Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this
I move, That the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Amendment Bill, the Education Amendment Bill (No 3), the Taxation (Definitions of Dependent Child) Bill, the Social Security (New Work Tests, Incentives, and Obligations) Amendment Bill, and the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time.
This legislation, which started out as the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill, was introduced to the House in March of this year. The introduction of the legislation represented a turning point for this country. A debate about the welfare system is now under way, and I think it is high time for that. There is much discussion about the possibilities that a new approach to welfare could bring to New Zealand. There is much interest in how it could be done better—how the system could be redesigned to be fair to those who use it and those who pay for it.
There is also some angst among a few, driven largely by mischief-making from the Opposition. The scaremongering has been appalling. The Opposition has been misinforming beneficiaries that they will have their benefits cut and will be thrown to the wolves arbitrarily. It talks about the horror of it, the cheek of it, that the Government will ask those who rely on taxpayer-funded benefits to look for work if and when they are able to! How dare we? Well, Opposition members should look at themselves, especially because they know exactly how important it is to curb the insatiable growth of the welfare system. They know, because they presided over the system in much better times—not that they took advantage of those very good opportunities. Even as the job ads burst out of the papers, all that those members could do was stand and watch as the figures for those on the sickness benefit and the invalids benefit continued to grow.
We all know that the unemployment benefit numbers ebb and flow according to economic conditions. When there are jobs, people are in work. When the economy dips and the jobs dry up, people have to fall back on the State. What does not make sense is the continued expansion in the number of those on the sickness benefit, which bears no resemblance to the overall health of the country. It is nothing to be proud of that we have operated a system that has seen thousands of sole parents take up the domestic purposes benefit every year, sometimes remaining there for decades. It is nothing to be proud of that we have families growing up with intergenerational dependence on welfare. We are talking about parents in some instances raising children on benefits who grow up to be beneficiaries and raise their own kids on welfare. I ask how anyone could argue that the system is working well for them when that is their reality. It is time for this debate, and this Government is not afraid to have it. This is the turning point.
I have watched with considerable interest the progress of this legislation very closely over the past 4 months. It is a pleasure today to see all the hard work that was done by the Social Services Committee on the bill come to fruition. I thank the committee members very much for their work, and particularly the chairperson, Katrina Shanks. I thank all of those who made submissions on the bill for their contributions.
The phrase in the title of the bill as it was, “New Work Tests, Incentives, and Obligations”, tells the story of what these changes are all about, and I thank the Law Commission for its advice on changing the name of the bill. The intention behind the introduction of clear obligations and expectations is to rebalance the system, making it fairer and discouraging long-term benefit dependency. Most people want to work, and I know that for many right now, it is actually damn hard. The recession swept away much of the economic wealth that had built up over the last 10 years, and jobs suddenly became much harder to find. Those Kiwis who are battling on looking for work and relying on a benefit while they do so will not be penalised by this legislation, as some people seem to think.
I stand with the National Government and say proudly that we live in a country that supports those who need it in their toughest times. We will continue to do so. But we also want people to make an honest effort to find work, and we will help them to do that. Those who can work should. It may be a bit harder for some people to find a job right now, but they definitely will not find one if they are not looking. We are simply asking them to look. It is as simple as that.
Our economy relies on work. Our children need to grow up in families where people are in work, not on welfare. Our communities will be driven on to better success, greater health, and greater prosperity only through having their members working. Welfare reliance and long-term, intergenerational welfare will not create success. We see the effects on individuals, families, and communities when life revolves around the weekly benefit cheque. It ain’t pretty, and it is not the kind of environment any of us wants to see our kids grow up in.
When people are in work there are aspirations and hope for the future. If people cannot find work or if the jobs are just not there, we will continue to support them and their families. The obligation on people is to do everything they can to grasp every opportunity. We are asking those on benefits to make every effort to be in work if they can be, and when people are not prepared to look for work, there will be consequences. Sanctions will be imposed on people who are not prepared to make an effort. Those sanctions will apply to people who do not bother turning up to a job interview or who are sent on a training course but do not get up and go to it. We are making the sanctions regime more effective by graduating the penalties. That means that sanctions get progressively tougher if people continue to fail to meet their obligations. We are serious about holding people to their obligations; we owe it to them and to the taxpayer.
We are also serious about asking those on the domestic purposes benefit to actively look for part-time work when their youngest child is 6. There is evidence to show that families are better off when a parent is working. It is better for the parents and for the children. We are not expecting sole parents with young children to work, although we are expecting them to plan for a return to work in the future. We are saying that if one’s youngest child is 6 or older, he or she is in school, and 15 hours’ work a week is fair to ask. That is a reasonable expectation. Children are in school for the best part of the day, and it is quite possible to balance part-time work with childcare responsibilities.
