Ardern Jacinda: Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Jacinda: Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:665;Page:13167] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to review a couple of specific factors. Firstly I would be really happy if the Government could explain to me which one of the following—the lowest unemployment in the OECD the wiping out of Crown debt and the most consistent growth since World War II—constitutes poor economic management. All we have heard from Government members is a blame game. Quite frankly people in the middle of a recession are sick of hearing the Government claiming that it was left with poor books because it was quite the opposite. Had it not been for the sound economic management of Michael Cullen we would be in dire straits right now. It is time for the Government to show some leadership and demonstrate to us that it has a plan. The blame game has to stop. 
Secondly I would like to hear one of the Government members explain to me at what point the Labour Opposition has said that we do not back people who are on benefits who we naturally assume want to get off those benefits. The assumption seems to me to be all on that side of the Chamber. If someone could explain to me how we are not backing those people I would be quite grateful. I am bemused. For me it is not about rhetoric; it is about the fact that just today we saw 2700 applicants for 150 jobs at Countdown. Members of the Government can talk all they like about aspiration but unless they are providing the situation and the context in which people are able to aspire and achieve all they are giving me is words. That is all we have heard from the opposite side today. 
The Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill makes assumptions about people’s position their status and their context. Although I have already talked at some length about some of the assumptions and how badly wrong the Government has got all of this when it assumes that people do not wish to work I would rather rely on some of the thoughtful words from groups like the Human Rights Commission. It said: “The most obvious flaw with this proposal was the assumption that work would be available when many of the measures in this Bill are due to take effect.” The example today demonstrates to us that although there may be a miniscule handful of jobs it is not sufficient. I quote again: “For example the proposed date for the commencement of the part time work test for sole parents on the Domestic Purposes Benefit whose youngest child is six years old is 4 October 2010 …”. If the Minister for Social Development and Employment is willing to stand up and tell me that by 4 October 2010 we are likely to see an incredible increase in the number of jobs coming through Work and Income’s door one that outweighs the number of people being added to its books that is an assurance I would welcome. At this point I have grave grave doubts. 
We also heard from the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services that “The Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill fails to recognise the link between macro economic conditions and Unemployment Benefit trends. Changes to the benefit system that seek to address perceptions that beneficiaries are ‘unmotivated’ and ‘lack a work ethic’ will therefore fail because the premises are flawed. When the economy expands and more jobs are available benefit numbers fall.” We have already demonstrated that. We do not need to rely on rhetoric in that regard. In the 9 years of the previous Labour Government we saw the greatest drop in benefit numbers when our unemployment rate was one of the lowest in the OECD. There is a natural intuitive correlation between the two and we already have the numbers to prove that that is the case. 
I want to go on to some of the Government’s own statements via the regulatory impact statement that demonstrate that even the policy makers think the assumptions in this bill are flawed. But in case I run out of time I want to put a question directly to the Minister on an issue she raised earlier around the independent youth benefit. The obligations set out in I believe clause 17 take out some of the discretion around the independent youth benefit and place greater requirements around the beneficiary being involved in education training or work. I welcome more of a discussion on that but I want to try to understand where the Government’s priorities for criteria for the independent youth benefit now sit. Earlier in the year we heard the Prime Minister say that there would be a new threshold for the independent youth benefit and it sat around a young person being psychologically tested and found to be in a circumstance that required them to be on the independent youth benefit. It is quite a high threshold; perhaps the young person has been abused or suffers from mental illness. But now we see that the Government has no longer explained—