Bennett Paula: Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill — Second Reading 
Bennett Paula: Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:13064] 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill is part of the Future Focus initiatives that we campaigned on that were announced in March and that New Zealand wants. Future Focus will help people through a mixture of incentives and obligations. It reassures New Zealand taxpayers that we are spending their money carefully as only those who need help will get it. It is fair to both those who need help and those whose tax dollars provide it. 
This Government is committed to a welfare system that is fair sustainable and helps people in their time of need while not trapping them in a downward spiral of dependence. It is undeniable that in New Zealand we have too many children growing up in homes where the only income is a benefit for years and years. We want them to have aspirations we want them to have hope and we want them to have opportunity. 
Over the past decade New Zealand became complacent about benefit numbers. With a relatively good economy and skill shortages everywhere the Government really did not have to do anything much to see unemployment numbers fall as they did. But the unemployment figures hid the true story. An increasing number of people consigned to welfare long-term were effectively written off. John Key’s Government believes that everyone should be working if they can. They should be in full-time work if it is available. They should be able to have the sorts of opportunities the upskilling and the training that matters. 
Today we have seen the household labour force survey and unemployment is up at 6.8 percent. The unemployment benefit story over the last same quarter though showed that we were having some stability and that people were getting opportunities. In July alone we saw 6300 new jobs come into Work and Income but that does not say that it is easy for people at the moment. That is why we need to make sure we are putting the right supports in place. We are helping those people who need it most but we are backing them to upskill to get training and to look for work. 
I believe that the vast majority of New Zealanders want to work. But if someone has not worked for a long time or ever in some cases that person might need help encouragement incentives and even the occasional prod. This bill reinforces those expectations on people receiving a benefit. It is very clear about what New Zealand expects people to do in return for the financial support they receive. We expect those on the unemployment benefit to make every effort to find work. We expect someone on the domestic purposes benefit whose youngest child has turned 6 to be looking for part-time work. We expect someone on a sickness benefit whose doctor says he or she can work part-time to be doing so. Those expectations are reasonable. 
Those who are looking for work but cannot find it will not be penalised at all. [ 
Interruption 
] I say again for the benefit of the member opposite that those who are looking for work but cannot find it will not be penalised by these changes. In fact there are incentives in this bill that will support and help those people who are stepping up and want to do it. We have taken great care to be reasonable in implementing these work tests. We are making sure that the work is suitable for people who are looking. We are making sure that it fits in with them and their families and is close to home if it has to be. We are giving them those sorts of opportunities. 
If we have expectations of those who are on welfare there need to be consequences for people who do not play their part. It is reasonable to have rules about what will happen if people do not meet these expectations. If someone is not prepared to make the effort to look for work why should taxpayers continue to provide support? People will obviously continue to receive help if they are trying to find a job but not succeeding. But there are clear sanctions for those who do not make the effort to attend an interview get help for alcohol and drug problems that are stopping them from working or turn up for training courses. 
The Social Services Committee in its consideration of the bill recommended a number of changes. These changes improve the clarity of the bill in a number of places and I thank the committee members for the work they have done. I would like to address some of these changes. The committee has recommended that the name of the bill be changed to the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill which is a recommendation that I support. I am pleased that the committee has recommended a name that reflects the bill’s intent. 
The bill introduces a work test for sole parents once their youngest child is 6. Just last week we learnt of an American study into the effect of maternal employment on child cognitive and social development. The study assessed the total effect on a child of the mother going out to work including factors outside the home. The study by New York’s Columbia University School of Social Work found that although there are downsides to mothers taking on work during their child’s first year there are also significant advantages such as an increase in the mother’s income and well-being and a greater likelihood that children receive high-quality childcare. 
The work test for sole parents is a key part of the Future Focus package. It reflects our desire to encourage people whose youngest child is aged 6 or more back into work. We believe this is in their own best interests the best interests of their children and the interests of New Zealand as a whole. We are bringing in some incentives to make work pay including changes to the abatement regime which we have not seen for many many years. Beneficiaries will be able to earn more and keep that money in their own pocket before it affects the amount they can receive each week. 
We are also focusing quite strongly our childcare resources where they are needed most. We are putting additional training and industry partnerships in place and working with sole parents to ease their transition back into the workforce when work becomes available. Already we have 17 employers indicating that they want to work with us and particularly with those women who are on the domestic purposes benefit and going into part-time work. 
The key to the success of this legislation being implemented will be that we work closely with employers and with those who are trying to gain skills and get experience so that they can enter the workforce. A key difference we see is I think the fact that I do not see these people as victims. I see them as survivors who have something to contribute to society. There are opportunities for them to step up and I will back them in that every time. 
The provisions in the current Act allow the work test to be delayed for 4 weeks following a child’s 6th birthday. This dates back to the last time a work test for sole parents was introduced. The select committee has recommended removing this provision so that a sole parent can be work-tested straight away. This makes sense as Work and Income will in any case be writing to all sole parents who are on the domestic purposes benefit 4 weeks before their child turns 6. As the committee points out this is enough notice. 
There are sanctions in this bill for those who do not take seriously their obligations to work towards getting off welfare. However we are making it easy to re-comply because this bill is not about punishing people. It is designed to get them to change their behaviour. If for example a beneficiary has been sanctioned for failing to turn up for a training course a commitment to attend will mean he or she complies as long as it is followed up with the actual attendance of course. For persistent offenders though Work and Income will be looking for actions rather than just promises. 
The committee also recommended that people should have only 4 weeks in which to re-comply following a first sanction for failing to meet their obligations. The setting of a time limit sends a strong message. Two of the submissions on the bill recommended that nurse practitioners be allowed to sign medical certificates for sickness beneficiaries. This issue has been raised on a number of occasions and I am happy that we are fixing it. It makes sense for the person supervising a person’s health care to assess his or her ability to work. The bill introduces a new requirement that people receiving the unemployment benefit have to reapply for it after 52 weeks and complete a comprehensive work assessment. 
Finally I again thank the select committee members for the work they have done for their thoroughness and for the advice which we have taken on some of the changes in the bill. I especially acknowledge the work of the chair Katrina Shanks and my colleagues on the committee. They have listened have sought advice from the officials who worked so closely with them and have made recommendations that I am pleased to take up. 
This bill is a sensible bill. It does not treat people as victims who cannot help themselves. It treats them as the true survivors and heroes they are. I believe in them and in their ability and I will back them every step of the way. Thank you.