There is no intention to force sole parents into unsuitable work, as some people have suggested. Jobs with long hours or shift work are clearly not suitable for some sole parents. Before Work and Income will refer sole parents to a job, their individual circumstances will be carefully considered. It would be very short-sighted to refer someone to a job that was clearly not suitable for them.
It has been suggested that people should be able to do voluntary work in order to meet their obligations; I do not agree with that. Voluntary work is important, and those who do it carry out an important role in their communities. We are asking people to do 15 hours’ paid work, and it will be up to them to do voluntary work on top of that, if that is what they wish. For people who rely on benefits for their income, getting a paid job has to be the priority.
In a few months’ time we will be introducing a new requirement for people on the sickness benefit. At the moment there is no requirement for anyone on the sickness benefit to work, no matter what the extent or nature of their illness. We know that some people are capable of working part-time, but, more than that, we also know it is better for them and their long-term recovery if they do so. If a doctor thinks that someone is capable of working part-time, that is what we expect of them too.
During the debates on the legislation I have heard people say there are no jobs, and that this legislation does nothing about getting jobs for people. That is not the point of the legislation. The legislation is about reinforcing expectations that people who can work, should. This Government is wholly committed to growing the economy, which will grow the jobs. We are also investing $223 million a year in employment-related training and support. We are investing in industry partnerships, Straight 2 Work programmes, training opportunities, providing help with writing CVs, boosting literacy and numeracy skills, and placing people in work.
As I said when I introduced this legislation in its first reading, my focus is on the future. We want a society that values work, and in which people provide for themselves and their families. We also want a system that is fair to those who need help, and to those who provide the dollars that support it. This is a turning point for New Zealand. This is a point when we acknowledge we could do better in the way we provide welfare and support people into work. These bills are a step in the right direction towards achieving those things, and I commend them to the House.
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) Link to this
The Minister for Social Development and Employment had an opportunity to rewrite the Social Security Act. She had the opportunity to do a full rewrite of an Act that was described to the Social Services Committee as the worst statute of this Parliament. The Act is a dog’s breakfast; it is incomprehensible. It has been amended close to 50 times, and it is a disgrace. It needed to be repealed, not revised with more patches put on it.
But the Minister was not interested in a real change in social welfare policy. She wanted to pursue a political agenda, and that is what she has done with this legislation, which she calls a turning point for New Zealand. How can it be a turning point for New Zealand when at the same time she has a working party doing work on changes to social development for the future? Will that be a turning point as well—turning back and round and round in circles? It is just pure rhetoric.
The Minister started the Committee stage on the original bill by saying the debate had been emotive, with a lot of angst and scaremongering from the Opposition. Well, I say to the Minister that I can only assume from those comments that she thinks those who made submissions on the original bill to the select committee were idiots because they did not understand the bill and they heard what the Opposition said about it. They were not idiots. They managed to read the bill. They managed to listen to what was said by the Government. They understood only too well what the bill meant. They were not idiots, and they were not scared into putting in a submission.
Our first clue that the Minister did not know anything about the strength of feeling about her legislation was when she made that comment at the beginning of the Committee stage. There were strong feelings in the Chamber. The bill was strongly opposed by Labour, the Greens, the Progressive Party, and five of the six Māori Party members, with only Tariana Turia voting with in the Government in a split vote from the Māori Party. The bill was supported by National backbenchers, who sat like stunned mullets for most of the debate, hardly able to get out of their seats to contribute to it. The real strength of feeling against this legislation is outside this Parliament, from most of the submitters to the select committee.
Do we all remember what John Key said about his Government? He said that his Government listens to the voices of New Zealand and values what the people of New Zealand tell it. The submitters to the bill overwhelmingly told the Government not to proceed with it. Were they listened to? They were treated as if they were idiots because they were stupid enough to make a submission against the Minister’s excellent bill.
The submitters came from front-line organisations, church groups, and Government organisations, and they came as individuals. Opposition came from newspaper editorials, cartoons, commentators, and opinion pieces. Organisations such as the Law Society called the bill discriminatory. Why? Because it discriminates against men. Under this legislation a widower will be work tested, but a widow will not. No reason is given for the difference, other than that the Government believes that is what the people of New Zealand want. What century does the Government live in? We do not believe in discrimination against men or women.
The Attorney-General said the legislation is discriminatory. Why did he say that? He said that because it discriminates between men and women. It discriminates between women who are widows and sole parent women. That is why it is discriminatory.
Carol BeaumontIt is; it is disgraceful.
