Ardern Jacinda: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ardern Jacinda: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8898. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson for the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. We have made it very clear from the outset that Labour does not support this bill but it was indeed our focus and our intention through the select committee stage to make the best of a bad lot as it were. Even though we were not in agreement with what the Government’s drivers were in respect of particular aspects—like for instance the punitive sanction-based nature of these changes—we did want to ensure that we could reduce the negative impacts as much as we were able. I want to speak to some of those changes today. 
Before I begin I want to thank all of those who made submissions on this bill. It is fair to say that probably the most significant viewpoint that we heard—just in terms of the size the scale of submissions—was from those parents in particular who wanted the ability to home school their children. That is something we will probably each individually canvass when we talk about this bill. But I think it is fair to say that the point the Social Services Committee reached was to add within the bill—it is technically covered by section 1A amended by clause 5 which sets out the social obligations but it is also referenced later on in the bill—the provision that basically if you are able to get an exemption from the Ministry of Education to home school your children that will then allow you to be exempt from being sanctioned by the Ministry of Social Development if they are not enrolled in school. Or—my understanding is—if that parent is using the correspondence curriculum for early childhood education then that will also have some application. 
We may need some clarification from the Minister for Social Development on that because although that is certainly my understanding—that an exemption allows that distance learning curriculum to be used—some of our submitters believed that that has not been the final outcome. It probably would be very useful for us to clarify that here and now for those submitters because I know that this is an area they feel very very passionate about. So that is my understanding—that for anyone who has that exemption be it across early childhood education and the specific curriculum there for distance learning or an exemption for any other form of schooling it will apply for the purposes of Work and Income. That is a really important point to make because I know that for all members of the select committee I think that was a good outcome on that particular issue and we want to make it very clear to submitters what the resolution was there. 
Coming back though to some of the wider context of the bill it is important for me from Labour’s perspective to again reiterate that it has always been our belief that the social security system in New Zealand should be dignified it should be active and of course it should be work focused for those who are in a position to be able to work. We hold some differences of opinion from the Government as to whether or not that is actually what this bill achieves. When you look at those criteria within the context of the environment we are in at the moment—the 170000 unemployed people seeking work—obviously it is a tough environment in which to be seeking work. In our view that means that we should be looking to ensure that our active social security system is focused on upskilling and is less focused on being overly punitive for people who are trying to find work but are not having success in that search in this particular environment. 
In that regard I would like to touch on some of Part 1 specifically new sections 11E and 11H in clause 9 which set out the new pre-benefit activity requirements. It is unfortunate that in this country there is probably an assumption that if you lose your job you just walk into Work and Income and from day one you are granted a benefit. That is not how it works. Of course depending on the way that you lose your job there may be a stand-down period you will go through an extensive process with a Work and Income case manager and you may be required to undertake pre-benefit activity. If you are in hardship you can access emergency assistance directly—I should highlight that—but ultimately the majority of people will undergo some kind of pre-benefit activity. This bill further clarifies the range of pre-benefit activities that can be required of those on jobseeker support sole parent support or an emergency benefit. 
Some of our concerns exist around the fact that we have never really analysed to much of a degree how useful and how tailored some of this pre-benefit activity is. Let us be specific. Subsection 3 of new section 11E states that it could include “attending and participating in an employment related seminar”. That could be a CV-writing course for a graduate. I have had graduates who have come into my office and said: “I was required to go on a long CV-writing course—I already had a CV. I knew how to write a CV. I’ve been required to go on computing courses—I’ve just finished an honours degree.” We must be more tailored in our approach to working alongside those job seekers to make sure that we are actually being useful in our engagement with them. None of that really was discussed at the select committee. 
The pre-benefit activity I have to say is a broad-brush approach and is being misused currently. A young person who wants to go on a benefit at the moment is being told by Work and Income brokers that they have to go on a Limited Service Volunteer course. Technically you could call that a pre-benefit activity but it is not meant to be a compulsory course. Yet I know of young people who have been told that if they do not do the course they will not access a benefit. That is not right. 
It may also require them to undergo any other course that Work and Income feels is necessary. I know that some of our job seekers for instance cannot read or write yet Work and Income’s contracting now with service providers means that some of those courses which used to be quite lengthy courses as you would expect for that degree of education are now being chopped back sometimes to 6 to 12 weeks. You cannot make a real difference in someone’s life with such short sharp shocks yet that is some of the pre-benefit activity we are talking about. 
Our point is that of course we want an active system but make sure it is tailored to the individual and not the benefit category. Make sure it is not a course for a course’s sake so you can fill in some kind of number and make everyone feel jolly that you are doing the right thing by someone. We have to make sure that these are useful interventions particularly when there are sanctions attached to the back of them. 
There are also a number of changes around the benefit categories via this bill which I am sure a number of my colleagues will traverse today. They include the fact that anyone who is currently on an unemployment benefit anyone who is currently on a sickness benefit and anyone who is currently on a domestic purposes benefit with a child over the age of 14 will now go on to a job-seeker benefit. I can understand that this is a system that at the moment is overly complicated is difficult to administer and could have used some simplification but by creating broad benefit categories and then overlaying on top of them some crude rules about what you can and cannot do when on those benefits we again risk treating individuals as categories rather than tailoring our response to them—or to use the Minister’s language taking the truly individualised investment approach that she continually tells us about. 
One of our biggest concerns is the limitations that now exist for people on jobseeker support to train educate themselves and get into a position of long-term sustainable employment. I have raised in the House before concerns that for instance someone who wants to do a longer-term course say nursing is now being told that they cannot engage in even part-time study because they must be available and ready for work and not necessarily full-time work. I have had cases of individuals who have been told to stop studying so that they can become available for part-time work which would still render them reliant on the social security system. If our goal ultimately as a Parliament is to see people in sustainable dignified non-precarious work then surely we should be setting people out on trajectories that allow them to get off the welfare system in the longer term rather than the short-term approach that this bill I am sad to say further entrenches because of the oversimplification—the way we have lumped everyone in together in benefit categories. 
The same could be said now for the lack of a true investment approach around particularly those who are seeking wellness to work. I mean specifically those who are currently on a sickness benefit or those who might be on an invalids benefit but are soon to move on to supported living payments. There will be a subset of people within the current invalids benefit who will be job seekers absolutely who are looking for work.