Ardern Jacinda: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ardern Jacinda: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 June 2012. Volume:680;Page:2866. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 Anyone listening to that speech by the Minister for Social Development might be under some misconception that this bill the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill actually does more than it does in reality. If this bill was indeed about removing barriers for the large number of New Zealanders who find themselves in need of Government support right now I might be inclined to agree with the Minister but that is not what this bill does. In fact the Minister even referenced in her speech the number of New Zealanders on the sickness benefit in particular and said that unlike the Labour Party she was not patting these people on the head. Not only do I take personal offence to that statement but there is nothing in this bill that assists anyone on a sickness benefit from illness into wellness and into work. This bill does not even refer to people on a sickness or an invalids benefit. It barely touches them.  
So who does this bill affect? The Minister rightly pointed out that she is targeting young people. “Targeting” is the right word. We have 87000 young people not in employment education or training—87000. This bill tackles 1500 of those young people. I applaud the Minister. Those are the 1500 teen parents. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: That’s not true. Don’t make up the numbers. You are better than that. Don’t make up the numbers.  
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I applaud the Minister for extending childcare payments for those teen parents but there are 1500 of them. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Come on. You read the facts and you know it. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: If the Minister thinks there are more than 1500 I would welcome her tabling that evidence because that is the evidence we have received. But there are 112000 parents on the domestic purposes benefit. Now I am coming to the extra 1000 on the independent youth benefit— 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: 14000; you know it works for that many.  
JACINDA ARDERN 
: —the extra 1000. Those young people are being put on a plastic payment card and are a number of the select few who will get additional services from this bill. But there are a vast number more who are locked out by this bill because 18 and 19-year-olds will no longer be picked up by services that used to exist for them. Those are the 14000 whom the Minister is speaking about. That is vastly fewer than the number that Youth Transition Services is currently eligible to pick up. I am not mixing up the numbers on this bill Minister. It is just a fact that there are small subsets of people who will benefit from it and not the vast numbers that she refers to.  
There used to be a time when we referred not to “welfare” but to “social security” and there was a reason for that. In 1938 the unemployment benefit was brought into New Zealand with the criteria that a person must be 16 years of age and over have been in New Zealand for at least 12 months is unemployed is capable and willing to undertake suitable work and has taken reasonable steps to secure employment. Not a lot has changed from that criteria but neither has much changed about New Zealanders’ desire to work—their absolute desire to be in work. We acknowledge on this side of the House that whenever you bring in a universal system there will be a small minority of people who will abuse it. It is exactly the same for the tax system in New Zealand. It is a universal system that is abused by a minority of people and just like we must deal with those who abuse the tax system we must deal with those who abuse the welfare system. But we must never allow ourselves to be guided by the minority when we legislate around the majority. That is where I want to bring a few facts into the discussion.  
The Minister is right to compare the difference in unemployment numbers that we have in this country. At the beginning of 2008 we had roughly almost 18000 on an unemployment benefit. Now it is closer to 50000. We have not had a sudden and dramatic change in attitude to work; we have had a recession.  
Hon Paula Bennett 
: What’s happened in the last 2 years? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: We have had an economic downturn and I acknowledge that Minister but that is a reflection of the fact that New Zealanders have not made a choice to be on welfare and to be on unemployment benefits. That is why we must focus on the economy if we want to turn round welfare.  
Secondly let us actually use some of the evidence we have got from those who are on different forms of benefits. The Inland Revenue Department did a survey of those who have been on the benefit and found that 64 percent said that they did not have the skills they needed to get into the jobs that they were trying to get themselves into. The Government in this bill has not done anything to address the fact that so many of those who are on Government support right now do not have the skills and education necessary to move into those jobs. Instead it changed the criteria to the training incentive allowance. It cut out vast swathes of women in particular who were trying to access education to better themselves in the workplace.  
I have an example of the kinds of policy that mean that people are not able to get into sustainable long-term employment. I recently had a domestic purposes benefit recipient approach my office and tell me this story. She had been in work for a couple of years when she found herself pregnant. She had a toddler when her partner decided he did not want to be a father and left her. She managed to find work—10 hours a week in hospitality—but was still on Government support and did not want that for her or her child. She went to Work and Income and asked whether there was any assistance available so she could get into foundation courses to become a nurse—the kind of job that would get her off the benefit in the longer term. And do you know what Work and Income told her? Work and Income told her that she would not be eligible under its criteria because she had work—because she had 10 hours’ work a week and was still reliant on Government support. That is the kind of system that leaves people trapped in our welfare system rather than offering them the opportunity to get into sustainable long-term work that gives them and their child a better future.  
The Inland Revenue Department also found that 67 percent of those on welfare had a problem getting work that paid enough and 66 percent could not get enough hours. That makes it sound like those parents in particular who are on the domestic purposes benefit which is roughly 112000 at the moment are making a choice to stay on that benefit because they are better off. Let us just look at the facts. The average amount that someone on a domestic purposes benefit gets before an accommodation supplement is $288 a week for them and their child—$288 a week. If we have parents in this country who are finding themselves not better off going into work when they are getting only $288 a week on the benefit that suggests that there is something vastly wrong with our system—and there is. Actually the Minister has acknowledged it in the bill and that is childcare costs. The Minister has acknowledged that by saying that she is going to extend the child support payment for teen parents from the $3.91 they are currently eligible for to $6. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Would you take away the $80 million? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I applaud the Minister for doing that. She does not want to hear praise. She is barracking across the other side of the House rather than listening. I do applaud the Government for improving child support for those teen parents. But that is 1500 young people. There are 112000 DPB recipients who are not eligible for that extension and support and who therefore still struggle to find jobs that will cover the costs of caring for their child. This has to be about making it a viable option to get back into work. That means making sure our parents have the skills and education and that we also look to the real barriers to them getting back into the workplace. And we cannot ignore the costs of childcare and support in looking at that basic issue.  
 But let us not forget the basic fact that 65 percent of people on the DPB come off it within 4 years. They come off it as soon as they are able to improve their childcare arrangements and that is because of course 20 hours of early childhood education cuts in at about that point. If we could do more to improve that accessibility what a vast difference we would make for the number of parents who are reliant on Government support at the moment. This has to be a debate based on fact and a debate based on the reality of what the people whom we are debating here are talking about in their day-to-day lives. That means it has got to be about work and it has to be about addressing those real barriers.  
I will acknowledge that there are one or two examples of that in this bill but by and large there are not real examples that will make a major difference to the majority of New Zealanders who find themselves on social security in New Zealand. I challenge the Government to turn round its approach to welfare to being not one of social shame but one truly of social security.