The legislation was not fixed when we had the chance to fix it here in the Chamber. It was not fixed on the basis of the weight of submissions that were given to the select committee. Then there were the submissions themselves. Many of those submissions came from organisations we greatly admire and whose work on the front line is so important to the social fabric of New Zealand. We ask them to do a lot of our “hard lifting” when it comes to people who are in need. So when we hear from the Salvation Army, an organisation I have a lot of respect for, we usually open our ears and listen.
The Salvation Army said that under this legislation the care of children will suffer. When the Minister spoke she said a lot about the idea that work was the way out of the problem that people on benefits have. She spoke about an unrelenting focus on work. But does she believe that caring for children is work? Does she believe that bringing up a child in the best possible way one can, with the best care one can provide, is work? Is that useful work? Does that contribute to New Zealand society? Well, in my view it does. In my view the heroes are the people who are good parents looking after their children, and making sure they contribute to society. Did we hear the Minister once mention children? This bill is about children and the care of children, because the people most affected by this bill are those on a sole parent benefit. That is who is affected. She is not listening now, and she did not listen then.
The Salvation Army said that populism is not an appropriate basis for making policy. The Salvation Army, who should know, said that this bill may cause even more poverty in New Zealand, and it is estimated by Massey University, by Mike O’Brien who submitted to the select committee, that poverty under this legislation will increase by between 14 and 17 percent. Who will be hurt by that? The children of those parents on benefits will be hurt.
Why can we not get it into our heads that the best investment we can make in this country is an investment in everybody’s children—not just the children of the good; not just those who have husbands and wives and a nice little home. Good on them, but do we not care about all children in this country? Do we not believe that all children should get a good start in this country, including the children of beneficiaries?
Wellington Women’s Refuge submitted to us and said that this bill may force women to stay in violent relationships, and that the Government was only paying lip-service to violence against women. There was also a submission from Presbyterian Support, and there would not be any members in this House, if they are doing their job, who have not dealt with Presbyterian Support. It said the bill sends a signal that paid employment is far more important than caring for children. It said that children will be disadvantaged by this legislation.
The New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services said that research was needed. It said that the bill is not based on any research or evidence. The Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, Judy McGregor, came to the select committee and provided some evidence from her project focusing on work, which took her to 16 regions of New Zealand where she interviewed 300 employers. They said that it was the lack of jobs that is the critical component as to why people are not working. Overwhelmingly, she said, people want to get back to work but there is none available. For example, 2,700 people applied for 150 supermarket jobs. There are 159,000 people in New Zealand out of work, and another 19,000 have been added in the last month.
Unemployment went down when there were good times. The number of people on benefits went down in good times. The number of people on the domestic purposes benefit went down when there were jobs and Working for Families. That is the key to ensuring that people get a job. Alongside that, we need to provide the support to enable them to do that. We have to have good childcare. We have to have good parenting help and support. We have to have early intervention and adequate income. We have to ensure that people have the ability to get the tools and the strength to go out and get a job, not a job that leaves them in a poverty trap but one that takes them and their family somewhere in the future because they have education and training behind them.
I ask why we should not treat education the same as work. I asked the Minister to do that. I put up a number of amendments to improve this bill, but every one of them was voted against. This legislation will not do what the Minister said it will do. It will not improve the lot of people on benefits in New Zealand.
KATRINA SHANKS (National) Link to this
It is a pleasure to speak on the third reading of this legislation tonight. Firstly, I acknowledge our hard-working Minister for Social Development and Employment, Paula Bennett, for her effort and her commitment to, vision of, and unrelenting focus on getting people back to work. I also acknowledge the officials who came to our committee and provided great support. They have been here for most of the readings and were here for most of last night supporting this legislation through the House and listening to members as we debated our way through the night on this legislation. I acknowledge the submitters who came before our select committee and made their submissions. I thank them for the time and effort they put into their submissions, because it does take time and effort to make high-quality submissions. I acknowledge the work they have put in. I also acknowledge all of the members on the committee who sat through a number of submissions, participated well, and asked very well-thought-out questions of our officials. We sent them back many times for more answers when we were trying to tease out some of the details in the legislation.
I stand here in support of this legislation, and I do not apologise for the focus that this legislation has on getting people into work. I think it is a really positive step to have legislation that says the Government wants people to enter the workforce and have a successful life. During the debate yesterday there was a lot of talk about there being no jobs and people ending up with no support at all. That is not true. That was a bit of a scare tactic in the debate yesterday. If there are no jobs out there, there will always be State support for those people. That will always be the case under a National Government. We will not say that there is no support for people if there are no jobs. We are focusing on getting people back to work, where the jobs are.
