King Annette: Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
King Annette: Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:665;Page:13185] 
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.