Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 18 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3642. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 17 July. 
Part 3 Substantive provisions taking effect on 15 October 2012 ( 
continued 
) 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The House is in Committee. Kia ora tatou no reira e te Whare e nga iwi e nga reo e nga hau e wha. Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. Good afternoon honourable members. We are in Committee on the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Therefore the Committee is resumed. Members when we were last considering this bill we were debating Part 3. I want to take the opportunity to inform members that the Government has exercised its power of financial veto in respect of amendments in the name of Holly Walker and Jan Logie set out on Supplementary Order Papers 77 and 78 respectively. Those amendments are therefore out of order.  
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want to request further information from the Chair. Were those amendments relating to Part 3 of the bill or were they from Part 1? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: They are from Part 3. Of course it is a financial veto which the Government is entitled to do. 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether you can give me some guidance as a new member seeking some advice about how to proceed. I am fairly certain that the amendment that has been put up in my name to Part 3 of the bill bears no financial cost so I am uncertain as to the rationale of the financial veto being exercised in respect of it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am not aware of that but we can certainly have it checked. If there are any financial implications in the Supplementary Order Paper that you have put up then the Government does have the right to put in place a financial veto and it has done so.  
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Chairperson. If there are no financial implications what course of action is available to me at this point? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I think what we have to do first of all is to find out where the financial implications are because the Government has indicated that it wants to apply its veto. So we need to check that now and we could perhaps go on with the debate until such time—[ 
Interruption 
] Have we got something here? OK I am told that there is a certificate on the Table that outlines the financial impact. It says here what the reasons are for the Government not concurring: “The proposed amendments would impact on the Crown’s fiscal aggregates by increasing the Crown’s total operating expenses and level of total Crown debt by approximately $128 million over the forecast period. In the government’s view these effects have more than a minor impact on the Crown’s fiscal aggregates and for this reason the government does not concur in the amendments specified above.” So it will apply its financial veto. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Is that explanation available to members of the Committee to consider? Is it on the Table? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is actually on the Table Mr Lees-Galloway. You are entitled to have a look. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 When we left last night I was discussing Part 3 of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill the implications of that and the changes that were coming up. We were particularly talking about childcare and the different types of childcare that are available particularly for those mums and dads of course who have to go back into work and the changes that are happening. I had run through the changes. Currently when your youngest child is 6 you are expected to look for part-time work. The difference is that that is going to 5 years. There will now be a full-time work test when your youngest is 14-years-old.  
It is quite interesting to see the number of both sole mums and partnered mothers who are currently working. For those whose youngest child is 14-plus years actually 68 percent of sole mothers are working and 83 percent of those who are partnered are working. So we constantly hear this call that they cannot go out to work. We are asking them simply to be work-available and looking so if suitable employment is not there they will not be punished. There is not a sanction for those who are out there actively looking. But certainly from all the evidence that we have seen we think it is quite fair and reasonable for there to be that work expectation. But beyond fair and reasonable actually is the point that all evidence points out that those who are in work have better outcomes for them and their children. This of course is vitally important to us as we move forward— 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
 I had been planning to use this call to speak to my Supplementary Order Paper 77 and to offer it in fact in the spirit of cross-party cooperation and constructiveness as an additional protection for children from the sanctions imposed by this legislation. Given that we have just heard that this Supplementary Order Paper has been ruled out of order because the Government has chosen to exercise its financial veto I would like to speak a little bit to that and perhaps invite the Minister for Social Development if she is prepared to take a call to outline the financial impacts of the Supplementary Order Paper and the rationale behind the use of that veto.  
If I perhaps can just spend a minute or two outlining what it is that this Supplementary Order Paper would have done. I was going to in fact thank and congratulate the Minister on her constructive engagement with my questions about the impact of sanctions on children in this Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill during the debate on Part 1 last night and this relates to what is on the Table now in Part 3 acknowledging that beneficiaries will be sanctioned only by up to 50 percent in an acknowledgment that their children need to be protected from the loss of income that a sanction imposed on them may incur. The Minister was quite constructive with her comments about that last night and agreed I think that the last thing that this legislation wants to do or is designed to do is have detrimental impacts unintended consequences on the very children whom it is setting out to assist.  
So this Supplementary Order Paper which has very strangely been ruled out of order was going to give the chief executive the additional discretion not to impose a sanction or not to attempt to recover a debt if it was deemed by the chief executive that to do so may deprive the child of food or shelter or would otherwise be detrimental to the well-being of the child. So what it would have done is add an additional layer of protection there; an additional discretion for Work and Income not to impose the sanctions. It does not actually change anything materially about the bill. It does not change the sanctions themselves. It does not change the policy behind the bill or any of the other material provisions of the bill. It simply inserts a protection and a discretion on the part of Work and Income not to apply the sanctions that the bill allows. If it can be shown that a child is put at severe risk—that their food or shelter or otherwise their general well-being would be put at such risk by the imposition of a sanction on their parents—it would give the chief executive the discretion not to apply that sanction.  
What I think I can understand by the Government’s decision to rule this out based on the financial veto—and I see that the number of $128 million has been quoted here and I would be very interested to hear how that figure was arrived at—and what I assume it means is that the Government would be anticipating imposing that $128 million worth of sanctions under this bill and is anticipating that that is the level of sanctioning it will be doing of parents. That is very concerning if that is the case because that is a significant amount of money and it is a significant amount of sanctions and there are large numbers of children potentially affected by the sanctioning of their parents’ income. I would like to invite the Minister to take a call—if she could—to explain perhaps the rationale behind that $128 million figure and whether in fact we can take that in the Committee to be if you like a guarantee by the Government that that is the level of sanctioning that it is expecting to apply because that seems very significant to me.  
I must say that while the Greens do take issue with many of the substantive provisions of this bill this Supplementary Order Paper was in fact simply seeking to add in an additional level of protection. I would have thought it was something that all members of this House could support or at least see the merit in given that all it does is provide discretion—not even requiring the chief executive of Work and Income to exercise this discretion but simply gives them the option not to apply the sanction if it could be deemed not to be in the best interests of that child. That seems to me very important both from the perspective of child well-being but also to comply with our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and I am referring here to article 27 which talks about the rights of the affected citizen in need of social security to be able to support themselves and their children. There is a risk I think that if we allow this bill to pass— 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 I wanted just to respond to the member Holly Walker around the financial veto for her Supplementary Order Paper 77. She called it a discretion. The first thing I would say is that the way it has been interpreted is that it is not really a discretion as such particularly in respect of not recovering any sum comprising part of a debt. I am referring to clause 35A to insert a new section 86 (9C): “(a) the debtor has 1 or more dependent children; and (b) the chief executive is satisfied that recovery of the sum may deprive …”. We do not see that as a discretion. It actually will limit our ability at some level and it will be suspending debt recovery. So that is a big part of the financial veto and it is because of the way that it is written that we cannot accept it. The advice I have had is that there would be a substantial long-term financial impact if we did not recover any debts or overpayments from someone. We actually do have a huge amount of overpayments that happen sometimes because someone does not alert us soon enough that they have got a job or that their situations have changed; sometimes it is the systems themselves. As you can all understand we usually try to err on the side of the beneficiary getting their money and sometimes that means we overpay them by a week or two. We are better off to recover that and let that happen. Most of our overpayments are actually only for about a week so they are not the huge debts that some people think that they are but they accumulate and they are incredibly high.  
To be fair around the sanctions as well the estimates that I have had from the department—even though the Minister of Finance with his advice from Treasury has gone for the figure of $128 million—the advice that I have had is that it could cost between $200 million and $300 million over 4 years if we did not impose sanctions on anyone and with that debt recovery. The other reason is the behavioural changes and that is why we have sanctions quite frankly. We have sanctions so that we get behavioural changes and so that the obligations are actually fulfilled. If that was not so then quite frankly we would not sanction because it is for no other reason than to have those obligations fulfilled and to see the changes that we are looking for.  
The other thing I would bring to the member’s attention is that actually the protection that she is talking about and that level of discretion already exists. It is in the legislation; it has to be good and sufficient reason. As such I would say that there is the discretion and it is actually used as well. To give an actual example of that there are many cases where someone does not make an appointment does not turn up to an interview does not turn up to training or something that they were supposed to and they do not give us a reason until we go to sanction them. Then they inform us that a child was sick or that there was a good reason and for that reason we do not sanction them. So they have not actually done the activity they were supposed to; however we see good and sufficient reason not to actually administer that sanction. I can tell you that in literally thousands of cases we do not for those very reasons. There is a level of discretion. It is used quite rightly and that will remain.  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would ask you to look at Standing Order 317 that relates to the financial veto certificate that has been tabled relating to two Supplementary Order Papers from Jan Logie and Holly Walker. I would like you to look at what the Standing Order says and then look at the certificates that have been provided by the Minister of Finance. We have just had an explanation from the Minister in the chair the Minister for Social Development as to why a veto has been applied and that is all very well. But when you read the Standing Order it says the certificate by the Government “must state with some particularity the nature of the impact on the fiscal aggregate or aggregates concerned and the reason why the Government does not concur in the bill amendment or motion.” If you read the certificates they do not give any explanation at all. While it is very nice for the Minister to tell the members of this Committee why there is a veto I do not believe these certificates are adequate in informing the Committee in line with Standing Order 317. Just to say that it is going to have an impact on the operating expense and give a number but no explanation in my view does not meet the test that is meant to be applied in Standing Order 317. I would ask you to look at it. I believe these ought to be withdrawn and rewritten to meet the Standing Order because as they are there is no explanation or particularity in their reasons given to this Committee.  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I thank the honourable member for her dissertation on the situation regarding the Government’s financial veto. I am advised that it is covered under Standing Order 322(1) and (2) and in fact what we have here that has been lodged by the Minister is the standard form for any proposals to implement a financial veto. This is the standard form.  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I accept that it may have been a standard way a certificate has been provided for a financial veto but I am asking you to look as to whether in fact we have been doing it appropriately in this House. Maybe it has never been brought to attention before but I do not believe it meets any of the Standing Orders including the ones you have just quoted Mr Chairman. It does not provide what the Standing Order asks it to provide. If it has been done like this in the past then in my view it has not been done correctly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am advised looking at the certification upon Standing Order 322 relating to amendments proposed to be moved in a Committee of the whole House that under the standard format supplied there is a paragraph here which I would point out to the member. It is under “Impact on fiscal aggregate(s) concerned and reason for the government not concurring:”. It reads: “The proposed amendments would impact on the Crown’s fiscal aggregates by increasing the Crown’s total operating expenses and level of total Crown debt by approximately $128 million over the forecast period.” That is why the Government has implemented its veto because of the increase in costs to the Crown.  
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to raise two matters. One is to endorse what my colleague Annette King has said about the question of what due particularity is but I also wonder whether these certificates are in order at all because they begin by citing Standing Order 317. Standing Order 317 as I read it in what I think are the latest Standing Orders is in fact a Standing Order that relates to disallowance motions from the Regulations Review Committee. The headline mentions Standing Order 322 but I do not actually believe Standing Order 317 is at all relevant to this particular matter and I would suggest to you Mr Chair that these certificates are in fact completely out of order because they are not given to the Committee under the correct Standing Order.  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I can only relate again the advice that I have been given and that is about the financial impact to the Crown of $128 million over the forecast period. I have been advised that also in this particular lodgment from the Government where it refers to Standing Order 317 it is in fact a typographical error. That is what I have been advised. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It may well be a typographical error but I think that means that the certificate is out of order. It does not achieve the purpose that the Government wants. A certification clearly would have to state the Standing Order under which it is being put in and I believe that that typographical or otherwise means that these certificates are not in order and therefore do not apply. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 If it would so please the Committee I would be happy to go away and take advice and make sure that we have the correct Standing Order there and make sure it is at the attention of the Committee. We have got plenty of time to do that. The Committee will go about its business and we could remedy that. 
