Bennett Paula: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bennett Paula: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8911. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 I just want to address some of the concerns that have come through from Opposition members. First of all I would like to thank all of those who submitted. I would like to thank the Social Services Committee for all of the work that it has done and for some of the changes that it has made. 
As I said I will now just go through some of the things that have been addressed. One of them was around home-schooling and it went right back to the first call that Ms Ardern made. I just want to be quite clear. In two parts she kind of said that if you are enrolled for home-schooling and you have met the criteria then you will not have social obligations put against you for early childhood education. That is not quite correct. However the second part of what she said which is that if you have enrolled for the equivalent of home-schooling which is Te Kura and which is the curriculum for early childhood education then you will not have social obligations put against you. So you cannot just say: “I’m going to home school my child when they turn 5 and as such I do not have to reach that social obligation.” However if you have enrolled with home-schooling and you are doing the curriculum then you will be fine. So that will address that for them. 
Look there was a lot that was talked about as far as individuals and targeting to individuals is concerned. I know that the bill itself—as it is in the legislation—is relatively broad and the proof will be in the pudding which will come about when it is put into place. But the whole theory behind this the whole motivation for it is that we are looking at individuals and what they can do and then getting them support to get them up to speed. It certainly plays on what Ms Mathers was talking about as far as people with disabilities are concerned and certainly on what other members have raised throughout their calls as well. 
I always think that when you look at it we have you know 320000-odd individuals who are receiving welfare. You know we can block them into courses as the investment approach does or you can look at it from the macro-perspective and from the micro-perspective but really it is once you get down to the individual. What that will do and certainly through the work assessments that were raised by the previous member and through other assessments that we do—and I am just going to detour slightly now and just talk about those assessments because for many of them they are a self-assessment. 
We have actually worked incredibly closely intensively and over a long period of time with the health and disability sector itself. We have purposely gone out and held open forums and we have gone through paperwork. We have not just given them the theory but we have literally sat down with them and talked about the wording that we use and about how we actually make it accessible for people with literacy problems or with disabilities that mean that they are unable to have physical access let alone those who might have other incapacities that mean that they are unable to understand the information that is in front of them. We have then really been keenly interested in how they can do those assessments that really address what they can do and then if there are gaps that mean there are barriers there we can put more money in up front and get them that level of support. The disability sector has said to me: “We are optimistic but nervous.” and I think that is entirely fair. I can say as I have said it 100 times and I will continue to say it that I am also equally aware that the proof will be when they get into place with what we are doing. 
What I would say to members is yes we have been making changes to welfare over the last 4 years. At each point it has been said that this is the end of welfare as we know it that people will be thrown out and that we will be treating people appallingly. The only times I hear the word “bludgers” and other horrible words are quite frankly from people who are trying to scaremonger. It is never from us and actually for all the changes we have made the world has not fallen apart. People have not been able to not get access to what they need and what they deserve and what their are entitlements are. In fact I get criticised for the number being too high and for me letting too many people be on welfare. Well I just ask you to look at past performance. I think it stacks up for itself and so does New Zealand. 
I hope you see these changes for what they are truly intended to be which is getting the right support for the right individuals with the right assessments and making sure that actually at the end of the day we will be paying more. You will see that through the Budget process just as you saw it through the youth services that this is about investing in people up front and earlier.