Menéndez March Ricardo; Upston LouiseRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. So I wanted to draw attention to an issue that's been talked about a lot which is young people on the benefit.If we look back at the period that we're reviewing there was the Taylor Fry report a report that looked at several things but included making forecasts on future years that people will be spending on the benefit. This report looked at the period we're reviewing so even though it was forecasting in the future it was done at that time and using figures of the time. I wanted to draw on that report because a lot has been said about young people's experience on the benefit and this report particularly touches on effectively 0.5 percent of the population who are on the benefit.Half of those are predicted to potentially be on the benefit for 24 years and other reports that show similar data point out that there are seven risk factors that could contribute to people on benefit spending 24 years on it. In that other report those people would have to meet those seven risk factors including being discharged from a public hospital having legal action taken against them by the police being in the youth justice system when they were 13 to 18 years old had a parent or guardian who was receiving a benefit hadn't interacted with Oranga Tamariki had not achieved qualifications equivalent to the National Certificate of Educational Achievements level 2 or higher and was stood down or suspended while at school.So these are the seven risk factors someone would have to meet to then be predicted to be on the benefit for 24 years. My question to the Minister is whether she thinks that enough has been done to address those risk factors rather than taking a sensationalist approach which is what we're seeing right now regarding how we talk about young people on the benefit who—those who are predicted to spend a long time needing that income support actually come from backgrounds where they've been failed by multiple parts of the system. So my question is whether she thinks her priority in terms of meeting the strategic goals should be rather focused on addressing those risk factors instead of for example creating more mechanisms to increase benefit sanctions.On benefit sanctions I did want to ask whether she is confident the benefit sanctions regime works as intended. I note that there is no empirical evidence in New Zealand that supports benefit sanctions actually supporting people into employment and that the overseas evidence is pretty mixed. So I'm keen to get an understanding about what evidence she has seen during that period about benefit sanctions actually working to support people into employment. And if not how can she have confidence that all the benefit sanctions that were applied during that period actually were supporting people rather than just leaving them in hardship?I'd like to also on the topic of employment ask a question in relationship to the Mana in Mahi scheme. Is the Minister confident that the scheme was working well and if so can I just ask if the Minister is concerned that there's not enough data around the types of wages that people go into? And does she think that young people should be going to well-paying employment and if so is she confident that the data that's available for that period actually substantiates the type of employment—and good employment—that people may or may not be going into?Finally does she think that work seminars are good value for money? There is no evidence and/or reports around collation of reports about the outcomes that people experience once they attend those work seminars when it comes to actually then getting jobs. We've heard the Minister talk about interviews but nothing about the types of jobs they go into. So I'm keen to understand whether she has seen any evidence beyond the anecdotal random examples that she's quoted seeing as she hasn't even been able to provide the advice that she's received on those handful of examples she's provided. I'll end those questions for now and I'll pick up on some of those later in other contributions.Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Thank you Mr Chair. Let me take a wander through the various areas that the member asked.So I'll start with the Taylor Fry report which of course does look back at the year in review which is up to 30 June 2023. I'm pleased the member asked this question because what the Taylor Fry report highlights is increasing numbers of dependency. So in the period in review we not only saw an increase in the number of people on the jobseeker benefit in the 5½ years up to that point—an increase in 50000 people—but we saw more people staying on welfare for longer.Let me give you some of those figures so they are on the record—and these are the average estimated future years on main benefit to the age of 65. It is a performance indicator that the Ministry of Social Development is required to report on and it is an indicator of their success as an organisation. So jobseeker support across all categories: in September 2017 the estimate was 9.3 years—it went up to 12.7 years. For jobseeker support under 25 years it was 12.12 years—went up to 18.9 years. The member referred specifically to those on the youth payment or the young parent payment and the estimate in September 2017 was 15.2 years—and went up to 24 years.These figures are pretty disturbing and I wanted to deliberately—in the answer to the member's question—put them on the record in the House. I know the member will have read the Taylor Fry report. It is about looking at the lifetime future years estimated on benefit. So for each of those categories we've seen a significant increase in the number of years and that should worry every member in this House—it should worry every member in this House.Ricardo Menéndez March: It's a prediction.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I particularly focus on those on jobseeker support—and the member may interrupt and talk about the fact that it is a small percentage; it is a small number. But what we do know is for that group who have a bunch of challenges they are the ones that are more likely to bounce on and off welfare throughout their lifetime which is why we get to an average future estimated years on benefit of 24 years.The member also referred to Mana in Mahi. One of the things that we have to look at in terms of performance and in terms of delivery is whether or not the programmes are delivering for the different groups that are currently on the jobseeker benefit. For some Mana in Mahi is doing that. If you look at some of the barriers to employment we need to ensure that the Ministry of Social Development is delivering programmes that meet the needs that address the barriers. Because the end goal—and I'd be surprised if there was anyone in this House who didn't agree that we want to see more people who are able to be independent of the State. So we have a range of programmes—one of them was mentioned in terms of Mana in Mahi and it absolutely takes into account some of the factors that are occur in a person's life that are affecting their ability to be successful in employment or gaining employment which is absolutely why those are programmes that are funded.Just on that one of the other elements of the work that was started in the time under review is the social sector commissioning. It started slowly there is great promise and I think there is greater opportunity to deal with the challenges of the young people that the member who asked the questions raised to ensure we are meeting their needs. Those are local solutions that absolutely respond to local challenges and that's where I see community providers and iwi providers really having some of the answers in this space.The member also asked about sanctions. In the year in review the number of sanctions imposed—or the number of clients that had a sanction imposed was 20000—[Bell rung]CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Louise Upston.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Sorry Mr Chair. I just think for those listening it's useful to talk a little bit more about why sanctions are imposed. So if someone is—Ricardo Menéndez March: Do you have evidence it works?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —on the jobseeker benefit—yep. So in terms of the evidence of it working when there are no consequences of somebody not taking steps to be in employment there's no surprise they won't be in employment. So there was a direct correlation. There is a direct correlation and the data tells us job seeker numbers went up when sanctions went down—pretty clear. What we do know is that if people don't turn up to job interviews if they don't have a CV if they're not turning up to Work and Income and engaging with employers through things like seminars work expos their chances of finding employment are definitely lower. Which is why we have rights and responsibilities we have expectations about what job seekers do to help themselves and there are consequences or sanctions when they don't take those necessary steps.The final question was around work seminars and one of the questions was around evidence about work seminars working. Well I can tell the member this: there's a variety of work seminars; they run differently in different offices and in different regions. Some have employers turning up every week on a Wednesday for an hour others have Connect which is a cross-agency opportunity to connect those who come in to Work and Income with training opportunities—might be they need assistance with a driver licence—so they can be connected with a community provider who's providing the driver licensing education to help them address those barriers.So at an individual level—and I've been talking with lots of front-line workers over the last couple of months: they have those records; they know when somebody has attended a work seminar and it's led to an employment outcome they know that. What we don't collect is combined cumulative data about the outcome of work seminars. That is the only—Ricardo Menéndez March: So how do you know they're working?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because employers go to meet job seekers at work expos and work seminars and they end up in a job. That's a win to me. I know that member may not want to see more Kiwis in work but I definitely do.