Bennett Paula: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bennett Paula: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 17 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3600. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 I thought it was opportune to answer a few of the questions that have come up over the last few calls on this bill the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. First of all the Greens had quite rightly I think some concerns about sanctions and whether they would effect a complete sanction for those particular children. The answer is that we are inserting into the principal Act new section 177 which says that there can be only a 50 percent sanction for those who have children. I actually introduced it through Future Focus in 2010 for that very reason when we had some concerns. 
There are also some other concerns around sanctions. They are not something that one does lightly and without taking into consideration the actual consequences of them because I do agree that no one is sitting there thinking that this is a life of luxury particularly living on the DPB and trying to make ends meet. So to actually look at how you incentivise and how make sure you have got the right kind of obligations can I tell you lead to a lot of debate in my office with very good officials and amongst my Cabinet colleagues as well as to how you try to get that balance right. 
I would say in relation to the incentives that we are putting in this bill for those who are going into education and those who are doing the budgeting that that was an interesting discussion. Instead of sanctioning the behaviours and not getting the kind of behaviours you would want we wanted to look at rewarding the kind of things that could happen by giving a bit more money in people’s pockets. There is a really good chance that people could get $30 more. 
We sanction now and I think that is important to know. And actually we sanction quite a lot. For example in the month of May there were about 3500 sanctions. Of them about 3000 were to those on the unemployment benefit. These may be part-sanctions by the way so they are not all 100 percent. Some of them are for 50 percent and some are more. It is quite high. I obviously keep a close eye on the numbers and I am quite surprised at times about how high they are. About 3000 are from the unemployment benefit—and I really am going from memory on this—but about 312 are from the sickness benefit and others and then we have about 170 from memory who are on the DPB. 
Then—and this was actually a big call particularly from Dr Pita Sharples—when we were doing Future Focus he wanted to make sure that we were following up on those who had been sanctioned particularly those with children so that they were not staying a long time on 50 percent. There was a risk particularly from the Maori Party’s perspective that those who are isolated and living in very rural areas would just be sanctioned at 50 percent because they did not turn up to appointments which perhaps they had not turned up to for a very good reason—it might have been beyond their means—and then they would be sitting for months potentially on 50 percent. 
So we have put checks and balances in place to make sure that we are following up with them immediately and so that actually recomplying is relatively easy and you can literally do it within a day. I know it sounds as if sanctions by their very means are there to punish but they are not. They are actually there to make sure that people are fulfilling their obligations and we want to make sure that recompliance is actually relatively easy and that people can. In most cases they do. 
I also want to jump to some of the cost things that we have been talking about and we certainly have had some discussions on the forecasts of Treasury and the forecasts of the Ministry of Social Development. Let me give you an example of a forecast that—bless Treasury’s cotton socks whose officials are not here so I can say it—was just fundamentally wrong. So with Future Focus the savings that were projected out of that which were relatively minor changes were perceived to be $13.3 million in the first year. Actually the savings were $29.9 million. So we more than doubled them. 
Our officials in Treasury are by their very nature conservative and very narrow as to what they will look at as far as the changes that are happening and with good reason. It is their job to be but they will not look at behavioural changes that come from these. So I am very confident about what can happen when you take the example of previous changes under Future Focus. 
I suppose I will spend my last minute saying that we are targeting and that is a fundamental difference from what you see in many of the programmes that are out there now. I can accept that there are members in this Chamber and there are members out there in the public who do not agree with targeting. I do. At the moment we scatter across about 188000 people and we hope we get to the ones who need it most. We lightly touch instead of going into the intensive support and wraparound that some need. 
The reality is that most of our kids are going to be fine. They have got us. They have got us with all of our intellectual—or not—grunt that we bring with it our love and care our attention over our extended whanau and everything else that comes with it. It is the other kids out there who have not had a great start in life who have struggled all the way through often through circumstances not of their own doing whom we need to wrap the support around. 
I pick up on one thing that Mr Prasad said. He said—and I have written this down as best I can—that when guided and trusted these young people will succeed and move ahead. I could not agree more. The independent youth benefit by its very nature means these kids have not got someone to guide them. They are on the independent youth benefit because there is no one there to look out for them care for them and support them. They actually have to prove that to get on it. It is not easy. 
So what we are trying to do is give them a person connected to them in their community who will guide them who will trust them and have a mutual responsibility with them. I agree you cannot actually replace a parent or a whanau member but the sad reality of some of these young people’s cases is that we kind of have to try to. You cannot actually replace a family member or where that love comes from but the reality is that unfortunately for some of the kids you see in Child Youth and Family and for some of these young people we are going to actually have to try to replace that by putting it into a community person. That is what we are trying to do. 
The member also said they need to be taken carefully by the hand and I could not agree with him more. They do need to be taken carefully by the hand and it is by us actually taking them—[ 
Interruption 
] Well it is kind of the words you used and I found it quite interesting that by their very definition these are the young people who need us most. So we are going to target them. We could lightly scatter across and hope that we get those who need it most or we can do these risk assessments that mean we are narrowing in on supporting and yes wrapping around all of those who really do need it. 
I want to also mention teen parents who are being discussed tonight not very much to be quite fair. In 2010 there were about 4600 teen births. We saw that go down by about 600 last year actually which was a fantastic thing but let us see how we go from there. You have around 5000 teens at any one time in that 16 17 and 18-year-old range who need our help. What we do at the moment is give them anywhere between $300 and $600 a week into their bank accounts and then off they go and we hope that they are all right. That is wrong. It is fundamentally wrong. 
You can ask why we are targeting why we are wrapping around so much support and why we are doing this differently. We are doing it because they are young and actually they do need our support and they do need more guidance. We will work with them towards independence. Some will take only 6 months some will take 2 years. Whatever it takes we will work with them. 
We looked at those who are 17 and turning 18 very quickly. For those teen parents we extended it; they could go to 6 months. We looked at those teen parents who were in a relationship and so are not receiving a benefit but could still be open to getting that kind of support from within their community and from organisations. We opened that up to them so that they can have access to that level of childcare that level of support that they need so desperately. 
Some are calling this punitive. I have already heard someone tonight say it is beneficiary bashing. It is anything but you know. Every time a National woman stands up and mentions that she wants to work with these people and actually wrap more support around them and see a different future she is knocked down and told that we must have some sinister ulterior motive. Well that is simply not true. But will we cajole will we push will be obligate will we incentive will we put it all right? Yes we will. That is the premise behind this and as right as we can get it. We will trust in those organisations put our responsibility in them to make sure—as we check all the way through—that these young people are given every shot to get ahead and make a real difference and make their contribution as well.