very set criteria that do not take into account the circumstances of a particular parent and what he or she needs. It might be the case that his or her child has over the last few weeks been extremely ill so the parent has had real difficulty in going to a part-time job which maybe brings in 50 or 80 bucks a week so the parent does not lose money on the abatement. There might be very basic particular circumstances but if people fail the regulatory tests set out in the legislation then they will not be able to access that additional support. They will go without the very basics and so will their children. 
The other part of this measure is weird in the sense that it talks about an excessive number of advance payments. It says those who seek an excessive number of advance payments will have to seek budgetary advice. Again that goes directly to the blame-the-victim mentality that is part of this legislation. 
We need to provide in welfare legislation systems that are simple understandable and transparent; that incentivise beneficiaries to gain the extra skills that they need in order to move into the workforce when they are ready; and that provide support for the children of beneficiaries to be parented as effectively as possible. When a sole parent is on the domestic purposes benefit we have a real opportunity for skill development. If the person does not have a very good education or has not had an opportunity to get further development or training we should look at their skills and support them to train for better skills. There is an opportunity to support sole parents to get access to child care so that their children get very good high-quality early childhood education which they can participate in and be part of. There are a lot of excellent opportunities in early childhood education for parents to be involved with their children on a regular daily basis without the stress of having to find work or of being forced to lose their benefit as a result of not finding the work that their case manager says they should find. 
There are ways to give families the support that they need in order to do the best job of taking care of their babies and children. But what happens with legislation like this—which is based on a blame-the-victim mentality and a punitive approach whereby people whose circumstances mean that they need help now are punished for needing that help—is that at the end of the day it punishes the children of those families. 
I support the amendments that the Hon Annette King has put forward. I agree entirely with her comments on the 20 hours a week. The Government by making the work test 15 hours a week and not 20 hours a week is cutting off for beneficiaries the opportunity to make the step up from the benefit. It constrains their ability to move off the benefit and into 20-hour work where they could then move into being supported by Working for Families. It traps beneficiaries into the poverty cycle. The idea that there are a whole lot of 2-day-a-week 7-hour-a-day jobs is just unrealistic and untrue. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to agree with other colleagues about our fundamental concern regarding the provisions of the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill and particularly about the provisions in it around work testing and the discriminatory nature of the bill. I think the really concerning thing is the statement in the commentary on the bill about the unrelenting focus on work. It is as though if we say something often enough that makes it true. That seems to be the approach of this Government. It thinks that if it says the word “productivity” often enough then people will believe it is doing something about productivity. It thinks that if it says it has an unrelenting focus on work then maybe people will believe that it does have an unrelenting focus on work. 
The reality is that in substantial part this bill is nothing less than an attack on beneficiaries and a discriminatory one at that. It is unfair. The Attorney-General has judged the bill to be discriminatory. It certainly does not focus on work. This bill does not create any jobs. As the Minister for Social Development and Employment Paula Bennett said it is really about giving a kick in the pants to beneficiaries. The regulatory impact statement said there is no available research that accurately quantifies the size of the behavioural response to these changes in policy. In other words this is about politics rather than practical work. It is about the Government liking to use the old dog whistle as one of my colleagues said previously. There are a few dog whistles that it likes to roll out now and then and beneficiary bashing is one of them. There was no consultation with beneficiary groups before this bill was introduced. Virtually all of the Government departments that were consulted over this bill had concerns about it. It certainly seems that all of the submitters or the overwhelming majority of them believed that this bill is about beneficiary bashing. 
I say that what really needs to happen is for the Government to focus on creating jobs. There are 159000 people who are out of work. We all know that the best way to get people off benefits is to have jobs for them to go to. That is simple. If we look at the number of jobs available we find that benefit numbers fall when job numbers increase. It really is quite remarkable that the Minister actually acknowledged that changes like those in this legislation should not be implemented when there is no labour-market recovery. She said that herself. Perhaps this legislation needs to be delayed now in light of the most recent unemployment figures. The unemployment rate has gone up from 6 percent to 6.8 percent in the June quarter. Perhaps we should look at some of those figures a little more. That is 159000 people—up by 19000 over the last 3 months. That is above the number that Treasury had predicted. Since this Government has been in office unemployment has increased by 53000 people. What is the Government doing to create jobs? What is it doing to adjust the economic fundamentals that provide the macroeconomic policy settings for the creation of jobs? Nothing; there is no plan. 