Hon Annette King 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the member I have been advised that instead of Standing Order 317 it should be Standing Order 322. That is a fact. So the member has made a very valid point. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 I was just going to point that out. I think an old edition of the Standing Orders from 2008 was used instead of the most recent one. But I would still ask for advice to come back to this Committee via the Chair or an official of the Committee as to whether there is enough particularity given by just saying: “It’s going to be this amount of money—we veto it.” I do not think that meets the test of “some particularity”; it is just a figure. There is nothing given to us as to how they added it up and what they included in it and I would like us to have a considered ruling on that at some stage. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I thank the honourable member. What we will do is we will check with  
Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand  
and we will certainly come back and inform the member the situation as it currently is. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to thank you and the Minister in the chair the Minister for Social Development for undertaking to correct the certification. Can we then take it that for the time being while this debate is under way the Supplementary Order Papers from Holly Walker and Jan Logie remain on the Table? Can I take it from you that they are now live subject to the Minister returning to the Committee? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Minister has indicated that that is fair enough. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 While Holly Walker’s Supplementary Order Paper remains live one question I want to raise is whether or not perhaps the member may consider splitting the two clauses that are sought to be amended in this Supplementary Order Paper. It seems that at present the financial veto hangs quite closely to the recovery of payments made in excess of authorised rates—the section 86 amendment. The Minister for Social Development has given an explanation that suggests that the financial veto is because this provision would incur a cost on the Crown because of its inability to do debt recovery. I think that sits quite separately to clause 37A because debt recovery allows the discretion of recouping costs from an individual at a very low rate over a particular period of time whereas clause 37A in contrast instead gives the discretion to the chief executive not to impose a sanction—and a sanction is quite a bit more onerous in terms of the amount of money it would remove from an individual than for instance debt recovery.  
This Supplementary Order Paper talks about giving discretion to the chief executive not to impose a sanction on an individual if they have not complied with their work obligations if the chief executive determines that that sanction would deprive a child of food or shelter or would be otherwise detrimental to the well-being of a child. The Minister when she referred to this amendment suggested that that could come at a cost to the Crown of between $200 million and $300 million. That was not stated in the financial veto so I would expect that if the department is going to go away and rework that financial veto if that indeed is the cost of this discretionary provision that could be incurred by the Crown that should be included in the financial veto. I would be extremely surprised if using the sanctions set out in section 117 of the Social Security Act meant that $200 million to $300 million per annum in sanctions was being imposed on those on the domestic purposes benefit with a dependent child. If that is the case this Committee should know about that.  
We are not talking about incremental sanctions here. What we are talking about is if an individual on a domestic purposes benefit refuses to take up work—for instance when their child is 1 year old potentially if they have had a second child if they refuse to take up part-time work as instructed by the Ministry of Social Development under the Social Security Act section 117 the sanctions that the chief executive must apply in respect of those failures is: “(i) the person’s benefit must be reduced by 50% until the person recomplies; and (ii) if the person has not recomplied within 4 weeks after the date on which the reduction took effect the person’s benefit must be reduced by a further 50% (so that the total reduction is 100%) …”. A second failure and a third failure finally means the cancellation of a benefit. These are not incremental sanctions; they are significant.  
If the Minister is telling me from the chair that imposing the ability of a chief executive to have discretion over the use of those sanctions where a child is involved would cost the Crown $200 million to $300 million per year then I would be interested in that. If that is not true I invite the Minister to clarify her statement when she rises from the chair because otherwise I would have assumed that the cost to the Crown of giving discretion to a chief executive would not be that significant—certainly not enough to warrant a financial veto—because it is ultimately a discretionary power because it relies on the individual circumstances being taken into account. What we are asking is that the chief executive take into account whether or not the sanction would have an undue impact on a child if involved where a sanction is being imposed. I think it was a very reasonable amendment. I would like to see it considered separately to the amendment relating to the recovery of payments and perhaps if the Supplementary Order Paper is still live the member may have a chance to submit that amendment on a Supplementary Order Paper separately and it may therefore be salvaged from a financial veto unless the Minister can explain where those figures she used came from.  
I would like in my remaining time to speak to a couple of other parts of Part 3. Of course these are the substantive parts around work-testing provisions. We have already—[ 
Bell rung 
] Mr Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Jacinda Ardern. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Thank you. I am pleased to finish my substantive points on Part 3. Obviously this part brings in work-testing provisions and is an extension on the Government’s existing programme. Future Focus was the first tranche of work-testing reforms that the Minister brought in so we do already have some evidence to suggest what is happening particularly with those on the domestic purposes benefit around declared earnings because that is basically the measure we can use to assess whether or not those on the domestic purposes benefit when extra work-testing is being applied are moving into part-time work.  
Interestingly enough the figures when Future Focus was introduced sat at around 16 percent of those on a domestic purposes benefit having some declared earnings. Although there have been some incremental changes it has not moved away from being roughly between 16 and 17 percent. So that does suggest that work-testing provisions are still very heavily dependent on the nature of work available. When you are in a recessionary environment obviously the availability of work is affected but so is the nature of the work that is available. In particular demand—we have seen from the household labour force survey—for additional hours has increased significantly. The number of people taking on part-time work has increased. Therefore the number of available part-time jobs for those who are having part-time work tests against them—that pool of jobs—is reduced. I would say that that would be my assessment of why we have even when new work-testing regimes are being introduced very little movement around those who are declaring additional earnings. In fact if you want to see where there was a significant increase in declared earnings the last time—and I am going from memory here—we saw it sitting higher than that was roughly 2006-07 when from memory it was sitting at about 20 percent.  
The economy and the nature of the job market certainly matters and we have implored the Government all the way through here to consider allowing greater flexibility in the imposition of sanctions because of the nature of the economic environment in which these measures are being imposed. So that is why I would contend that Supplementary Order Papers like those from Holly Walker are very fitting given what the evidence suggests is happening in our job market at present.  
The second point that I want to raise in Part 3 is that given the nature of the economic climate matters given the ability to demonstrate the education and skills required for the jobs available and given that the third issue we know that affects the ability to fulfil work-test obligations is childcare arrangements I am interested as to whether or not the Minister for Social Development considered the extension of the subsidy for childcare which she has—I think rightly—extended for teen parents. So the subsidy now sits at $6 which we are told by the Ministry of Education should substantively cover the cost of childcare for those teen parents. Did she consider extending that to a wider range of domestic purposes benefit recipients? I do commend the Government for that subsidy increase but there are a large number of DPB recipients who would have benefited enormously from that extension being applied to them also. Was it simply a fiscal consideration? Was it not considered necessary for the over 90000 who have sole parent obligations? I would be interested in that from the Minister.  
I also have a question for the Minister around the discretion used by Work and Income when it is making a decision over a part-time work-test obligation versus plans establishing planning for employment and whether or not there is a hierarchy between the two. I would like to give an example. I recently had a case brought to my attention where a DPB recipient wanted to enter into training in order to complete a nursing diploma. She needed to seek some assistance from Work and Income in order to enter into that programme. The information she received from Work and Income was that it was not interested in assisting with that because she was already in part-time work and as far as it was concerned that was the goal that it had for her as a welfare recipient. She was still dependent on the domestic purposes benefit. She had only 10 hours of work per week and it was not enough to sustain her and her child. She felt that without getting the training required to move her into a higher-wage job she would for ever remain dependent while her child was of school age at least. Minister I would be interested to see whether or not— 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 As a former police officer I rise to take a call on Part 3 of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill with a degree of pride in the way the Minister for Social Development has gone about addressing some of the substantive issues that our welfare system has brought upon our communities in recent decades.  
Part 3 largely deals with work testing and obligations and there are some very positive changes being made in this bill in this particular space. Essentially it goes to the core of what this bill is really about—that is if you can work you should work. In particular with young teen mothers when the work is suitable and available then that is exactly what should be happening. We have heard very much from the other side during the Social Services Committee’s hearing of submissions—not surprisingly—about poor young mothers being forced into work because of this bill. We have also heard about how harmful this will be to their children and to the mother and that being forced into work against their will is something counter-productive to both. That would be fine if that mother did not expect the taxpayer to pick up the bill for her lifestyle on an ongoing basis. It also asserts a somewhat romantic notion that these teen mothers are all model parents and always act in the best interests of their children. That may be one end of the continuum but I can tell you now as a former police officer the other end— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
MIKE SABIN 
: Sorry Mr Chair. I can tell members as a former police officer that the other end of the continuum is not nearly as rosy. Far beyond that the sad reality is that many young 15-year-old girls at school now see having a child and a taxpayer-funded benefit as a legitimate career option. Just as many will go on to think that having subsequent children is a means to perpetuate that particular lifestyle. This end of the continuum is where children are having children and is where so much of the child abuse and neglect that this country has developed a reputation for occurs. If the members on the other side of the Chamber making noise now do not agree with what I am saying then I would suggest that they should hop in a patrol car every now and then and take a ride-along and see what they see out there. The quicker we can get these young mothers into work and their children into childcare the better they will be and we all will be.  
Part 3 deals with the obligations and a far stronger work focus for these young people with 100000 sole parents on the DPB with 50 percent having a child over 5 with some 11000 children over the age of 14 and 29 percent of women having second and subsequent children while on the benefit. This bill introduces work testing for part-time work for mothers on the DPB with children aged 5 and over. It also brings in full-time work-testing for those with children 14 and over. This part of the bill also requires sole parents who have a second and subsequent child while on the benefit to be available for work after 1 year. That caused some degree of concern from those on the other side as it did with some submitters. It was almost inhumane we heard and terribly damaging to both child and mother. Well how is that any different from a mother who returns to work after a year of maternity leave and goes back into the workforce? How is that any different? Are those mothers abandoning their children? Are they poor mothers because of those decisions? Or is it that they are just getting on with what they do and earning their way in this world?  
An expectation to be preparing for work to be ready for work and of being work tested and providing obligations and a better balance between the rights and responsibilities are all things that I believe are long overdue and I support and applaud the Minister on her effort in this bill in that regard. These are steps that send the right signals that help change the culture. This bill has been about the first substantive move that has been made in welfare for a significant amount of time and the smiles from the other side of the Chamber really indicate to me that there is a party that would have done exactly the same thing had they had— 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 Mr Chairman thank you for a wise decision—another one. Well I think Mr Sabin is right. I think he is absolutely right and I think he spills the beans. He spills the beans on the perspective of this Government that is driving this bill the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill.  
I want the Minister in the chair the Minister for Social Development to tell Mr Sabin and tell this Committee how many 15-year-olds have had babies. How many Mr Sabin? How many does that member know of—just quickly? I wonder how many there are but he applies his prejudice. He applies his prejudice; he gives the lie to this Government’s perspective. I just wonder whether he has really thought about this because this is really the evidence that what drives this measure is not a better outcome for our children a better outcome for our young people or a better outcome for our mothers.  
What drives this measure is the punitive attitude that Mr Sabin personifies in this House. If the Minister for Social Development does not agree with it I invite her to comment on that speech—that that speech indeed is not a speech that the Minister would endorse. The Minister should in this Chamber now dissociate herself and her Government from that pathetic speech—because it is actually quite damaging. However that is his prejudice and his bias. 
Let us start with the comments of the Minister for Social Development. The Minister quoted figures last night and she started with them again today. This also in a sense is an anchoring evidence base that the Minister speaks so much about for some of the provisions of Part 3 around work testing when the child is of a particular age. The Minister said that 68 percent of sole mothers with children aged 14 currently work and it is 83 percent in respect of those in partner relationships.  
