Ardern Jacinda: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ardern Jacinda: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8724. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 We have just heard from that Minister that apparently she will never forget the place from which she started before becoming a member of Parliament and indeed the Minister for Social Development. I have never felt compelled to reflect on the Minister’s personal experience. I have personally never thought it was necessarily appropriate to do so. But the Minister herself has brought it into the context of the welfare reforms so I feel compelled now to respond to that challenge. 
That Minister claims that she never forgot what it felt like to be on the domestic purposes benefit and the lack of confidence that she felt during that time. She probably also never forgot what it felt like to have the support of the training incentive allowance to help her study to become a social worker—assistance that she has since severely reduced the ability of other people in the same position to access. She probably never forgot what it felt like to be able to study and better herself whilst being a mum on the domestic purposes benefit—something that is an opportunity that is now removed for many domestic purposes benefit recipients because they will be transferred to a job-seeker benefit and will not be allowed to study. If that Minister truly never forgot what it was like to be on the DPB then clearly she has forgotten the emotions she has just expressed now because those are the emotions I get every single day in the letters I receive as spokesperson on social development for Labour. If that Minister wants to pretend that somehow through these welfare reforms she is improving the situation for those people I would like her to explain how that is because all she has done as far as I can see is remove the very ladder that she walked up herself. 
That Minister also raised benefit figures. She has tried to claim that somehow on this side of the House we have denied that people should get access to welfare when they need it most. That is entirely inaccurate. You will never hear a member of the Labour Party ever claim anything other than that the social security system is there for those who need it most—for those who need it most—and that in their times of need that is what it is there for. We will defend it because we built it. But I cannot sit back and allow a Minister to claim that her welfare reforms have been successful because of all the people who have come off. That is a complete contradiction because since 2008 the numbers in all of the major categories have gone up. So it is a contradiction for that Minister to claim success based on numbers. If the Minister is going to stand up and tell this House that 5000 people have come off a sickness benefit I will point out that during that time 7000 people went on. Sure absolutely if they need to access it they should. But it is absolutely disingenuous for that Minister to try to bandy around numbers as though her reforms have changed the world when in actual fact for the people who are experiencing it on the front line they have done no such thing. 
In fact if you ask those who are on Government support right now what kind of impression they have been left with from these reforms—well why not look at what the public probably think about when they hear the welfare reforms? Let us track back through the announcements and the way they were trickled out—probably providing a bit of context about what was happening at the time. Nick Smith resigned over the ACC debacle and within 6 days we had the first welfare reforms announced. The John Banks - Kim Dotcom scandal broke.  
Campbell Live 
 started directly implicating the Prime Minister and within a week there was the contraception announcement. It was part of a package but it was all dribbled out. The contraception announcement was dropped— 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As much as I am reluctant to interrupt my colleague across the aisle this is the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. It has got nothing to do with Kim Dotcom and a whole range of other things that we discussed during the general debate. I ask the member just to bring it back to the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: As I was saying the first tranche of welfare reforms was released at that time and there was the contraception element. People might remember that. We were going to give access to long-term contraceptives to beneficiaries which I understand fewer than 40 people have taken up. We then in June had the resignations in ACC and the continuing Bronwyn Pullar scandal and in that same period Bill English then raised drug testing. Drug testing was raised again on 21 July and again for a third time it was announced on 28 August—all at points of convenience for the Government. Drug testing remains one of the most well-known aspects of this form of welfare reforms the “investment approach” that the Minister talks about. And then we come to the police report that came out on John Banks which again was released within a 24-hour window of the social obligations coming out. The next day the cost of welfare generally the actuarial valuation was then announced. I think you get my point. 
Forgive me if I am cynical about this Government’s approach to social security because it seems that any time anything goes badly for it a welfare reform is handily plucked out from a bill and dropped early before the media. If you ask the general public what they know of the welfare reforms what will they tell you? Will they tell you about this investment approach that the Minister speaks of? Will they talk about an active social security system? No they will be able to tell you about drug testing and when a warrant of arrest is out being able to cut a benefit. They will probably tell you about social obligations—cutting benefits for all those beneficiaries who are not doing right by their children. This is apparently the dignified system that the Minister spoke so fondly of that was not going to treat people like they were victims or like they were doing something wrong. Yet every element of this Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill speaks to the idea that people who are on benefits are either criminals drug takers or abusing their children in some form. That is the message that these welfare reforms send. 
What would an investment approach then look like—this mythical thing that the Minister keeps speaking of? Well you would imagine there might be something in the bill that would at least talk about the lack of jobs out there at the moment or maybe even address the high cost of childcare which we know is a barrier to work for those sole parents. Does the bill do anything on that? No. Does the bill do anything about those who are trying to get into work but do not have the right skills training or education? No. In fact this bill puts in a barrier if you are in a job-seeker category which will now take in all those on a sickness benefit and all those on sole parent support who have a child over a certain age by saying: “Sit on this benefit looking for a job. But don’t you think about trying to train because you must be ready and waiting for a ghost job.” That is what this says. 
I have had letters from people who have said: “I wanted to better myself with a course that would mean I would be off the benefit in the longer term and I was told by Work and Income that no I had to sit and wait in case they called me with part-time work.”—part-time precarious work. The woman who raised that with me who wanted to become trained as a nurse was then told the next day she was not able to because they had a part-time cleaning job for her. She would have to stay on the benefit but she would have a part-time cleaning job. Is that the investment approach? Is that the active dignified system that this Minister speaks so fondly of? In fact this bill does the exact opposite to what that Minister has claimed. 
There are 399000 people on social security currently. They broadly fall into two categories. The first is those who are working actively to try to find employment. That is the vast majority of people on social security right now. The example I used today of the graduate who has applied for 70 jobs is a real example and yet this bill does absolutely nothing for her. The second category of people is those who may for reasons of health or disability in some form require the support of our social security system for a longer period of their lives. This bill does nothing to change the reality for those two groups of people but it does a lot to further the political gains of that National Government which has purposely highlighted particular elements of this bill that appeal to the ugly side of New Zealand. It is the side that says that somehow we should have downward envy to those who are for a period in their lives using a form of social support when it is all of our intentions in this House that people have a better life outside of that system and in employment. 
This bill is a major lost opportunity but worse than that—worse than that—it vilifies people who are trying to do the right thing and get into employment and that Minister has absolutely forgotten what that feels like.