Let me take the time to talk about just one particular area which is skills development. In this country it is absolutely shocking that in a time of high unemployment we are not investing more in upskilling our workforce and dealing with some of the fundamental gaps that we have in our labour force. I had a woman come into my office the other day. She had been made redundant after she had worked in a job for 30 years. She had no idea about job hunting and furthermore her skills were very narrowly focused towards the job that she had been doing for the last 30 years. I do not think that that is amusing. There was no opportunity for her to change that situation. She wanted to have a job and she would have put effort into trying to change her situation. But of course adult and community education has been fundamentally destroyed by this Government and furthermore there is no real focus on providing opportunities to upskill our existing workforce. Attention is being paid only to pre-entry training and even there we find really significant limits. There are limits on access to tertiary education for example. 
If we look at skills development for the existing workforce what do we see in this Budget? I tell people that we see absolutely nothing. This year’s Budget had no new initiatives in that area. We saw Department of Labour funding going from the skills area to the area of hazardous substances and new organisms. The hazardous substances and new organisms area is important but skills development in an economic recession like the one that we have now is far more important. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Part 3 agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: There is a typescript amendment in the name of the Hon Annette King to the definitions of abatement levels in Income Tests 1 and 2. The Government has decided to exercise its financial veto so these amendments are out of order. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Annette King to clause 13 be agreed to: 
to insert the following subclause after subclause (6): 
(6A)Section 3(1) is amended by deleting “15” from the definition of  
part-time work 
 and substituting “20”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4 (Flavell Harawira Katene Sharples); Progressive 1. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 57 Noes 64. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Annette King to clause 13 be agreed to: 
to insert the following subclause after subclause (8): 
(8A)Section 3(1) is amended by inserting the following definition in its appropriate alphabetical order: 
suitable employment 
 is work that a beneficiary is able to reasonably carry out ensuring that— 
(a)a sole parent beneficiary with a child no younger than 6 would not be required to undertake work or training to satisfy their work-test obligations outside of school hours; and 
(b)a Maori person either living in or returning to their papa kainga would still be entitled to a benefit even though there may be no work or training available to them in their papa kainga. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4 (Flavell Harawira Katene Sharples); Progressive 1. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 57 Noes 64. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Annette King to clause 13 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (8). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4 (Flavell Harawira Katene Sharples); Progressive 1. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 57 Noes 64. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Annette King be agreed to: 
to omit clause 18; 
to omit clause 20; and 
to omit clause 27. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4 (Flavell Harawira Katene Sharples); Progressive 1. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 57 Noes 64. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Annette King to clause 27 be agreed to: 
to insert the following subclauses after subclause (2) in new section 102: 
(2A)The work test does not apply to a work-tested beneficiary if the chief executive is satisfied that the beneficiary is undertaking volunteer work which if it was paid work would satisfy the work test for that beneficiary. 
(2B)The work test does not apply to a work-tested beneficiary if the chief executive is satisfied that the beneficiary is in education or training as a way of improving their employment opportunities. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4 (Flavell Harawira Katene Sharples); Progressive 1. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 57 Noes 64. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Annette King to clause 27 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause to new section 102: 
(4)For clarity suitable employment does not include work that— 
(a)a sole parent beneficiary with a child no younger than 6 would not be required to undertake work or training to satisfy their work-test obligations outside of school hours; and 
(b)a Maori person either living in or returning to their papa kainga would still be entitled to a benefit even though there may be no work or training available to them in their papa kainga. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4 (Flavell Harawira Katene Sharples); Progressive 1. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 57 Noes 64. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Annette King to clause 27 be agreed to: 
to insert the following subclauses after subclause (2) in new section 102: 
(2A)The work test does not apply to a work-tested beneficiary if the chief executive is satisfied that the beneficiary is undertaking volunteer work which if it was paid work would satisfy the work test for that beneficiary. 