This is the evidence that says that therefore it is OK to apply that same test to sole mums in every case. That is the test in every case. But by the Minister’s own figures 32 percent or one in three sole parents find it necessary to stay home and look after their children. Possibly the percentage of others may be even greater—I do not know. But at least 32 percent or one in three sole mothers decide on the basis of their knowledge of their children their knowledge of the needs of their own young adolescents and their knowledge of what is available in the communities in which they live that they ought to be at home with their young children.  
What this Government is doing is actually taking away that option from people who for a period rely on benefits to live. For somebody with a child who is 14 it is probably not too long before they get into full-time work anyway. So 32 percent actually find it necessary to stay at home to look after their children. The Minister ought to know that because her ministry has done the figures. Who are these people? What are the conditions in which they find it necessary to stay home and be with their 14-year-olds? That needs some explanation as well.  
You see what is wrong with this particular approach which is reflected in the provisions of Part 3 is that there is no sustained logic as to how this can be applied in a way that will achieve the kinds of results the Minister wants to achieve. The Minister talks a lot about evidence—about evidence-based work and evidence-based policy. But at a critical time in a young person’s development age 14 one can expect or guess at least that for some of these parents—and I use the Minister’s figure of 32 percent—their children would have developmental needs and those parents are meeting those needs by being there.  
The Minister is saying no that option is not available any more under the provisions of Part 3 of this bill. I think that is something that is particularly worrying to this side of the Chamber. It is not only worrying but it is why we are not supporting these provisions with a lot of passion I tell Mr Sabin—because our experiences are quite different. I want to talk a little bit more about the Government’s approach— 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity Mr Chair to speak a little bit further to Supplementary Order Paper 77 which has been such a point of contention so far in the debate. I want to thank the member Jacinda Ardern for her contribution earlier and for her suggestion about splitting the amendment into two separate Supplementary Order Papers which I have done and will table in the Committee at the conclusion of my call. The reason for doing that as outlined by Jacinda Ardern relates to the justification given by the Minister for Social Employment for the financial veto. It seemed to me that a large emphasis was placed in that justification on the changes relating to what would be new clause 35A in respect of the recovery of debts so I have separated that amendment into a separate Supplementary Order Paper. If the Minister would like to use her discretion as we would like to offer the same discretion to the Chief Executive of Work and Income to take into account the impact on children then she is able to do so in considering these two amendments separately.  
I just want to speak a little bit to the implications of what it means if the Government decides to apply its financial veto to both of these amendments and to extrapolate out and perhaps tease out a little bit for the benefit of the Committee and those listening what exactly the Government has conceded in choosing to apply the financial veto to the amendments. As we have heard from the Minister she believes that I think in relation to both the recovery of debt and the imposition of sanctions if Work and Income was not able do those things—to recover those debts or to impose those sanctions—there would be a financial cost to the department. That is true and I accept the Minister’s rationale on that but I think it is very important that we tease out the conditions in which sanctions or that debt recovery would not be applied.  
If we look at the Supplementary Order Paper it refers to situations when a sanction “may deprive the child of food and shelter or would otherwise be detrimental to the wellbeing of the child.” The Minister has assumed that this Supplementary Order Paper would not allow Work and Income to apply sanctions or recover debt in any situation ever. She has assumed that it would rule out all circumstances of Work and Income being able to do that. What that means is that the Government has effectively acknowledged in exercising its financial veto that to do so would deprive the child of food and shelter and would be detrimental to the well-being of the child.  
What the Government has basically admitted is that the provisions in the bill as it is currently drafted before the Committee—the sanctions that it would impose on sole parents—would be detrimental to the well-being of children because if we had an amendment that gave Work and Income the discretion not to do it the Government has assumed that it would not do it. Let us think about that for a minute. If we gave Work and Income the discretion not to apply sanctions because it might be harmful to children the Government has assumed that Work and Income would take that discretion and not apply those sanctions. Well what does that tell you about the sanctions in the bill? It tells you that they would deprive children of food and shelter and would be detrimental to the well-being of children. That is what the Government has admitted in choosing to use its financial veto on these provisions.  
That is significant. That means the Government despite using the rationale of trying to improve outcomes for children as part of the rationale for even making these welfare reforms in the first place has acknowledged by way of this financial veto that in fact the sanctions are detrimental to children and would deprive them of such basics as food and shelter. That is extremely concerning both from a child’s perspective and as I mentioned earlier from the perspective of making sure that we meet our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which states that the affected citizen in need of social security needs to be able to support themselves and their children.  
What we have effectively had from the Government is an admission that the sanctions in this bill deprive people of the ability to supply the basics for their children. That is very concerning. That means that when the sanctions regime outlined in this bill is applied parents will no longer be able to supply their children with the basics—with food with shelter with a warm dry home with clothes with shoes with raincoats.  
I am looking forward later on tonight to hearing from Julie Chapman née Helson who is the Chief Executive of KidsCan who is coming to speak to a cross-party group of MPs. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 I wanted to speak to a couple of things that have come up in the debate so far and just sort of see where we are. In response to Mr Prasad I just want to say that actually there is an exemption for high-needs children. It does not answer all of his questions but there actually is. There is an absolute exemption there that does acknowledge those who are over 14 who are at home and need a parent there; they can get that.  
In response to Holly Walker as well—and I will just get her Supplementary Order Paper so I am giving the wording correctly—she says: “the chief executive is satisfied that recovery of the sum may deprive the child of food or shelter or would otherwise be detrimental to the wellbeing of the child.” The actual problem we have with that is a case manager cannot make that judgment either sitting at the desk with the person in front of them or many times without them in front of them. They cannot make that kind of call so they will eschew doing it. That is the truth of it. So you are quite right when you said they are likely to fall on the part of but it is not because they are necessarily concerned about the deprivation; they just cannot make that judgment based on the information that they have. So as a consequence they will not. I can go through the financial details if you like but to be fair in terms of the sanctions the estimate that they have is that it would cost between $200 million and $300 million over 4 years if they do not impose those sanctions. As I say the practical effect of this change would be to largely prevent Work and Income from applying sanctions and undertaking debt recovery for anyone with dependent children.  
I also wanted to go into other parts of this part which are relatively substantial; we have been making our way through them I think very well. That is certainly so around having subsequent children while on benefit which is a topic all in itself as we know. To give some of the facts around having subsequent children while on benefit data shows that 28 percent of those receiving the DPB included additional newborn children in their benefits. Actually 5 percent had two subsequent children 2 percent had three and 5 percent had four or more children while on the DPB. As at November 2011 26000 women receiving DPB had included an additional newborn child in their benefit at least once since 1993. So looking at that when we say there is not a problem the reality—and I do not have this figure right in front of me—and from what I was seeing as well is that there were about 5000 births for those on DPB as well in recent months.  
The effect we have here and the reason for it is that—like I am sure many members of this Committee—we are quite concerned about particularly those mothers and their children. I do not think anyone sits here and thinks that it is a life of luxury on the DPB and that those on it are doing incredibly well. I do not think that is the premise and it is certainly not where I am coming from as Minister when I look at this. But the reality is that the longer they keep having children on benefit staying there the longer they are likely to be there and be living in that kind of hardship tough as it can be. So the best thing we can actually do for them is see them getting ahead in life and having options other than just welfare. A big part of this is making sure that there is childcare available and a significant amount of money—in fact around $80 million—is going into making sure that there is additional childcare for those mothers and certainly for those teen parents as well which I think is going to make a significant difference in making sure we have the support around them.  
I want to talk about that work expectation stuff too and getting work-ready. I suppose I have this kind of vision of when it has gone through for a while because the reality is it is going to take a lot of time for it all to go through. As you see when someone’s youngest is 3 or 4 years old and in 20 hours’ free childcare they are able to get that training and they will be able to get that upskilling so that when their child is actually 5 years old they can go into that job and they have got a skill that they can give. It is worthwhile and it has given them time to get ready. So there are substantial changes in this part of the bill but ones that we think give that balance back to work testing.  
There are also the changes for widows and women alone. That certainly was not made lightly but when you look at a modern welfare system—and quite frankly some of this when I looked at how archaic I think our system can be—there was a call that the widows benefit and the women alone benefit be changed and be brought into the new benefit categories. 
JAN LOGIE (Green) 
: 
 Thank you for this chance to speak to Part 3 of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Again there is quite a lot to say. I would just also like to follow up on my colleague Holly Walker’s previous speech talking about the financial veto the use of that and the cost of the sanctions. Although the Minister for Social Development has responded quite constructively around the issues of the Work and Income workers not being able to make that assessment in terms of the well-being of the child I think that does not undermine the point my colleague was making about the welfare of the child.  
I think we need to recognise that the Regional Public Health survey around healthy food costs which came out earlier this year showed that somebody on the DPB with two children after paying the average rent in eastern Porirua and providing the very basics of a healthy food diet would have $100 a week left. That was looking at an income of the DPB the accommodation supplement and other tax credits. A hundred dollars a week would be left. It is not hard to see that a cut to a benefit—any cut to a benefit let alone a cut of 50 percent—is going to affect a parent’s ability to feed clothe and adequately care for their child. I think that the Government’s admission of seeking savings combined with that response is quite clear evidence of that and I think all of us in the House who have a real concern in terms of child poverty should be taking that quite seriously.  
I would also like to just address the statement that has been offered many times about parents and families being better off in work. I think we have to really question why that is because we know that two out of five families living in poverty in this country are working families. We know that families on welfare are living in poverty. That is without a question. But the response to that is not necessarily to push people into work. Maybe the sensible response to that is actually to lift things up from our base to improve welfare payments and by virtue of doing that to improve work conditions. That may be a more sustainable way of addressing child poverty rather than cutting the base and pushing more people into the job market when there are not extra jobs a situation that will actually undermine people’s ability to negotiate for the better wages and better conditions that would enable them to stay in work for longer. This bill is setting up for people an unsustainable vicious cycle which is going to keep them trapped in poverty and that should be of concern to every member in this House.  
I would also just like to speak to how these changes are a furthering of the Future Focus amendments in terms of work testing for parents on the DPB and how that seems to have been creating a bit more of a culture of disentitlement within the department. We are seeing that through an increased number of cases that are going to appeal where the original decision has been overturned and through the anecdotal stories that we are hearing from people who are not being told about the discretion and not being told of their actual basic entitlements. We are just hearing far too many of those stories for that not to seem to be a symptom of a culture of work testing—this belief that people should be in work at all costs.  
I have raised it before and I am going to continue to raise the issue of discretion and domestic violence. There is a work-test exemption that is available for victims of violence. In February I think it was 22 people had been given that exemption. I know there are more than that— 
Su’a 
 WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
Malo le soifua. I just want to address Part 3 clause 29 of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Clause 29 amends some definitions in section 3 of the Social Security Act and brings changes to introduce work availability expectation essentially work testing. It provides the range of 10 to 20 hours a week for part-time work or the range of 20 to 40 hours a week for full-time work. Sole parents must now after their youngest child reaches the age of 5 find work within those ranges of hours. I want to ask the Minister in the chair the Minister for Social Development whether she believes that a sole parent working 10 hours part-time would be able to sustain that sole parent’s family on working those hours. You see I have a problem with that. I maintain that families who are on the benefit want to work and they want to work in a job where the pay enables them to sustain their families. And that is not what we are getting. I reiterate the report from the Inland Revenue Department yesterday which said that 66 percent of women are looking for work but cannot find work that enables them to receive a pay that sustains their families. So when a range of working hours of 20 to 40 hours is regarded as full-time work that causes me concern and would cause many sole parents concern because 20 hours at the minimum wage at the moment just would not be able to help that family meet their obligations with rent and electricity—and we all know that the increase in electricity prices is at the point where families are just not able to meet them.  
