King Annette: Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
King Annette: Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:665;Page:13184] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 There was a lot of irony in Tau Henare’s speech this evening I thought. He berated members opposite for mentioning the fact that Paula Bennett had been a sole parent beneficiary but then spent his entire speech talking about it. The Minister also bemoaned the fact that she had been brought into the debate but I have to tell her that she put herself into the debate a long time ago when she proudly said that she had been a sole parent on a benefit and that on that benefit she had managed to get an education and to lift herself up and that today she was a Minister of the Crown in the New Zealand Parliament and should be applauded for that. So I say to the Minister that she brought herself into the debate and if it is mentioned by members on this side of the Chamber then it is because we see it as an OK thing to do because she did it. Other members including me have tonight talked about their experiences. 
Tau Henare said that the Minister came from the school of hard knocks. But I have to say that she also came from a university education and we have been saying to members opposite that if this bill is going to do what National claims then where is the plan to get people into work? I want to go into that issue in a moment. 
First of all I want to answer some points made by Hekia Parata. She said in her speech that there needs to be reciprocity. When the Crown is providing assistance to those who are on a benefit then there is some obligation on their part and I agree with her. But I ask that member what is magical about the youngest child being 6. I had one child and it was a lot easier to be able to do other things when she was 6. But if I had been a sole parent and had had a 6-year-old a 7-year-old a 9-year-old and an 11-year-old the situation would have been totally different. Setting a policy around the youngest child being 6 does not take account of the other circumstances within that family situation. That is why it was said in submissions—which the member would have heard—that if we were to use the policy that exists now within the Ministry of Social Development we would have the flexibility to do exactly what this Government wants to do without actually bringing in legislation. 
Members on this side of the Chamber believe that every New Zealander should have the chance of the Kiwi dream of having a decent job. We want New Zealanders to have a decent job with decent pay. But how do we put a person who is on a benefit on that path? We do not do it by telling them that they have to be work tested when their youngest child is 6 regardless of the circumstances and that they need to be able to do 15 hours of work a week. It does not matter what the job is it does not matter what the impact is it does not matter whether there is adequate childcare and so on. So I say to members opposite that if they are going to bring in this policy then where is the plan to make it work? It is not in the legislation; it is not in anything that the Minister has said to date about how these people will be assisted into jobs when the jobs come. 
I bring the Committee’s attention to a number of amendments that Labour has put forward on this bill. I say to the Minister that if she is going to bring in this policy why does she not change the 15 hours of work a week to 20 hours before the part-time work test is applied? Just a few moments ago the Minister in her own speech said that the reason sole parents went off the sole parent benefit was Working for Families. Does the Minister recall that? That is what she said. She said that sole parents went off the benefit because of Working for Families. What does Working for Families provide? It provides that those people who undertake 20 hours of part-time work a week are eligible for the in-work tax credit. Why does the Minister not make the part-time work test apply at 20 hours of work a week? If that does what the Minister said it does why not apply the 20 hours rather than the 15 hours? I urge the Maori Party the ACT Party—