Sepuloni Carmel: Budget DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSepuloni Carmel: Budget Debate[Sitting date: 02 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4182. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston):Following on from the last National Party speaker Jono Naylor I just want to refer to what he said. He referred to the fact that the National Government has not reached surplus for the last 7 years and then said that Labour is fixated on money. As a default position because the Government has failed 7 years in a row to reach surplus he said that that is because National cares about people. There is something wrong with that whole picture. It is not that difficult to reach surplus. This side of the House did it for 9 years straight—9 nil; 9 nil. I think that those members need to be reminded of that because they have proven for the last 7 years that they cannot responsibly manage this country’s economy. That is not what I wanted to focus this speech on but I could not help but refer to it after Jono Naylor’s speech.What I want to concentrate on is that the Budget really is a continuation of the Government’s plan to experiment with some of the most vulnerable members of our society—namely sole parents and mental health beneficiaries. What has really upset me from the beginning is the way the Government refers to sole parents and mental health beneficiaries. Under its investment approach it refers to them as a “high liability”—not as people who are vulnerable and need help but as a high liability. That is how it refers to people.Under this most recent Budget the Government is trying to introduce an experimental and untested system of social improvement bonds for mental health beneficiaries. We have very real concerns. We do not even know what the outcomes or results are from the mental health employment and sole parent employment trials which have cost taxpayers a total sum of $5.9 million over the last 2 years. These trials involved the contracting-out of case management which would otherwise have been undertaken by Work and Income. It involved support for employment placements to 25 private sector providers two of which—APM WorkCare and Mental Health Solutions Ltd—received almost $1 million each. But where are the results? Where is the so-called return on investment from these trials?According to the social development Minister 3377 individuals were referred to the mental health employment services trial in which only 998 individuals were enrolled as at the end of February 2015. As at the end of February 2015 414 of those individuals had been placed into employment of which 63 individuals exited the service after achieving 12 months’ continuous employment. One hundred and seventy-one of those individuals were still in the service having achieved 6 months’ continuous employment and 180 individuals were still in the service and yet to achieve 6 months’ continuous employment. What happened to the other 2379 individuals who were referred as part of the trial?Our concern is that that same model will be carried over to the social impact bonds. Who will these providers or organisations choose to take on? What does it mean for those who are not taken on? What does it mean for the 2379 out of 3377 who were not picked up by these providers to place in employment? What were the criteria for trying to place them in employment? Who do we think the providers would have chosen? They would have chosen the people who were experiencing mental health difficulties or mental illness but who were the most employable. Why? Because they wanted to see their outcomes attained. So that Government is going to use that kind of measure to say that the private sector is better at doing this than the State but it is jigged—it is a complete jig-up. We can see that just from the employment trials that have been undertaken for those who are experiencing mental illness.Further the Ministry of Social Development has said that it does not hold information in relation to the roles and qualifications of staff from contracted providers delivering either trial. So here it is contracting providers to work with some of the most vulnerable—we are talking about people with mental illness—but these providers have no qualifications or no experience that the Government knows of to be able to work with people who have mental illness. That is irresponsible. Going back to the Government’s own language—that these clients are high liability—well I just want to say that I think the only liability for this country is the National Government.When we look at sole parents we see that sole parents and their children will bear the brunt of this Budget. We hear from that side of the House that it is giving $25 to sole parents or to beneficiaries. This is not per child but per family. It is something but it is not enough. As the Children’s Commissioner has said it is a surprise but it is not a plan. It is not a plan to address the issue of poverty which we are facing as a country. Under this Budget yes the Government has said that it will give an additional $25 per family not per child on benefit but we have also seen the work obligation extended for sole parents from 15 hours a week to 20 hours a week.I have had lots of constituents contact me with their concerns about this. The major concern is that what the Government is not taking into consideration is that what is subsidised is 20 hours and even those 20 hours cannot always be accessed. The Government has not taken into consideration that not only do the parents need to put their children into early childhood education but they need travel time to be able to get there to drop their children off and then pick them up. Many of these parents are saying that 15 hours a week if they can access the subsidy for 20 hours is just enough because it includes the time they need to work as well as the travel time for getting their children to the early childhood centre and then picking them up afterwards. That was not taken into consideration.On top of that sole parent support beneficiaries have to reapply for their benefits every year on that anniversary. They also have to go back to work when their child turns 3 as opposed to 5. Some of us women in caucus talked about this amongst ourselves. Some of us had gone back to work but circumstances are very different for different people in terms of the work they go into. Some of us have flexible working arrangements. Some of us are able to because of the amount of money we earn but that is not going to be the case for every parent. What also does not seem to be taken into consideration by what the Government announced in its Budget is the number of children these sole parents have. If you are looking at a sole parent with one child maybe—just maybe—it is more possible for them than for a sole parent who has two three four or five children. It becomes more and more difficult when you look at the number of children. So just to have this kind of blanket approach to things is actually really irresponsible and not fair to the parents we are talking about.The change that the Government is looking to introduce is going to affect 70373 sole parents. I just want to point out actually that approximately 90 percent of those parents are women. They are women raising children by themselves. What does that say about the way that the Government thinks about those women or addresses the needs of those families? What does it say about Government members? It says they do not really care. They are punitive they are judgmental and they are just saying “We don’t care about your circumstances. Get out and work regardless of how things are for you.”There was a lot in this Budget from a social development perspective to be concerned about. Looking at the reprioritisation of funding to the social sector and the impact that will have on NGOs is another big issue. We already see this with the demise of Relationships Aotearoa and we know already that there are NGOs out there that have very very good reputations in their local communities and have served their local communities and vulnerable people for decades many of them; and yet they are feeling the brunt of this Budget as well. They are concerned about what this Budget will mean for them and their ability to continue doing the important work they have been doing for many many years.This Budget is not about people unlike what Jonathan Naylor has said; it is not even about money. The National Government has failed on both fronts in this Budget and it will not take long for the rest of New Zealand to see through that.