The other concern I have is the number of employers out there who are prepared to provide that so-called flexibility to enable sole parents to be able to work those flexible hours. I suppose the question has to be—and this is a question that came from many submitters—whether the Government if it is going to obligate those sole parents to find work in order to sustain themselves should be obligated to guarantee those jobs and to guarantee an income to enable a parent to sustain themselves.  
You know I suspiciously think despite the Minister’s sincerity that we have heard that the focus on this small group of people just begs the question of dog-whistle politics again. When you make a comparison of the costs that surround sole parents with the cost of superannuation you see that superannuation takes about 50 percent of the total social spending whereas the domestic purposes benefit takes only about 7.9 percent of social spending. So the Minister’s Government is deciding to turn a blind eye to the increasing superannuation costs and is instead focusing on the cost of solo parents—and by the way in December 2011 only 2.8 percent of those receiving the domestic purposes benefit were under 20 years of age so the argument about more and more young people going on the domestic purposes benefit just does not fit for the many submitters who have made submissions.  
But I come back to clause 29. The number of hours that sole parents would be required to work just does not make me confident that a sole parent working 20 or 30 hours a week is going to be able to sustain that particular family when you recognise the high cost of rent the high cost of electricity petrol costs and the number of available jobs. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next member I need to make a ruling because a point of order was raised regarding the true validity of the certificates of financial veto that were tabled by the Government. Two points have been raised. Firstly the certificates cite the wrong Standing Order in the text. Although this typographical error does not invalidate the certificates I understand that the Minister has lodged replacement certificates correcting this error.  
The second point is that the certificates have not satisfied the requirement to state with some particularity the nature of the impact on the fiscal aggregates and the reason why the Government does not concur with the amendment. I note that  
Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand 
 by David McGee states at page 450: “Provided that the certificate complies with formal requirements by stating with some particularity the nature of the fiscal impact the Speaker or chairperson will not permit the Government’s judgment to be contradicted on a point of order.” In this case the formal requirement has been satisfied. The impact on the fiscal aggregates is clearly stated. The reason for not concurring with the amendment is one and the same—that it increases the Crown’s total operating expenses. My ruling is that the formal requirement of particularity has been satisfied. The Government has calculated a figure. 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
: 
 It seems that on the other side of the Chamber there is a concern that this Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill will just be like a blunt instrument and used in a way that could again cause concern for a number of our communities. But that quite clearly is not the intent of this Government and never has been. What this Government has focused on in this bill is introducing a new system a system of support obligations and financial assistance for its young people and the bill does these two things: it extends work availability requirements and work preparation obligations for sole parents widows women alone partners and people requiring a main benefit. So in essence it is increasing work expectations because prior to National’s Future Focus changes 79 percent of beneficiaries had no work-test obligations. This figure is now about 64 percent and will reduce to 60 percent with the changes introduced in this bill.  
Currently 12 percent of our working-age population is on the benefit. We know that right across this Chamber we share the common goal of wanting to help support and create opportunities. This bill is National’s attempt—our exercising as a Government—to do this. It is important what we are doing here. National’s investment is based on its approach to the benefit system and it is shifting the focus to what people can do not what they cannot do. One hundred and seventy thousand New Zealanders spent the majority of the past decade on benefits. That is bad for our children bad for our families bad for individuals and bad for our economy as well.  
The things that are important are these. People have asked me what the results are so here are some of the results just to remind those here. There are 10400 fewer New Zealanders on welfare; 2300 more on the DPB took up part-time work so there is work available. There are not a lot of jobs and yes we are trying to stimulate the economy but there is work. A total of 13000 people went off the DPB and into work. Fifty percent of beneficiaries did not require a single hardship grant. We keep hearing: “Where are the jobs?” and again we have to keep on doing this just to remind the other side of the Chamber. There are 11500 jobs on TradeMe and 15000 jobs on SEEK. Work and Income receives 1300 to 1500 vacancies a week from employers. There are jobs available. This bill is focused on one thing—changing the opportunities. It is saying that these work-test obligations in Part 3 of this bill are simply to create better opportunities.  
Finally as I finish this short call one of the concerns I have been hearing from the Greens is about children. Well we care about children—absolutely. There are supplements available such as the accommodation supplement. There is the community services card. That is there. There are a number of supplements. And can I just remind the Greens that in one sense a number of our practitioners on the front line working for Work and Income do have a care and concern for the children to ensure that their needs are met. They will have discretion. No child should actually enter into those situations that the members have talked about. Instead the greatest example that you can give to your children is to be the best that you can be. This is encouraging parents and caregivers to take up those opportunities of training and of employment as well. I commend this part of the bill. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My point of order refers to the Government’s application of the financial veto to the two amendments in the Green members’ names. It is a new point so it in no way challenges your ruling. I just wonder whether you would be able to give us a definition of “more than a minor impact”.  
Particularly looking at Jan Logie’s proposed amendments the Government states that this will impact the total operating expenses by between $5.9 million and $15 million per annum. Those are figures that can be underspent overspent or shifted in Budget documents without so much as any explanation as to why. I would think that by that definition it would be minor changes to the Government’s fiscal aggregates. I wonder Mr Chair—and you may want to take some time about this—whether you could give the Committee some indication as to what the definition of “more than a minor impact” in reference to Standing Order 322 would be. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you for your reference to Standing Order 322. Can I inform the Committee and the member that it is not for the Chairman to make that deliberation as to what the actual number or amount should be. It is a matter for the Government. In this case the Government has made that decision. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 When I sat down earlier the question I had asked the Minister for Social Development was in terms of her projections and how many sole parents she expects through work testing will receive part-time work and how many sole mothers will receive full-time work within the range of hours that her bill the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill identifies—10 to 20 hours for part-time work and 20 to 40 hours for full-time work—as noted in clause 29. I want to also ask her about clauses 31 33 and 36 which talk about the pre-benefit requirements. Sole parents will now be required to undertake activities prior to receiving the benefit. This is what we were advised by the officials as to pre-benefit activities. One was to undertake one or more of the stated pre-benefit activities—for example firstly attend and participate in an employment-related seminar or planning session; and secondly at any time before the benefit commences attend and participate in interviews to which they are referred by Work and Income and to accept any offer of suitable employment. It seems to me that if the Government is going to require people to do those sorts of things then the public has the right to be asking this Minister how many sole parents will be guaranteed jobs that they can enter into. At the moment if this is the pre-benefit activity that is designed it simply means that they are being coerced bullied and pushed into it without any guarantee that a job is going to be available. 
The experience of some beneficiaries whom I have encountered is that they simply go from employer to employer and ask those employers: “Can you sign that you don’t have a job or that you will not accept myself applying for the job?”. To me that does not provide any hope for people who want to work who want to get off the benefit and they are being pushed into jobs by this Government. There is nothing in the bill that says these sole parents or these people will get a job that will pay them a wage that can sustain their families. The fear is that if they go through this process but cannot get a job then there is a strong possibility under this bill that they would be sanctioned and they would lose the benefit that they should receive. 
Members on the other side seem to believe that a benefit for a sole mum a sole parent is a bad thing. Yet if you look again at the fundamental purpose of the Social Security Act the fundamental purpose of that Act is to provide support and help to those people who have care responsibilities. In this case sole parents have care responsibilities to children—to children whom I consider to be the future leaders of this country. But obviously if a young mum or sole mum does not have a job does not have an income how on earth are we expecting them to live and to provide for their families? We are already seeing the ramifications of the austerity measures of this Government on people who do not have homes who are living in caravans who are living in poor squalid conditions and who even live in cars I say to the Minister but who do not qualify for any Government support under this particular Government. If this Government is going to push people into jobs why does it not then obligate itself by ensuring that the jobs are there and by ensuring that if a mother is to find part-time work she will be guaranteed an income? 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
Tena koutou katoa. Tena koe Mr Chair. I am delighted to have this opportunity to talk about Part 3 of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill because I feel like there is something missing and there is an education that obviously whoever drafted it missed out on. Where are the men? Do the people who drafted this bill know how children are conceived? The responsibility has not been clearly explained in the bill. All we hear is “bad woman bad woman bad beneficiary bad mother”. That is the mien that is around the bill.  
Whatever the intention what Part 3 has achieved with the sanctions and the work testing is “bad mother” because dad was not anything to do with it. There is no father in this picture. She conceived immaculately. She must take responsibility for having more than one child on the DPB and that all by herself she got pregnant. There are no two people in this story. There is one and she will pay.  
Having worked with beneficiaries on a regular basis with sole mothers I would just like to say to the women out there who are listening that the Green Party does not hate you for having more than one child while on the benefit. Nor do we think that you did it by yourself nor do we think that if you are not in work you are failing your children nor do we think that staying at home with your children is a waste of time and nor do we think that breastfeeding a child over the age of 1 is a bad thing. In fact the World Health Organization says it is a really good thing. We would like to support you mothers to do just that. We do not happen to think that because you do not have a partner who can support you you are a bad mother if you do not want to go out to work when you have a 1-year-old a 3-year-old a 6-year-old or a 7-year-old and you are a sole parent.  
I know hundreds of women who are being mum and dad. Everyone in this House knows them. They are doing double the work. [ 
Interruption 
] Exactly. They are doing the work that two-parent families do. They are doing twice the work. If they have got an extended family or whanau who can back them up maybe going to work is a great option for them if they can find a job. That is fabulous. I have lived in Tai Rawhiti and have seen woman after woman coming to our benefit service. All they want is to do a good job as a parent but they cannot afford to feed their kids because not only is the benefit system too low but they are being work tested and there is no work.  
I invite the members who think it is easy to go and walk down the street of many of our small towns and ask for a job that is going to fit with your four or five kids if you are a sole parent. Go and ask for it because that is what they are doing when they are work tested. They are going door to door they are asking for a job and they are ticking the box. But they are not getting a job because there are only so many that fit neatly with the actual responsibility of being a good parent. If you decide that you will be home at 3 o’clock for your children is that a failure? If you decide that your baby is going to be fed past 1 year old are you a bad parent? And if you cannot get a job and you get sanctioned who is going to benefit? No one is going to benefit at all.  
Our whole society when we attack mothers and children fails. This afternoon I went to a seminar with KidsCan which is an independent charity that says that one in 11 children is living in poverty. The organisation says that 15000 children do not get enough food. Many of their parents are not bad people; they are people who do not have enough money and job creation does not exist to help them get out of poverty. Instead of the Government focusing on how it can make Holly Walker’s Supplementary Order Paper too expensive it would be really good if the Government recognised that there are many situations in the benefit system where the word “discretion” is very important.  
When we had the special benefit—when case managers were encouraged to be human rather than punitive—there was room to acknowledge the situation. I have probably spent more time in the Work and Income office than many people in this Chamber. I have spent a lot of time there advocating alongside people who found it really difficult to say: “I am not a bad mother. I want to stay home with my children and I need to stay home with them because one of them has asthma every third week another one has a learning disability and I’m feeding a baby.”  
I do not know what world people come from when they think that motherhood when you are a sole parent and you have got more than one child is somehow a lifestyle. A lifestyle—that is one of the most offensive things I have ever heard when I know the struggles of these women to try to live and to try to provide their kids with what I am glad to have provided for my daughter. I am a fortunate one I am a blessed one that I was able to get an education and to work. I have met so many women just as committed to being a parent as me who are now being punished. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is an honour to speak in this Chamber. That speech from Catherine Delahunty about this legislation the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill attacking women coming from a woman totally misrepresents the intent of this legislation and totally misrepresents the intent of the National Government to actually help those who are in need. I encourage that member to actually read the bill to participate in the process—as she leaves the Chamber—and see what this is about. Work testing is about obligations. 
