Ardern Jacinda: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ardern Jacinda: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5517. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is with a sense of déjà vu that I rise to speak to this bill the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Again it is with a sense of disappointment at an opportunity lost. 
The Minister for Social Development when she speaks in this House around the changes that she is introducing to our social security system through this bill does so in what might seem a calm and rational way yet it is quite different to the same old mantra that we sometimes hear from that Minister when she speaks publicly on issues around social security. It is time for us to stand up against the politicking that happens every time we discuss social security or welfare out in the wider public. 
I feel like Labour in fact has nothing to lose on this debate. National uses this area as a political football and characterises parties like Labour in a particular way during that process. That is minor when you look at the way that that party characterises the people who legitimately need and use social security in this country. I can get mad from a moral perspective but my anger actually comes from the place around what that characterisation then does to us and our ability as politicians to make the changes to the system that we need to make. Every time National characterises those who use social security in the way it does it makes it harder for us to do our job. 
Let me give you an example. In the public’s mind what are the reforms that they know about through this bill? It is drug testing. They know about seeking people who have warrants for arrest whilst on welfare. They know about fraud and stand-down periods for saying no to taking up jobs. Those are the messages that the National Party then sends out about those who are using social security in New Zealand. Then today we saw a perfect example of the contradiction and the corner that the Government then backs itself into. We had the Prime Minister writing to employers asking them to take on young people who have committed themselves to the Limited Service Volunteers programme who are on Government support asking those employers to take them on. But within the next breath he is telling them they are drug-takers they have got warrants out for their arrest and they are committing fraud. You cannot have it both ways. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: It is time to call time out on the politicking around social security. Labour is calling the Government out on the way that it treats this system. There is no doubt that we can improve social security in New Zealand on behalf of those who are currently using the system. Labour though has a set of values it will always stick to when it looks to reform in this area and that is the lens from which we view legislation like this. 
The first point is that Labour has always been the party of work. We were the architects of social security and for us we will always hark back to the foundation principles behind social security. When Michael Joseph Savage established it he said that social security will never be an armchair ride to prosperity. It must always be looked at alongside good decent health good decent education and the support of all citizens. 
So what do we do to create a more active social security system? That is what this side of the House wants to look at. If we want to make a more active system we need to make sure that we fulfil our side of the bargain. If we ask people to go out and seek work which we do—if you are able to work you should seek it—we should be making sure that jobs are available. If you want to fix welfare fix the economy. 
Secondly how to prepare people for work? This bill simply implements more work testing. Work testing does not make people work-ready. We have a Minister who since she has been in Government has cut the training incentive allowance and has not allowed people to get support so that they can move into bridging courses so they can move into training. Through this bill she is now telling people on the domestic purposes benefit that they cannot be in study and be on Government support any more. What are those young mums who perhaps have low skills going to do if they are going to upskill themselves and move into employment when she is telling them: “All I care about is whether you get a low-wage part-time job. It does not matter whether the Government subsidises you and your child for the rest of your life because I have a narrow view of what Government support is all about.” That is a passive system and we do not support changes like that. 
We also need to treat everyone fairly but not the same. We cannot look at everyone simply through a lens of “You sit within a particular benefit category and therefore the system will treat you in this particular way.” 
Finally on the notion of the Government needing to fulfil its side of the bargain there is no better example of that than social obligations. Here we have a Minister saying that if you wish to still receive Government support you must enrol your child in early childhood education enrol in a Well Child provider and enrol with a general practitioner. Yet when we asked the Minister whether she will ensure every child can access early childhood education her answer was no. Where is the Government’s obligation to fulfil its end of the bargain? 
We will always look at this bill through our sense of what it is that we are trying to build when it comes to social security. We support notions around simplification which this bill talks about but in the select committee process we will be looking at what those impacts will be of simplification. It is not entirely clear what impact the merging of the domestic purposes benefit into jobseeker support will have in monetary terms on children and we want to explore that question and also for those on the sickness benefit. Also we will be delving in a lot more detail around the decision-making process around what categories those seeking Government support are placed into. 
We must avoid the mistakes of our international counterparts and I have grave concerns about the path we are travelling down. The use of outsourcing of assessment of work capacity and the ACC-style model of vocational independence assessment process bears striking resemblance to that used in the UK. The Department for Work and Pensions in the UK made use of contractors like Atos to perform work capability assessments at a cost to the State of ₤300 million. Since that time an estimated 500000 people have been wrongly assessed. People with terminal cancer have been found fit for work and people with mental health issues have been ignored. Not only should we not lose sight of the lessons from abroad but also we must apply our own values around the role of social security in our country. 
It is not about being too soft. It is not about being too tough. It is about doing what is right and what is fair. The Minister may claim in all of her discussion around welfare reform—and I have heard this said many many times—that the Government is taking an investment approach. I have one question for the Minister: demonstrate to me in tangible terms how the system is investing in people who are currently on Government support. Just demonstrate to me what you are changing about our passive social security system that is moving people from Government support into work. 
I challenge those members to demonstrate that to me because so far I have seen one area and it was in the last bill. The one area where I applaud what the Government did was the improvement of child support for young parents. But that was for 1500 people and we asked the Minister to consider extending that to the 100000 people on the domestic purposes benefit and that has not happened. So Government members show me where you have done anything more than simply work test. Show me what you are doing to support those who are on the sickness benefit to become well and to move into work—more than just being passive sitting back and waiting for things to change without any kind of investment. There is nothing in this bill that does that. In fact under this Government if anything we have seen the small tools that we had like the training incentive allowance that the Minister used cut. That is that Government’s form of investment approach. 
Labour will not support this bill. It does not fulfil our values of an active social security system that supports people into work. It does not fulfil the Government’s end of the bargain around job creation. It does not. It does not treat social security as a dignified springboard into a better life. We are calling time on the politicking of this area because the Government is doing nothing but disrespect a social security system that was built around dignity.