(2B)The work test does not apply to a work-tested beneficiary if the chief executive is satisfied that the beneficiary is in education or training as a way of improving their employment opportunities.; and 
to add the following subclauses to new section 102: 
(4)The work test does not apply if the chief executive is satisfied that there is no suitable employment for the beneficiary. 
(5)For clarity suitable employment does not include work that— 
(a)a sole parent beneficiary with a child no younger than 6 would not be required to undertake work or training to satisfy their work-test obligations outside of school hours; and 
(b)a Maori person either living in or returning to their papa kainga would still be entitled to a benefit even though there may be no work or training available to them in their papa kainga. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4 (Flavell Harawira Katene Sharples); Progressive 1. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 57 Noes 64. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Annette King to clause 27 be agreed to: 
to omit subsection (1)(h) from new section 102A; and 
to omit subsections (3) and (4) from new section 102A. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4 (Flavell Harawira Katene Sharples); Progressive 1. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 57 Noes 64. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Annette King be agreed to: 
to omit clause 29; 
to omit clause 30; 
to omit clause 31; 
to omit clause 41; and 
to omit clause 42. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4 (Flavell Harawira Katene Sharples); Progressive 1. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 57 Noes 64. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4 (Flavell Harawira Katene Sharples); Progressive 1. 
Part 4 agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 64 Noes 57. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5 be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4 (Flavell Harawira Katene Sharples); Progressive 1. 
Part 5 agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 64 Noes 57. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Annette King to schedule 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the item relating to section 88A in Part 5; and 
to omit the items relating to section 104A(2)(c) in Part 5. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4 (Flavell Harawira Katene Sharples); Progressive 1. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
Schedule 1 agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 57 Noes 64. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Whip—Maori Party) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry Mr Chairperson but I think I have recorded most of the Maori Party votes slightly wrong in the sense that we were looking at a split vote in regard to one of our members. I know that we are fairly well down the line in terms of those votes and I offer my apologies to the Minister. If there were to be a blanket change to all of our votes one of the five votes that I registered would be put on the other side of the ballot. I apologise to the Committee for that problem. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Is the member seeking leave that we amend the votes accordingly? 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Yes if that is possible. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. So in each vote that the member has cast one is with the Opposition? 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Wherever I have cast five votes one of the votes will go on to the opposite side because I have cast votes for both sides. In the votes where I have cast five one of the votes will go to the opposite side. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: So in all the votes that have been recorded so far where the Ayes were 64 and the Noes were 57 it would now be that the Ayes are 65 and the Noes are 56. Are we comfortable with that? 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: That is correct yes. I apologise to the Committee. Thank you very much. 
Schedule 2 agreed to. 
Schedule 3 agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Before I put the question on clause 1 we have typescript amendments in the name of the Hon Annette King to omit and substitute the title of the bill. These amendments are out of order as not being a serious description of the bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4 (Flavell Harawira Katene Sharples); Progressive 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The typescript amendment in the name of the Hon Annette King to omit clause 2 is ruled out of order as being a direct negative of the question. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Annette King to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit “September 2010” and substitute “December 2015”.  
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The remainder of the proposed amendments are ruled out of order as being substantially the same as the amendment that has been negatived. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4 (Flavell Harawira Katene Sharples); Progressive 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Paula Bennett be agreed to: 
to omit “Amendment” from the part of the motion relating to the bill to be divided from Part 3. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill the Education Amendment Bill (No 3) the Taxation (Definitions of Dependent Child) Bill the Social Security (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill and the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 3  
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 153 as amended 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4 (Flavell Harawira Katene Sharples); Progressive 1. 
Motion as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.