Rich Katherine: Estimates Debate —  
Rich Katherine: Estimates Debate —  
[Volume:610;Page:7175] 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 I rise to speak in this debate about Vote Social Development and I refer specifically to pages 1153 to 1198 of the Estimates of Appropriations. But first I would like to pick up on a few comments that were made by Georgina Beyer. She made some pretty positive comments about this Government implementing some of its ideas. Well if we had not seen some ideas after 4 years the Government would have been pretty desperate. If we look at some of the comments that members on the Opposition side of the Chamber have made we can see that one of the major issues of concern has been about the pace of implementation of change. One of those areas of concern for example relates to the simplification of the entire benefit system—something that Labour campaigned on in 1999 but that as we understand from comments made at the Social Services Committee it has only just recently begun to work on. 
When I read this part of the Budget I had some expectations that there would be some new ideas and new strategies to try to reduce the number of people on welfare and in particular to reduce welfare dependency. I was very disappointed. Nothing that is presented in this Budget will make a skerrick of difference for many New Zealanders who do need additional assistance to make the transition from welfare back into work. The Minister often discusses the fact that we have low unemployment but that is not unexpected when the fact is that we have had nearly 4 years of the best economic conditions that we are ever likely to have—certainly the best economic conditions in my generation. 
Yet the gains that we should have seen in the welfare area have been minimised and there are a number of reasons for that. A number of the changes that have been made while Labour has been in Government have served to make the welfare system easier to remain in and harder to get out of. Certainly a lot less assistance is provided to help people to make that transition. 
One of the examples that I think it is worthwhile to look at is the abolition of work testing for some benefits and the abolition of community work schemes for some people. For a lot of communities and for a lot of people that I have spoken to those programmes did provide a lifeline. They provided people with an opportunity to get back into a routine and on to the first rung of the ladder towards getting back into work. I dispute the idea that such schemes do not work. There is plenty of evidence in this country and certainly in Australia that shows that such schemes do work and that there are no substitutes for work itself when it comes to getting people back into work. 
This is the fourth year that the Minister has been in charge of this portfolio and there has been little progress. Yes unemployment is down but welfare dependency is higher than it has been before. If we look at the number of people who are supported by the State we can see that we now have more people supported by the State than we have ever had in this country’s history. Yes we have more people in work but let us remember that the household labour force survey defines someone as being in work if he or she is in work for 1 hour a week. If a person happens to be in work for 1 hour a week but has been on the unemployment benefit or another benefit for more than 10 years that to me does not count as being in employment. So we need to remember that and to use that knowledge to temper some of the celebratory comments that come from the Government. 
One of the questions that simply has not been answered here is why after such buoyant economic times we have not seen dramatic drops in welfare numbers. I have outlined a number of reasons for that such as the removal of some of the work-test provisions. The Minister would have us believe that work testing was an onerous Outward Bound - type process but basically it involved asking someone whether he or she was capable of work and working with the person to overcome the particular barriers that the person might have had. It is of great concern that work seems to be very much an optional part of a job seeker agreement. I was gobsmacked when we sat and looked at the new legislation. We asked officials what happens if one is negotiating a job seeker agreement and one does not want to work but wants to nominate a wide range of other things like training to go into that agreement. We were told that is totally possible and that is of real concern. 
It is also of note that despite New Zealand having had good economic times Treasury projects that the numbers of people on the four main benefits will go up. If I look at the part of the Budget where some of those projections are discussed I can see that the Government has glossed over the fact that the cost of the domestic purposes benefit for example will increase considerably as will the cost of the invalids benefit. 
It is of interest to look at the numbers—the change in invalids benefit numbers from 1998-99 to the present budgeted figures. There were 50000 people drawing that benefit in 1998-99 and in 2003-04 the projection is that the number will increase to 71000. It is the same situation with the sickness benefit. In 1998-99 there were 34000 on that benefit and that figure is estimated to increase to 40500. There has been a massive blowout in the numbers on the special benefit. In 1998-99 $43 million was put aside for the special benefit. That figure is estimated to increase to $130 million in this budgeted year. That is a skyrocketing amount of money and I think the Minister has not really explained why that has occurred. 
I go back to the domestic purposes benefit as it is important to add a bit of history to this debate. When that benefit was brought in it was imagined that no more than 20000 New Zealanders would use that benefit including widows. If we look at the figures now we see that there are 110000 parents trying to support their children on the domestic purposes benefit. Most of us in this Chamber know that it is pretty tough being a parent full stop but it is certainly a lot tougher trying to do so on a limited budget supported by welfare. I think it is important that we start to discuss things like assisting those parents who are supported by the benefit back into work. We are one of the few Western countries that do not ask parents to consider part-time work when their youngest child reaches school age. I think it was a huge backward step for New Zealanders when that requirement was removed. That is why we will see a projected increase in the numbers of parents mainly women who are drawing that benefit. 
I think we have a lot to learn from other countries. When I released my welfare paper which looked at a wide range of ideas it did not matter whether the people who read it were from the left or the right of politics. People agreed on one thing and that was that the welfare system as presently practised in this country is not working. Members will remember that John Tamihere made a similar comment along those lines. That is why we need to consider some new ways of delivering welfare in this country. It is also why we need to consider community work schemes. A recent Colmar Brunton poll found that 91 percent of people agreed that people on an unemployment benefit should be available to do community work. Seventy-five percent of those who were part of that survey said that unemployment benefits should only be available for a set period of time until an unemployed person finds a job. 
We need to start talking about certain benefits being temporary and not being considered as an option to support people for long periods of time. We know the outcome of remaining on the unemployment benefit for long periods of time; that outcome is poverty. The ministry debates whether welfare and poverty are linked. I say to it that they are one and the same. Certainly the outcome is the same. So we can be cute with regard to some of our academic discussions about welfare and welfare dependency but I think a person who is living that life probably does not see very much difference in terms of the outcome for his or her life. 
The aim is to get more people back into work. National is a party that strongly supports the welfare safety net and always has done so. But at the moment some of the changes that are included in this Budget are not a step forward. That is why we have not been able to capitalise on what should have been good economic times by bringing down the welfare numbers and making the welfare decreases sustainable. It is a travesty that Treasury now predicts that the number of people on all four major benefits will go up again. The Minister has not explained why invalids and sickness benefit numbers are going up. His answer was to commission some research at the cost of $400000. I was shocked to learn that that research will not be reported on until 2005.