Bennett Paula: Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bennett Paula: Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:665;Page:13171] 
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.