Holly Walker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I believe that it is a convention of the House not to refer to the absence of a member and the member just did that in his speech. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sure the member will take that into account. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: I said “as she leaves the Chamber.” I did not note her absence. She was on her way out. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! I have ruled and the member cannot refer to the ruling once I have ruled. The member must withdraw and apologise for that. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No I have ruled. Just withdraw and apologise. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: I apologise and withdraw. May I continue? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I asked him to withdraw and apologise and he did. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well he did it backwards and there is a required format. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That does not matter. The intent was clear. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: Thank you sir. Thank you Mr Mallard. What we heard was an attack on women which this bill does not actually do. This bill has work testing as an obligation because we know the evidence shows that work is good that work can be good and that work actually leads to better outcomes—not just for those women but also for the children those women support. We have heard today where the jobs are. Before I came to the Chamber I looked on SEEK and saw that there are 16364 jobs out there. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How many jobs? 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: There are 16364 jobs. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How many full time? 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: Full time—Mr Cosgrove wants full time: 13149. Mr Cosgrove might want part time: 1028. Mr Cosgrove might then ask about temporary jobs: 2038. The fact is those jobs are there. They are there but some of those jobs require skills and that is why in this bill we require as an aspirational goal National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2.  
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Where did you get the info Sam? 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: It is also clear from the statistics—and I encourage the member to look at Statistics New Zealand—that 2135000 people are working as at 31 March. More people are working in this country than at any time in our history— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Ha ha! 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: —and Mr Cosgrove knows that. He laughs about it. He knows it. He knows that this Government has grown the economy 1.1 percent in the first quarter. He knows that historically we have got some of the lowest interest rates in our history. He knows that the inflation figures released this week have shown one of the lowest inflation rates. He knows that this Government is doing a great job of looking after our people.  
We heard the arguments from Mr Sio around rent and electricity but what we did not hear is that people also receive other benefits like Working for Families. There are— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have not been in the Chamber and I acknowledge that in my absence there might have been an agreement to have a broader debate but my understanding is that we are on Part 3 of the bill. I am just waiting for a reference to it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am monitoring it very closely yes. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: We were talking about work testing. Debate has been robust in terms of jobs. We have had members opposite ask where the jobs are. I have had to help them with some information and help them with some facts because— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who made these numbers up? 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: Those numbers are real Mr Mallard. They are as real as “Charlie” block at Paremoremo where you and your mate might end up. They are real numbers and I suggest that those members go to Statistics New Zealand and actually read what is going on in this country. [ 
Interruption 
]  
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: It is inappropriate to call a member “chicken”. I will ask the member to withdraw that comment.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I apologise and withdraw. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: I did not hear the comment. I did not see how I was abused. I am going to move along. 
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call in this Committee stage on Part 3 of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Specifically I want to talk to clause 35 of this bill and I want to talk about what it is that Work and Income is going to require sole parents on the domestic purposes benefit to do. What we have is a bill that introduces tougher obligations for sole parents to be in work on the basis of there being outdated views of what people can and should do. We are being told that this is just a change to the system. We are seeing very much in this legislation the Welfare Working Group’s premise that sole parents have low rates of employment compared with the norms in other countries. That is reflected in this legislation. Well what we do have—let us have a look at the reality of it—is more than 65 percent of those people who are on the domestic purposes benefit staying on that benefit for less than 4 years. Most people do not want to be on this benefit and most people do not choose to stay on this benefit. Most people contrary to what some members opposite think do not see this as a lifestyle in which to revel in.  
So let us actually have a look at what the reality of the problem is here and what it is that this legislation seeks to do. We in Labour are opposing this legislation because we maintain that if employment opportunities are to be promoted for single parents there are major issues that we need to confront and that we need to have a really real and realistic conversation about. Those issues are around the quality of the part-time work that is being offered whether or not the flexible work options really do exist in reality affordable access to early childhood education—and quality early childhood education—and importantly access to education and training opportunities for people who find themselves on this benefit.  
 We were told by the person who had looked up the interweb and found all these thousands of jobs out there that there are all these jobs out there but the only fish-hook is that you might need some skills and training because some of them required you to have some qualifications. What do we see about these jobs being offered out there on the internet on Seek.com and Trademe.co.nz the now official site for New Zealand employment statistics according to the member opposite? What we have is a piece of legislation that does not have the commitment—the real commitment—to the training required and the opportunities required to get people into quality work and into the quality work that will put them on the path of being able to provide a good income for their families into the future.  
We have a whole lot of rhetoric around this from members opposite. But what we see when push comes to shove is what we saw yesterday when I put up a very reasonable amendment to Part 1 of this legislation that simply asked to include as one of the options that Work and Income could direct young New Zealanders to some of the courses being offered under the Skills for Canterbury package. But no what we have are members opposite who stand there and say: “We’re committed to getting young people to National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2.” Well actually what do you mean in reality?  
We put up an amendment that was going to offer people some real choice some real opportunity and the real option to get ahead and what we are seeing under clause 35 in Part 3 of this legislation is a whole lot of rhetoric around people on the domestic purposes benefit being compelled and there being obligations on these people within this clause to go out and seek work and training opportunities. But what we are seeing when it is put to the test with members opposite is that there is not a commitment to real and meaningful—real and meaningful—training and work opportunities that will get these people back into work. It just does not stack up and the rhetoric does not meet it.  
We also have within this clause “a general obligation [for people on the domestic purposes benefit] to take all steps that are reasonably practicable in his or her particular circumstances to prepare for employment …”. Part of taking those practical steps when you are a sole parent is having adequate access to early childhood education. This is adequate— 
JAN LOGIE (Green) 
: 
 I would like to follow on a little bit from that last speech from Megan Woods looking at that commitment to getting people into work and what we consider work. I would like to remind the Committee of an ex - National Party member of Parliament Marilyn Waring and a book she wrote in 1999 called  
Counting for Nothing 
 which looks at how we value work and also how we look at setting up our Government accounts. I would like to read a quote from an interview with Marilyn: “Purchasing domestic services for a household is productive; doing them yourself is not. ‘It’s so ironic—no it’s not it’s sick’ she said. If a man marries his housekeeper the GDP goes down.”  
I think it is worth noting in the context of parenting and in the context of running a home that parents on the DPB are working—they are working. I had this feedback directly from some young people who were in relationships and had children who were very conscious that they were being disincentivised from co-parenting by our current system. The way our system is set up they are better off being on the DPB than they are on the unemployment benefit and co-parenting. That is pretty bizarre and that is a factor in this reform. I think we should as a country really think about going back to some of those basics about the things we value. I think parenting is something that we should value and we should put the money behind it. To say that paid work is everything—I think really we need to review that a little bit.  
I would also like to add my voice to the critique of the idea about how many jobs are available and the idea that anyone can get a job if they want. To give an example from Christchurch earlier this year the Canterbury District Health Board had 345 jobs going that they advertised and they had 6500 applications for those jobs. When I asked how many of the people who got those jobs had come off benefits I was told that one person had been referred to those jobs by Work and Income and was not suitable. They did not have the qualifications.  
I think that is a pretty clear example of how those figures that have been thrown out that there are jobs available actually hide the complexity of the situation. For some people there are not jobs available and particularly not jobs that support them to be good parents as well as be in employment. I think for us as a country and for the future welfare of our entire country the priority should be looking after your children rather than getting paid work. I think if you can do both fantastic. That is a really really good thing. You do not need obligations to do that. People who are able to do that and who choose to do that do that of their own volition. Most people want to work either in an unpaid capacity that has meaning and is valued or in paid work. 
Mike Sabin 
: We want to support them to work. 
JAN LOGIE 
: Well obligations are not necessary to support that. We see people transition into paid work when they are ready. We have also been told by the Ministry of Social Development when we look at childcare that having standards around childcare would be patronising because parents should be able to choose. Yet if they are choosing to stay at home and be around their children that choice does not count. Where is the irony in that? It does not make sense; it is inconsistent.  
I would like to also speak to the financial veto on my Supplementary Order Paper 78 to reinstate the training incentive allowance—$5 million to $15 million we are being told it will cost. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 It was interesting to listen to some of the comments made by the latter speakers on the Government side. For Alfred Ngaro it was: “Do not worry this is just a new system and everything else is fine.” That is so simplistic—“It is just a new system and everything else is fine.” Of course we all know that for Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga there are plenty of jobs out there but I think he said there are only about 1000 part-time jobs. If that is so then gosh there is not much for 20 hours is there?  
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: They were casual. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Yes. Of course “all is well” is the message but when you look at this this is social engineering. They are words that that side use. You know it is what Mike Sabin has been saying. That is the kind of social engineering he wants and the Minister for Social Development has not repudiated him yet. The moment she does I will stop this criticism of Mike Sabin. But it is nanny State. It is like this: look folks if you are poor go out and get a job; if you have got children tough put them out somewhere else. That is what it is saying. 
But essentially I think Jan Logie really said something that I want to develop a wee bit more and she is absolutely right. What is the nature of work and why is it so difficult for this Minister and members opposite to accept that bringing up children is work? It is difficult work. It is demanding it is difficult and we ought to support the people who are bringing up those kids. The fact that the children have been born is where we start. I say to Mr Sabin that there is no point punishing those children because their parents had them on their own in the sense of having to rely on State support. 
Mike Sabin 
: How is going into childcare a punishment? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: That is not the time to really punish those children. I will come back to that in a minute Mr Sabin. That is where the approach is punitive and it actually has perverse effects. There is no leadership in all of this. This is not going to work. How do parents— 
Mike Sabin 
: Go back to Jan Logie; she made more sense.  
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Mr Sabin how do parents parent? I want to talk about a family I know—in fact my own grandchildren. My own grandchildren are 3½ and 9 months. My daughter is at home at the moment on maternity leave and looking after the two of them and it takes her all her time. With a partner at work it takes her all her time running day and night almost to keep those two kids to give them the best that she can. Fortunately they are doing particularly well. But to think that if a person like her was a solo parent then she would have this work test. That work test would just be so punitive towards the great job she is doing at the moment and the children she is bringing up. Of course the Minister said: “But we’ve got exemptions.” They are for high and complex needs. Minister I want to remind you that this actually is a high test. It is a very high threshold for those high and complex needs tests and if that is to be applied then that is going to be a problem.  
So here we are. This is a time when we know from all the studies that bonding is important children’s brains develop so much and parents being there gives them that opportunity. Anybody here who has had children knows that; knows that it was OK for us. It was OK for us but because these children are as Jan Logie says the children of the poor and because they are poor then it is not good enough for them. I would just like to ask the members opposite to actually have a look inside your soul. Have a look inside your soul and do that.  
But then finally the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] Have a good look have a good look. But then I invite members to just take what the Minister has been saying. The Minister is saying she is into an investment approach. If this is an investment then I do not know what kind of investment she is talking about. But if we did have an investment approach let us get to these young people. Let us get to them sooner. Let us make an investment in them to understand about forming relationships how to keep themselves safe and how to do the kinds of things to prepare for a life of the type that you and I will all want for our children. Invest in that. That would be an investment and that would be giving our children the best start in life. But no the investment here in childcare is going to be in something like what the Minister said yesterday. She said: “Well of course the parents are in the best place to decide.” So if the only option we can give them is what is it babysitting clubs— 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Su’a 
 WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 There are several clauses in Part 3. I now come to section 60P(c) in clause 35 which says the purpose of this section is “to improve social and economic outcomes for them and their dependent children.” I think we all agree in this Chamber that to improve social and economic outcomes you have to provide an income to families so that they can support themselves first and foremost. Secondly to improve social outcomes for sole parents with children you have got to have a parent who is available to young children full stop. That is the argument that some of my colleagues have been putting forward. This Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill by this Government does not recognise when it should recognise that the role or the job of parenting of looking after children is critical. This Government does not recognise that. So that is the first point. It comes back to the argument we have advanced that for this Government to achieve an improvement in social and economic outcomes it has got to provide jobs. It is as simple as that. But not just any job; it has to be jobs that provide incomes for families to sustain themselves. That is the point that has to be made. 
