Clark David: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clark David: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 17 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3599. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I am very happy to speak to this bill the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. It is good to follow a speaker Catherine Delahunty who was raising some important points about the Otorohanga model and the way in which that has worked by drawing on local communities. Indeed Mr Robertson referred earlier to the example in Balclutha which applies a similar principle and has been very successful.  
We have certainly heard a lot of vacuous nonsense from the other side of the Chamber this evening. Most recently Mr Ngaro used some examples of young folk with ambition whom he said he was able to inspire to be successful all the while failing to note that that was during the period when the youth transition scheme implemented by the Labour Government was in place. He implied that this proposal will have more funding and bring more funding with it when that is not true. It does not put the supports in place that are necessary for our young people to get ahead. We heard Paula Bennett talking excitedly about using food as a motivator. She may as well have said: “Let them eat cake.” 
This really does not work as a concept because what it fails to do is address the real barriers to work—it fails to address the real barriers to work. The availability of work is not addressed by this bill. The availability of childcare is not addressed by this bill. And the skills and education training required for the young people to find work is not addressed by this bill. This is important context and these barriers to work must be addressed if we wish to make a difference in this area. Work testing alone will not achieve anything. 
The long-term welfare dependency concept was created by the Welfare Working Group and it is perhaps something of a dog whistle. We know that it takes for example a university graduate between 6 months and a year to find work so defining long-term as more than a year is something of a stretch. 
What is most shocking perhaps about these reforms is that they are in their own way quite unambitious. There will be more people we are told on a benefit in 2017 if these reforms are successful than when the Government took office. That is shameful. That is embarrassing if that is ambition. It is probably realistic given that this bill does fail to address those fundamental barriers to work: the availability of work childcare accessibility and skills training. Those welfare targets too are notably two elections away. 
There is similarity there with other plans and targets that the Government has brought to bear: the emissions targets and rebalancing the economy—when in fact we see the balance of trade getting worse over the projected period that the Government accounts look at. We see the record getting worse in terms of so-called welfare dependency. The number of people on the DPB rose by 13.2 percent between January 2009 and January 2012 but the number of people on the unemployment benefit rose by 82 percent. So we might ask ourselves why in that context we are targeting DPB mums. Perhaps it is indeed simply a distraction away from the real issue of creating jobs the real issue that the Government has not addressed during its 4 years in Government. We know it has the worst economic record of any Government in the last 50 years. There are 50000 people a year leaving for Australia and unemployment has risen by over 50 percent—nearly 50000 people—since John Key took office. These are the real problems and these are the things that are not being addressed through this legislation. 
To get proper work and decent paying jobs parents require correct training and education. They require the correct care and education opportunities for their children for childcare and they require more than anything jobs to go to. There is no solution as good as a decent job for people who are seeking one. Nothing in this bill will provide those facing these barriers with the tools to overcome them. Indeed in this context we see that—