Mahuta Nanaia: Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill — Second Reading 
Mahuta Nanaia: Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:13070] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 Labour members believe that people want to work. We believe that if there are jobs out there people want to work. The difference between National and Labour on this matter is that when National members talk about work it is aspirational. When Labour members talk about work we talk about real jobs real wages and giving workers a fair go in the workplace. But what have we seen today? Unemployment has gone up. There is no other way to say it. Unemployment has gone up from 6 percent to 6.8 percent. Maori unemployment has gone up. Youth unemployment has gone up. This Government is not creating a plan for growth to create jobs so that the people out there whom Labour back who want to work can get a job keep it and be treated fairly in the workplace. 
National members can talk about aspiration all they want but the proof of the pudding is in people getting real jobs real work and real wages. That is really at the nub of this debate. We cannot talk about reform of the benefit system if we do not understand the context of the economy at the time. There are no jobs out there so any reform of the benefit sector has to take that into account. The previous speaker Katrina Shanks made a contribution about the people on the domestic purposes benefit. I no more than others have seen the effects of the increasing numbers of domestic purposes beneficiaries at the community level. But let us be realistic. Domestic purposes benefit statistics have gone up. Too many of the people receiving the domestic purposes benefit are young mothers and that is of concern to me. 
I more than anyone else would love to see further opportunities for women who are on the domestic purposes benefit but some of the realities of their lives are not even recognised by members opposite. The plain reality is that if we looked at the domestic purposes benefit statistics and at the proportion of recipients who are young mothers we would see that more should be done to try to keep them in the education system and engaged so that their future prospects of employment can increase. There is no plan whatsoever from the Minister for Social Development and Employment—and she of all Ministers should know the issues—as to what she will do to improve that fact. Far too many of the people who receive the domestic purposes benefit are young mums. They need to continue to be engaged in education so that their future employment opportunities can improve. Sadly that is not happening. 
My colleague Carmel Sepuloni raised the issue of the training incentive allowance. When Labour was in Government it restored the training incentive allowance to 100 percent funding. This enabled the women who were attending foundation courses for free—most of them were funded through adult education or by the wananga or other training providers—to use the training incentive allowance to do level 4 - plus courses which improved their employment opportunities. I know of mums who accessed the training incentive allowance to do a law degree to do a management degree or to do degree-based courses that really transformed the opportunity for their little whanau to lead a sustainable and independent life. 
This Government took away that opportunity. All that it is providing is $500 for level 4 courses. Will that work? I think not because these days undertaking a level 4 course means making quite a significant investment. That will make hardly an iota of difference to the mums who want to transform the lives of their families and take on tertiary education. By the way it will be hard for them to get into universities and polytechnics under the tertiary reforms that the Government is promoting at the moment. 
I am most concerned at feedback through the select committee process from services like Presbyterian Support New Zealand. It said that the bill and specifically the issue of work testing ignores the distinctions between why people are on a benefit: whether they cannot find work they are not well enough to work or they cannot provide support and care for their dependent children and that there are valid reasons for different approaches to these different groups in terms of assistance. 
Presbyterian Support does not comment lightly on these kinds of issues. Its members have real-life experience. In fact they often pick up the pieces of a number of families who come through their doors at times of absolute desperation and need. They see the matrix of complex issues surrounding the most vulnerable in our society. I think the Government needs to be concerned when organisations like that start to comment on legislation that has not even passed human rights tests. It is discriminatory legislation that is being passed so we should be very concerned as a Parliament if we continue to head down a track where discriminatory legislation that affects the most vulnerable in our society is being highlighted by the services that pick up the pieces. What will the Minister do? 
The other point I want to comment on which the Social Services Committee considered is the issues around work assessment for sickness beneficiaries. When we look at this whole area we see again that it is complex. The people who go on to the sickness benefit have often come from full-time employment. When they were in full-time employment they had obligations like many other people: a mortgage bills to pay and things like that. For whatever reason they got sick at work were unable to access accident compensation—I have a constituent in just this situation—and had to go on to the sickness benefit. There is an immediate drop in income. My constituent had existing and fixed expenditure obligations and had to make some really critical decisions like selling the home because the sickness benefit could not pay for the change in circumstances. 
The bill says that sickness beneficiaries should be work tested and go and find a part-time job. That is all right if there is a part-time job out there it is all right if their condition is taken into account by their new employer and it is more all right if the beneficiary’s existing employer will accept a drop in hours so that the employee can be taken back on to work part-time. In the case that I am referring to the employer did not want to take the employee back so that person had to look for work with a new employer. It is not so easy to find a part-time job. The stress that is caused for people who have fixed expenditure like a mortgage or bills to pay can be quite damaging to their continued health and well-being. It can continue to aggravate their sickness. So I am concerned about the bill’s inability to take account of real-life issues and the types of challenges that beneficiaries face when seeking employment. That is a real concern to me. 
Finally I commend the one part of the bill that I think should be obligatory for all of those who are in receipt of a benefit and for all New Zealanders and it covers the issue of financial literacy. Ensuring people know how to manage their budgets can be a very empowering opportunity. The one concern I want to relay to the Minister in particular in respect of budgeting activities is that although beneficiaries can voluntarily ask the Ministry of Social Development for example to pay their rent and power as a result of its budgeting support I do not believe that finance companies should be a part of an immediate payment from the ministry. I believe that the ministry should take a greater role to ensure that if it knows that beneficiaries are getting finance from finance companies then greater hands-on case management is coordinated in line with the budgeting activities and the budgeting advice that they receive from the budgeting service. 
Finally I cannot see how discriminatory legislation can go forward in this manner. I believe that the context for considering such legislation has to take account of the fact that there are no jobs out there. It will be really hard for beneficiaries and from 1 October it will get harder. No one believes more than Labour that people out there want to work; the jobs are just not available. National does not have a plan to grow productivity for good wages and job availability so that people can get a job keep it and ensure that they get paid so they can put kai on the table to feed their whanau. Kia ora.