If you look at section 60Q(3) in clause 35 it lays out the list of activities that will be required of people on benefits—sole parents in particular—and what the bill enables the chief executive to do to sole parents. The first point is “(a) to undertake planning for employment:”. Well that is fine—planning for employment. But the big question is whether planning for employment will guarantee that a sole parent or a person on a benefit arrives at a job that will support their families. That is the question. 
The second point—paragraph (b)—is that the chief executive will determine what activities the beneficiary should participate in and the first activity listed is work assessment. All right; you assess the person for the kinds of skills they have then try to match that person with a job. I submit that if it is true what the other side is saying about supposedly 60000 vacancies being available online then how come if there are those opportunities we still have got 160000 people unemployed? How come women’s unemployment rate is 7.1 percent? I am referring to that particular activity of assessing people for work; it does not guarantee the person a job. 
Paragraph (b) also suggests “a programme or seminar to increase particular skills or enhance motivation:”. That suggests to me that this Government does not think that sole parents or the unemployed are motivated enough to go and find work. Well I do not accept that and I think the Government is wrong. Another activity is “(iii) a work-experience or work-exploration activity:”. What does that mean—work experience or work exploration activity? Subparagraph (vi) allows “any other activity (including rehabilitation) …”. Why is that? Then subparagraph (v) provides for “an education programme:” and (iv) provides for “employment-related training:”. The question I would ask is whether the Government and the department will ensure that any sole parent who is wanting to progress themselves through an education programme that will lead to the achievement of a degree— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: A bit like the Minister. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: Yes. Well that is right. Once upon a time she was the beneficiary of support by the Government by the State of the education degree that she received. For any other sole parent wanting an education programme as stated in subsection (3)(b)(v) will the Government pay for it? Will the Government support a sole mother who wants a degree? Because if it will then good— 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 75 in the name of the Hon Paula Bennett to clause 36 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We now move to Holly Walker’s typescript amendments to insert new clauses 37A and 35A as also set out on Supplementary Order Paper 77. These have been ruled out of order as the Government has exercised its financial veto. We now move to Jan Logie’s amendment as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 78. This amendment is ruled out of order as the Government has exercised its financial veto.  
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Moroney to clause 35 be agreed to: 
after new section 60Q(3) insert: 
(4)Where obligations under this section are placed on beneficiaries and their spouses and partners the chief executive must make quality child care per subsection (5) and early childhood education per subsection (6) available to the beneficiary and/or their spouses and partners.  
(5)Quality child care is defined as one that provides healthy environment that meet standards prescribed by regulation the availability of registered professionals and the appropriate ratio of caregivers to children prescribed. 
(6)Where the child is 3 or over the parent (beneficiary and their spouses and/or partners) must have access to registered early childhood education requiring services to be widely available in their area of residence prior to the obligations in section 60(Q) are applied to the beneficiary and their spouses and partners. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to clause 34 be agreed to: 
delete this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to clause 37 be agreed to: 
after subclause (2) insert: 
(3) In section 105(1) after “from complying with section 60HA” insert “or where the beneficiary has a dependent child who has a disability has been deemed to have significant behavioural issues and/or has been excluded from school”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Part 4 Consequential provisions taking effect on 15 October 2012 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 This part Part 4 has got consequential provisions that take effect when this part of the bill the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill comes in on 15 October. It is for those who are predominantly having those changes with the DPB the women alone benefit and the widows benefit. It is a relatively small part of the bill—we have seen the two major substantial parts—however of course it is important otherwise we would not be doing it. 
These provisions replace the references to employment plan expectations and sanctions which is what we have had. We are moving more to work preparation expectations and a difference in sanctions so it is as much about language as it is anything else. It means the regulation-making power in the Act allows for the development of regulations setting out exemptions. At the moment we want them to be able to go through the regulations instead of through the legislation all the time. That makes sense and it makes it easier for people and means that we can have those kinds of exemptions when they are needed for people in exceptional circumstances.  
If there is anything that we recognise it is that actually whenever you are making changes it is not about necessarily a big group of people; it is about a number of individuals who have different circumstances and wherever possible we need to take them into consideration. It is quite straightforward and ensures that on the date the bill comes into force all employment plans reviews of employment plans requirements set out in employment plans notices issues related to the employment plans and any sanctions related to the employment plans cease to have any effect so that the new ones come in on that date. That is this part.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 be agreed to.  
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Part 4 agreed to. 
Schedule 1 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to.  
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Schedule 1 agreed to. 
Schedule 2 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 75 in the name of the Hon Paula Bennett be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 to 3 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to rise and give a contribution on the title and commencement clauses of this bill the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. As you called for speeches on this I was actually just making some notes on the commencement clause. I have some questions for the Minister in the chair the Minister for Social Development on the commencement date in particular. We have seen movement around the commencement date for the provisions that relate to youth services in particular. My understanding is that now the commencement date is for late August for those provisions. I know that the Minister has made brief references in parts of this debate—or at least she did in question time—around why the commencement date has shifted for the youth services measures of the bill. I would be interested in a slightly more fulsome answer because I have received conflicting advice from the Ministry of Education around whether or not the schools are indeed ready to pick up the provisions set out in Part 1 of this bill in particular because of course this bill will require greater information sharing from schools to the Ministry of Social Development. 
My understanding is that the Ministry of Education at this point says that there are two management systems that might be used to get information either ENROL or the student management system. They are quite different systems. ENROL it is my understanding does not capture all of the information that the Ministry of Social Development would require in order for it to carry out the basics of for instance contacting a school leaver to find out whether they require youth services in order to place them into further education training or work. I ask the Minister to give assurances to the Committee that the commencement date for this bill is realistic and that the Ministry of Education is liaising appropriately with the Ministry of Social Development to ensure that the right IT systems are in place—and I believe that up to $17 million has been spent on those IT systems. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How much? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: It is a significant piece of work. I believe $17 million has been spent on IT for this bill. So if there has been movement in the commencement date I assume that is because things are not quite as rosy as they would need to be in order to kick off. If there is some explanation around that I would welcome the Minister sharing that with us because a substantial amount of taxpayer money has gone into that part of the bill and what I have seen out of the Ministry of Education suggests that it is not exactly clear what is going to be happening with its information flows into the Ministry of Social Development.  
I also note that the commencement date for the provisions that relate to work testing kicks in in October. I would be interested in the Minister sharing the rationale for how much time is required for Work and Income to make such significant policy changes. I assume that this is based on advice from officials that October gives relevant time to advise case managers of how the new system will operate. If indeed that is the case what is the difference between a substantial change around work testing and the probably more substantial change of Work and Income no longer dealing with anyone under the age of 19? Youth services with no prior training in this area will have to pick up that work and they are getting substantially less time from the commencement of this bill to establish the right training and policies in their organisations having never worked in this area before than Work and Income gets. Youth services get to kick off in August when the rubber hits the road for whole new practices whereas Work and Income is getting right through to October even though it is much more its bread and butter. So I would be interested in the differences around commencement dates there.  
I come then to the title of this bill. The current title is the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Some listeners out there who may have been observing the debate around this bill may be confused that actually the title is quite a narrow title: “Youth Support and Work Focus”. To be fair actually that title probably captures what this bill does. It is heavily focused on those under the age of 19 many of whom are not actually drawing down on any Government support at present. We have had that discussion: roughly 1000 young people are on the independent youth benefit and roughly 1500 are on what will become a teen parent payment. That is the focus: those who are on Government support who are being targeted by this bill predominantly. They are the ones who will experience the most change in the way that they are dealt with as a consequence of this bill.  
For the remainder the “Work Focus” part of this title is then the reference point for the remainder of this bill. As anyone who listened to the debate around Part 3 of this bill will know for the remainder—the 112000 on the domestic purposes benefit the almost 50000 on the unemployment benefit and the tens of thousands on the invalids benefit and sickness benefit; actually it is even narrower than that it is mostly just for the DPB and widows etc.—the only change they will see as a consequence of this bill is additional work testing. So when you break it down it is the “Social Security (Youth Support)” which is 2500 people “(and Work Focus)” which is the rest. That actually probably is not a bad descriptor. But you would not have garnered that from the debate that you have heard in this Chamber which I think to be fair overstated the impact this bill would have for the majority of people on Government support currently.  
So perhaps it would be more appropriate—maybe we could say the “Predominantly Youth Support Social Security Bill” or the “Narrow Target - Based Youth Support Bill”. I guess the reason I would throw in the “Narrow Target” is that that I think encapsulates the significant debate that has happened around what is happening to our Youth Transition Services. At the moment we have a very broad-based community-based delivery model that is coming into a more narrowly focused—and the Minister as she said makes no apology for this—attempt to work with roughly 14000 young people. As we have continued to point out there are over 80000 young people not in employment education or training. Our preference has always been to build on the existing community-based Youth Transition Services that are already out there. It would have been cheaper it would have picked up more young people and it would not have just locked in on 16 and 17-year-olds; it would have been 16 and 17 plus. That has been our contention through this debate.  
But also if we were to be slightly more realistic about the “Work Focus” part of the title of this bill it would be the “Work Focus (Without the Work) Bill”. This is not just rhetoric. I mean this is fact. I can see the chair of the Social Services Committee is getting agitated by my use of evidence. I know it is a pesky thing! Facts—never let them get in the way of some useful rhetoric! But almost 18000 people were drawing down an unemployment benefit at the time that the Government came in. Granted a recession kicked in; we have always acknowledged that. We are now sitting at closer to roughly 50000. But to bring in a bill that is so heavily focused on work testing when the environment has changed—and the Government acknowledges the environment has changed. In fact it has been its excuse for the unemployment figures that we have. On the one hand it is acceptable to use the recession as an excuse for the Government’s record on the unemployment benefit and the unemployment rate but it is not an excuse for people to say: “I can’t find a job.” So we have always had this complete contradiction throughout this bill. I think it is important that perhaps we look at the title acknowledging that the “Work Focus (Without the Work) Bill”.  
Finally there is one other title I wish to consider. At the very beginning of course it is the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill because all of this is based on the original Social Security Act that came in in the 1930s. But as has been raised in this debate by my colleague Su’a William Sio I think it is timely to go back to what the roots of social security were in New Zealand. It has been pointed out that Michael Joseph Savage never intended for it simply to be a subsistence payment that did not acknowledge the wider context in which the person existed. He always said that social security should exist alongside appropriate health education and a pension scheme. That was always the context in which he referred to this. We have lost the context. We now focus so heavily on the payment realm of this—the existence on social security—that we forget that actually it should be used as a springboard to try to get people into a better life. That means sustainable work. 
Mike Sabin 
: That’s what the bill’s all about. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Mr Sabin explain to me how work testing does anything other than say to someone: “Go out with a booklet come back at the end of the week and show me 100 signatures that show you asked 100 people for a job.” What if that person does not have the skills? What if that person has not been in the workforce for 5 years and has no job skills to get into further employment? The welfare system should not be static— 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 I stand to talk to the title commencement and amendment of the principal Act. I do say to the member who has just finished Jacinda Ardern that like her I look forward to bill No. 2 and the changes that are coming through. I hear constantly that she is ready for the massive substantial changes to the welfare system and I can assure her that that work has been done and that it is coming. This is the first stage. We certainly have heard what has been talked about as far as the title of this bill the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill and I can say that this is substantial but is by no means the biggest part of changes that are coming along.  
The member did raise questions around data systems and information sharing between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Social Development. I think they are quite valid questions. I can assure her that that has already been tested twice. It works; we are ready to go. I can assure her that the delay with taking the commencement to 20 August just makes sure that we are getting to those young people and we are giving them that little bit of extra time to adjust which I think is fair and reasonable. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable Minister the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Before the break we were talking about data information-sharing and the member Ms Ardern had raised as a concern how we were going to share that information with the Ministry of Education did we know what information did we have the systems in place—I think that was the kind of thrust of where she was at. What we have done is we have actually tested it now twice and the information works and we are getting the right information in the right time. I am quite pleased to say that it has been tested it does work. The reason we have changed to that commencement date is firstly around that testing. Also we have now got to go through the third reading and Order in Council and we wanted to make sure that those who were going to have those sorts of changes also had a reasonable amount of time and notice of being written to so that they could actually get them through.  
The title of this bill absolutely does sum up where it is. It is around youth support and it is around a work focus. I have heard some things in the debate—this evening in particular—around that work focus being punitive and that people can lose benefits if they do not find jobs and things like that. That is not true. All we are asking is that people are available for work and that there is a new work preparation. So around that title having that work focus is actually fair. It is already in place as we know. It is in place for those whose youngest child is 6 and we are moving it to the youngest child being 5 for part-time work.  
There have also been some questions around the length of time and the hours that someone can work. We have given more flexibility there. We have had cases where we could see that with that work focus it was quite ridiculous that someone who was working 10 or 11 or 12 hours perhaps doing two shifts was still being work tested and that was not counted as such by the department. They were kind of being hassled a little and I did not think that was right actually. If it was a few hours either side there should be that level of flexibility. For it to be economically viable I can tell you that at 10 hours you are getting more money. At the end of the day particularly for those on the DPB the abatement is at 30 percent. That means on top of Working for Families and accommodation supplements and others that they get they are financially better off. Also at 20 hours one can just about pretty much go off the benefit. By the time you add in accommodation supplements—and actually about 40 percent of those who get accommodation supplements are not on welfare they are those in work; fully in work and off the benefit completely. There is a little gap in there and there is a gap of about anything from 17 18 19 hours where you are not substantially better off so once you get to that 20 hours there are absolutely no two ways about it: you can see a real benefit. Having that work focus which of course is in the title makes real sense and puts that attention there.  
I cannot reiterate it enough that if you have not found a job you will not be punished. You know there is no punitive measure; there is no sanction. The requirement is to be work available and the requirement is to be in that position so that you are actually actively looking. The reality is if you are looking then you know you have got a much better chance of getting one.  
As far as the youth support network focus is concerned I just want to give an example as well of a 17-year-old whom I met quite recently who had left school early had been out of work for a year had not been doing anything and had not actually been on a benefit either but had got to a stage where she sort of said: “What am I going to do?”. She took the jewellery out of her nose and dressed herself up a bit got some advice from someone on how she would interview and went round the Henderson mall with her CV and knocked on doors. It is a true story that she came out with three jobs. She came out with three retail opportunities and of those opportunities that she came out with she was at the stage where she was to do work experience for all three so she did. She went in and worked for a few hours at each of them. At the end of that all three of them offered her a job and she chose one of them. That was about 3 or 4 months ago and she is still in work and she is doing OK.  
Now that is one example I give you but to say that there is no work available simply is not true. Let me give you an example as well. As members will know during the recession we saw I was actually very proud that we had a welfare system that was there to support those who needed it. I get some grief for numbers going up—well so they should actually: that is when people are walking through the door and they need help. We should be giving it to them as efficiently and as promptly and in as much of a respectful manner as we can—and we did. You know I heard horror stories overseas and I am still hearing them of queues outside doors and people having to wait absolutely weeks and even months to get appointments let alone get the help that they need. We were able to address those needs up front but now here we are. In January 2010 we had the unemployment benefit at over 68000 people and we now have it at 50000. I would like to see it at less than 50000 and that is what we are working towards but the reality is we have seen 18000 people come off that benefit in the last couple of years due to in part the lessening of the recession without a doubt—and actually more jobs are available and that is why they are getting there—but also that kind of focus. We are seeing that kind of balance there. You can throw up your hands and just say that there are not opportunities for people but really by putting the right support around them and also giving them the right kinds of incentives and putting obligations in there is absolutely no doubt—and all evidence points to it—that you will get better results for people and they will have better opportunities.  
 You are financially better off whether you are in part-time work or in full-time work but I end by also saying that part-time work is also quite a great confidence-builder. There are those who have been either out of work for ever or out of work for a short time and are actually getting a part-time job of one or two shifts a week and it might be in retail or something else—we just recently placed 63 people off the benefit and into a call centre in Auckland guys. That is 63 people off benefit and into a call centre in Auckland. For all of them it is all different shifts and everything else. Some will be part-time most of them are full-time but I tell you what I bet their confidence grows and when that next job comes along or that opportunity to get ahead in that job they will do that.  
When it comes to the commencement we have got some parts of the bill that are happening as I say on 20 August when it comes to the youth package and others are coming through in October which just makes sense to stage that through but bill No. 2 is on its way as well which will see fundamental changes and will get us towards our next change. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I do not think the Minister for Social Development will find anyone on this side of the Chamber who would disagree when she says that work is important and work is valued. I think by and large all New Zealanders value work. We live in a society where work becomes important but it is also about the wages that those jobs provide. For the Minister to argue that the accommodation supplement and the childcare supplement will enable sole mothers to receive an income where they can work defeats I think Minister the whole purpose of your bill because you are using the accommodation supplement and the childcare supplement to subsidise the employers and to subsidise the landlord whereas the whole purpose of this bill is the focus on work—focus on work where solo mums and solo dads or young people are going to be pushed into work are able to support themselves. But your argument of using the accommodation supplement and the childcare supplement seems to me to concede the fact that there are jobs out there that are not going to be able to sustain a solo parent or sustain a beneficiary who wants to get into a job.  
The title of the bill is the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. It is an amendment bill to the Social Security Act 1964 but as submitters have said before the purpose of this amendment bill and the original purpose of the original Act just do not connect. They are miles apart. The suggestion by many submitters is that really this bill should not be there. It is the wrong bill to introduce if the Minister is genuine about her concern in addressing these particular issues. In fact it should really be the “Repeal of the Social Security Act Bill” rather than an amendment bill as it shows. If the focus of the bill is about jobs then this bill is really doing everything other than the provision of a job yet it provides sanctions which in my mind are a threat that if people do not get a job then they are going to lose out on something. 
 There is another significant shift that this bill introduces. It introduces a youth package that permits the use of third parties or private organisations. That is a significant shift from what currently occurs where a third party—whether it be a business or a community trust or whatever organisation—is going to be the representative of the Government department in the delivery of benefits in the delivery of any sanctions and in the provision of any of the pre-benefit activities that the bill suggests the chief executive has because the chief executive is not going to be the one sitting down with every beneficiary who comes through the doors of Work and Income. When the bill allows for third parties to be involved in the relationship between the beneficiary and the Government I think that debate still needs to be had because there are significant risks associated with the third parties involved in the relationship there.  
The bill also although it says in the title “Youth Support and Work Focus” does not highlight the fact that there is significant change for the beneficiary which falls on solo parents on widows and on sole parents. When a bill suggests one thing but does something else you really have to ask yourself whether we are being honest with the public out there. The fact that the entire bill introduces work testing—again the work focus gives a different suggestion to the public who will read the bill and think “OK this will enable me to get a job.” but it does not. Despite what the backbenchers say about the vacancy opportunities online we still have today 160000 people unemployed—6.7 percent. Women who predominantly make up the sole parent category are 7.1 percent unemployed which is higher than the national average. So again I do not think that the bill is being honest by allowing the general public to be fully aware of what will happen.  
The bill also introduces sanctions. I—and most people—take sanctions as a threat and there has been significant power now being placed upon the shoulders of the chief executive. It will be the chief executive who will determine whether a person is eligible for a benefit and what benefit. It will be the chief executive who will determine which pre-benefit activities for the applicant will apply. It will be the chief executive who will determine what educational activity the applicant can apply for. Again this is a significant shift from the original legislation which I do not think that we have had enough time to debate.  
The other points I make are on childcare because when this bill introduces the provision that sole parents will be work-tested when a child is 5 years old—it used to be 6 the bill now reduces it to 5—for part-time work I still have genuine concerns. If they are working in a job that does not pay sufficient to provide care for the child at home or at an educational facility then the Minister has suggested that we will continue to provide the childcare subsidy. I think that is wrong because that means that the focus really is about subsidising employers and subsidising landlords to the detriment of taxpayers and to the detriment of sole parents or beneficiaries who will have to continue to work for low-paid jobs. How can you live and provide a decent quality standard of living if this is the rate of affairs that this Government seems to be content on proposing? 
Again the jobs. If I really wanted to be mean to the backbenchers I would say that this bill ought to be called the “Kick in the Guts for Beneficiaries Bill”. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: Well that is what this is all about. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: They think it’s funny. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: That is right and they do not take this seriously. The Minister above all members on that side should know that the children of beneficiaries should be our primary concern. The children of sole parents should be our primary concern. If the Minister was in attendance when the public made submissions she would have heard from a range of significant organisations and significant individuals who responded and gave evidence that their paramount concern is that this bill does nothing—does nothing whatsoever—to protect the most vulnerable in our society: the children of sole parents. To leave a 14-year-old child at home really this perpetuates what we are doing. When a 14-year-old child is at home because mum is forced to go to work or they will be sanctioned and have nothing on the table—nothing to pay the rent with—what will that do to that young person? So I think if the Minister is genuine—and I accept that she is genuine about this—then really what she is doing with this amendment bill is not simply tinkering with the main Act; she is providing a significant shift to the whole Social Security Act. Both the purpose of this bill and the purpose of the Social Security Act— 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Social engineering. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: Absolutely. If we were in Government they would say this is nanny State. That is what they would have called it. We are not saying that one iota whatsoever. I simply say that she fails in this bill to address what will happen to children left alone and to mothers who because they will be sanctioned if they do not try to find work may not be able to afford childcare. The subsidy provided for childcare is $6 per child. Compare that with the cost of sending a child to school. You cannot send a child to school for $6. So I think she fails to address children. 
JAN LOGIE (Green) 
: 
 I would like to now talk to the title of the bill which is the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill and to take us back in time a little bit to actually look at what the original Social Security Act was about so that we have a bit more of a sense of the context of this.  
Back in 1972 the National Government put together a Royal Commission on Social Security in New Zealand. This commission after extensive thinking and consultation advocated that as a country we move from security to welfare—to quote it—“to ensure … that everyone is able to enjoy a standard of living much like that of the rest of the community and thus is able to feel a sense of participation in and belonging to the community;”. In the commission’s thinking there was a need to shift from the very basic safety net against unforeseen or unavoidable misfortune. Welfare was to be an agency for the promotion of the welfare of every one of our citizens. Although I can hear the Government saying that we just want to go back in time it is not true. I would note that in this bill and the previous Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill it has been the Government that has been regressing even further back in time almost back to the 1950s. To me it harks back to a time when single mothers were scorned and put under undue economic pressure to stay in bad relationships and to a time when women who dared to speak up were slapped right back down again. But back in the 1970s they seemed to have understood a basic truth that this Government seems to have lost—that we all benefit socially and economically when we invest in our people. 
Hon John Banks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Two matters under the Standing Orders: not relevant and reading from a text. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: It is the presiding officer’s prerogative to make those calls. The reason for that and the Standing Orders at the select committee made it quite clear is that such mechanisms can be used to interrupt a speech. So it is the prerogative of the presiding officer. 
JAN LOGIE 
: And we have recent research that backs this up. University of Otago research published just this year in  
Social Science and Medicine 
 investigated the impacts of family poverty on children up to the ages of 10 and how this reflected in later life. It showed that poverty and low income during childhood is associated in adolescence and adulthood with poorer educational achievement lower earnings and higher rates of welfare dependency up to the age of 30. The results held true even when a range of childhood and other family factors were taken into account. For this cohort of 987 individuals the major effects of being brought up in a poor family appear to be a significant reduction in both educational achievement and earning opportunities that is still evident at 30 noted the professor. In contrast the children of families who were in the top 25 percent of income earners were more likely to leave school with high qualifications and more likely to go to university and have higher incomes. These results reflect a wide range of other international studies demonstrating the impact of childhood poverty on later life outcomes.  
So for the purpose of this bill to say it is about social security about a work focus and in the content of the bill to be extending work sanctions and for the Government not to be willing to accept our Supplementary Order Papers on the training incentive allowance or the absolute protection for children to ensure that they are fed clothed and their well-being is taken care of to me seems to be pretty much of a guarantee that we are going to keep on seeing these negative outcomes flow through for people later in life. This is the absolute opposite of an investment approach. We are introducing a deficit analysis and approach to our young people. This Government’s approach is a wilful ignorance of the need for money to function in our society. The only mention of financial support in this bill is the preference not to provide it. We do not want anyone stuck on a benefit. In fact we absolutely believe that most people want to work and contribute. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I call Dr Rajen Prasad—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I do not know what to make of that little groan from the crew over there led by Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga and company. I think the title of a bill should actually say something quite particular about what the bill is really about. Clearly the title that we currently have does not quite cut it and lots of alternative titles can be suggested. Of course usually they can be quite humorous but I do not think there is much humour in any alternative title for this bill the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill because there is so much wrong with this bill and I think the title should reflect that.  
I think it should be called the “Anti - Young Persons Bill” because the presumption about young people in this bill is that they are incompetent. We do not even allow them to make mistakes. We say: “You can’t manage your money so we will manage it for you. We will give you a little bit at a time until you finally earn the right to have it all back.” We do not bring up our children like that. Nobody in this Chamber brings up their children like that so why is it that these young people are being put in that position? The presumption is of incompetence so maybe it should be the “Social Security (Presumption of Incompetence) Amendment Bill”. Then the young people can relate to it as a bill that is theirs. Certainly that gives us a lot of scope for this particular bill.  
The “Anti-Adolescent Bill” would be another one—that is an alternative title—because now a single parent has to go back to full-time work when their child turns 14 or come off benefit. So what is it that makes it so that all of a sudden our 14-year-olds are being asked to manage themselves? The Minister for Social Development’s argument has been that 68 percent of parents do and therefore everybody who is a beneficiary must. The Minister has not explained anything about the figures she has used or some contextualising about the nature of the two groups of parents. The Minister said nothing. She simply has taken that and it has been her driving argument here for making 14 years of age the cut-off point when parents must be available for full-time work. Most people in this Chamber know that that adolescent period is demanding—not for everybody but certainly for a group of parents their adolescents are so demanding that they require their full-time attention. But of course anybody who has been on a benefit and could do that will now not be able to do that. So it is an anti-adolescent bill and that should be the title: the “Social Security (Anti-Adolescent) Bill”. That would be a title that would be quite appropriate in this particular case.  
The Minister has defended it saying it is not punitive that there is nothing punitive in this bill; it is all enabling. The Minister’s demeanour throughout all the calls she has taken is to play the line that we are simply enabling our young people and our beneficiaries to avail themselves of the facilities available. But you know the measures are punitive and it actually does produce perverse effects. There can be situations with two solo mums both with a 6-year-old and a 1-year-old when one would have access to the benefit and the other would not. That is entirely possible and yet the Minister says there is nothing punitive in this. There are punitive provisions in this particular bill as well.  
Who supports this bill? Certainly professional after professional after professional came to the Social Services Committee and they did not support this bill. They found so many things wrong with it and that was the overwhelming nature of submissions to the select committee. So the bill’s title could reflect that professionals do not support this—[ 
Bell rung 
]—Mr Chairman. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Dr Rajen Prasad. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Thank you. That has been the second time in 2 days that my favourite Chairman has recognised that the person has something more to say. I can see things are looking up at last. Maybe it is something about the second row that does it. But certainly back to the serious point I was looking to hear the views of the professionals who came. You would expect them to have understood what the bill was trying to do. You would expect them to reflect from their experiences why this bill would work and why these provisions would work. But they did not and of course nobody has listened to what they said; hardly any of that has been taken into account. So it could be the “Nobody Believes the Government Bill” because the submitters certainly did not.  
It certainly is a “Government Knows Best Bill” because that is what it has been. It has been that the Government has made up its mind and therefore that will prevail and it has forced this through the House. But of course it could easily be the “Mike Sabin Bill” because he articulated in his one call which I recall in Part 3 what the Government’s perspective was. It actually was the most punitive statement that any member has made in the time I have been in this House—the comment that these are lifestyle choices these women make. I did challenge the Minister to repudiate that statement and to stand aside from it. She did not. Therefore I am entitled to draw from that that it is indeed the Minister’s view and that demonstrates the punitive approach to sole parents and to bringing up children.  
Who are the people who will avail themselves of the provisions in this bill? It has been said quite consistently that it is the poor and it is the poor who are in this position. So this is an anti-poor bill because it is not really designed to make life great for them. It is designed to actually put a whole series of blocks in their way and that also begins to reflect this bill.  
Turning to another line of thinking the bill has been poorly handled. When we go to the commencement date we see that the Minister has had to change that commencement date. Right from the beginning it was a rushed process and maybe that explains the commencement date—I am referring to the commencement date Mr Chairman. It has been poorly handled. The date has had to be changed. The deadlines have not been met. People have not had enough time to submit in a detailed kind of way. Perhaps one of the consequences of that has also been that the information-sharing system which is still being designed is going through another select committee and the two systems have not been synchronised. And now this one survives for 3 years with a review and things will happen. I know the Minister says that it has been tested and it works well but the Privacy Commissioner appeared before us and others from the legal fraternity did as well and these are questions they raised. So the commencement date is a problem and it has had to be changed. One of the consequences of that has been that the information-sharing provisions of this bill are wrong.  
There are just so many things wrong with this bill and I think there is scope for the title to reflect that. We have got a provision for what the alternative title ought to be.  
Finally there has been a lot of reference to quality childcare. The arguments are not convincing. The Minister shakes her head but they are not convincing. That quality childcare should be available is a constant theme from my colleagues on this side of the Chamber. If we are going to use these provisions then quality childcare must be made available. As to that 68 percent that the Minister quotes maybe they do have access to that and can afford it by some means but certainly many cannot. Babysitting clubs are not a substitute for quality childcare when mums have to go out. I have given the case of a person having to deal with the demands of two young children and when the 5-year-old goes to school then the parent does have a little bit of time.  
Le’aufa’amulia 
 ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First. I am going to take a very brief call on the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill because I think it is very important. The title of the bill I think should be something like the “Minister Benefit Missing in Action Benefit Bill”. I think that should be the title of this bill. It is a very important— 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: I raise a point of order Chairperson. The member has referred to Minister Bennett as “Minister Benefit”. I object to that. In this House the rules are that you have actually got to refer to members by name specifically. Using that slur is— 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: We have a point of order. You wish to speak to the point of order? 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Thank you. Maybe so but certainly that reference to “Paula Benefit” was made at the Social Services Committee— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! I have heard enough. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. This is not the select committee and there are clear rules in this House where all members must be referred to by their appropriate names and titles. The member who was making her speech should do so. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: Thank you. Just so that it is clear I was not actually referring to the Minister; I was actually referring to the actual title— 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: I raise a point of order Chairperson. She is arguing the point of order. The point has been made and we have got to move on. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes. Once a point of order has been ruled on we move on and the member should not refer to it. The member should continue with her speech. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: Thank you Mr Chair. As I was saying before the title of the bill which is what I was saying should be the “Minister Benefit Missing in Action Benefit Bill”. I was referring to a title of a bill. The reason why I am saying that is that it is important for us to know that the private delivery of a State function simply based on a profit motive creates no savings for the public or the taxpayers and it is something that this Government should not be allowed to do. I hope that the chair of the Social Services Committee is listening to this. Ninety-nine percent of submitters are opposed to this bill. It is important that we make sure the people of New Zealand are aware of what this bill is actually about.  
Tim Macindoe 
: Which bill are you taking about? 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: We are talking about the title. Yes that is right Tim Macindoe. I can hear you. That member has got a black and white memory. I mean that member has got a far-away look. And the further away you are when I look at you the better you look Tim Macindoe. 
I will now come back to the bill in front of us. I am baffled that after the Minister for Social Development released the Green Paper For Vulnerable Children she would suggest that solo parents are to work part-time when a child reaches the age of 5. That is a concern and that is to do with the actual title of this bill. Would it not then be fair to say that this is a form of institutionalised—I say that again—institutionalised child abuse? Did you get that Mr Peseta Lotu-Iiga? 
Tim Macindoe 
: I bet he gets that. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: Of course. The dynamic of being a solo parent is hard enough let alone facing a non-existent job market. All right? So I have said it before and I will do it again. This bill has a really good idea. There are a lot of really good ideas behind it. The intention is good. The problem is that we do not have jobs. There are no jobs available for the parents. Overall we all want people to come off the benefit. I understand that. I acknowledge that. We do not want them to be on a benefit forever. But we must make sure that there are jobs for them to move to. There is no point telling them to get off the benefit if you do not provide them with a safety net. Where is the safety net in this bill? Where is it? 
Tim Macindoe 
: If there’s no job nothing will change. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: There is nothing and there is no strategy Tim Macindoe to ensure that there is continuity when they get off the benefit and go into jobs or job training. It is all very well to say there are 1000 jobs out there but as mentioned by some of the members before they require specific skills. You do not ask an engineer to go and do childcare jobs. You do not ask mothers who have been on a benefit for 50 years or so to go and look for office work because that would be ridiculous—absolutely ridiculous.  
I hope that those members across the Chamber actually ensure that their own families from Penrose and Glenn Innes and Maungakiekie are not all in the same boat because I believe that the majority of Maori and Pacific Island people in that area especially the Cook Island people will be the ones who will be heavily affected by this bill.  
This was a brief call I wanted to make. I wanted to make sure that New Zealand First got its view across. Our minority report has been tabled and it clearly states where we stand with this bill. The title is completely deceiving and people need to understand that. What we want to make sure of and what we are suggesting is that the bill needs to provide a safety net for women coming off the benefit to do community work and community initiatives. They need to be involved in some community work. They need to be given projects and in that way they are contributing to the community in a positive way. That way they can also feel better about receiving the benefit on the other hand because they know they are doing something for the community. From there they will be able to get some skills and relevant experience in order for them to be employed by some of our local businesses.  
To the Minister for Social Development I would like you to consider this. Perhaps it is time for you to engage and get a buy-in from local businesses and employers who will then provide opportunities for these people when they come off the benefit. Yes it is a very realistic approach because if you want our votes you need to consider this genuinely. A more one-on-one relationship is crucial in the future of any child too. It is not fair to expect a mother when a child reaches the age of 5 to go and have a job because nowadays you cannot expect just anybody to take care of your child. There are a lot of things that we talk about such as child abuse. We have also been talking about abuse in so many environments in different areas. This is what we need to also look at because that is what can happen as well.  
So Minister I think it is a very good suggestion that I am making. Also it is important that you give these people a fair go especially those people from South Auckland because that is where there is a large number of people who will be affected. Yes I do want them to come off the benefit and get into some very good jobs that will ensure long-term sustainability for their welfare as well as for their families. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 83 in the name of the Hon Paula Bennett to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Report adopted.