I want to touch on one more point in the debate, and it came through quite clearly to me last night. Labour members believe that no work is better than low-paid work. Actually, I do not believe that is true. Dr Prasad is looking at me like I do not understand what I am saying, but that member has said many times that low-paid work is not good work, and that it is better to be in no work than in low-paid work. I do not get that. I ask what message is being sent to all the people out there who are on minimum wages, working really hard to sustain themselves and their families, independent of the State, and are getting ahead. Members opposite place no value on those people, in the work they are doing. I do not get that. I will tell the House that work is better than no work, regardless. Work is better than no work. Members opposite are saying that if someone has children, no work is better than work. I am sorry, but this Government is about giving people opportunities to get work and it is focusing on that.
I will talk about some of the new obligations under this legislation. I will highlight three or four of them. The first obligation is that the unemployment benefit is limited to 12 months, and after that time a recipient has to reapply for it. That is a really good provision. It gets those people into the office, to talk about how they are going and where they need to go to get themselves into a state of employment. That is a really positive move. The reassessment of sickness beneficiaries is really good. They will be assessed at 4, 8, and 13 weeks, plus they will undergo a mandatory 1-year reassessment. That means going back to those people and asking them how they are, whether they are feeling better, whether anything has changed, and whether they can do some part-time work, because part-time work is a good thing as well. This provision is about bringing people back into the office and asking them how we can help and how we can take them along this pathway.
The other thing we talked about in this legislation is youth training requirements. The ministry can now direct our youth into education and training as a first priority. That is a really, really good thing. We have to ensure that we do not have a generation of youth who come out of a recession and have not worked for 4 or 5 years. After that time, it is very difficult to change their habits and make them employable. We want to keep them busy in education and training. That will be our priority for them if they cannot get work, and that is really important.
We have put in three new supports under this legislation. The first one is boosting the income abatement level, the second is the inflation adjustment in law, and the third is training support for a student loan, to support sole parents on the domestic purposes benefit to study full-time at level 4 and above. That is really important as well. This legislation implements a whole lot of new obligations on recipients of benefits, and it also has some new supports in place. I commend this legislation to the House because I think it will make a difference for the people of New Zealand. Thank you.
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) Link to this
I say that the previous speech from Katrina Shanks was very disappointing; in fact, it was a pathetic contribution. The fact that the member does not understand the arguments that Labour members are presenting about why the legislation is opposed by us tells the country a lot about why it is flawed and why it should be rejected. When I listened to the Minister for Social Development and Employment, I was reminded that this Minister is an example of somebody who, once upon a time, received the domestic purposes benefit and through the support of taxpayers was able to raise herself up and get an education. She has managed to raise herself through the ranks of National, and one would think that as she is now earning over $200,000 a year and has the power to make change and effect positive change and help others who are in need, she would reach out and give a hand up to the many other mothers out there and the many other people who are struggling and suffering.
Instead, disappointingly, the Minister has introduced this legislation, which is a kick in the guts for beneficiaries. That is the disappointment for me, in respect of this Minister and the legislation that she has introduced to the House. The Minister herself has said that beneficiaries need a kick in the guts.
Sue MoroneyThey need a kick in the pants. In 2008, when I won my electorate seat, the local media, the Manukau Courier, asked me what I thought would happen with the National Party now being in power. I responded by saying that I thought people were gravitating towards Mr Key, and that he had been given an opportunity. People thought he had a good smile and was genuine. But I said that in the end, when we see this Government’s policies we will then be able to identify once and for all that this National Government is no different from the National Government of the 1990s, and that under this Government and under Mr Key we will have to fight in Māngere and in Manukau to protect the things that are valuable to our community.
One thing that is valuable to our community and that Labour values, and one of the things that the previous speaker does not understand, is the work of parenthood. Labour values the raising of children. Those are not necessarily paid jobs, but they are important jobs if we are to build a strong nation going forward. They are important jobs if we want to ensure that all our kids—it does not matter who the parents are—are given every opportunity to be able to pick themselves up. The only way we can do that is by ensuring that we have policies in place that encourage and support education. One of the fundamental principles of policy development is that if one wants more of something, one encourages it, one supports it, and one funds it. The parties have to encourage that.
When we look at what this Government has done thus far, with the cutting of adult and community education, what does that say? It means the Government does not want community members to be able to lift themselves and to be able to receive that kind of education and skill development. When we see this Government cutting the funding going into early childhood education centres, what does that mean? It means that this Government is saying it does not want to see our children accessing the same opportunities that the Minister received once upon a time for herself and her family, at the expense of the taxpayer. It is disappointing that we have to fight for the things that, once upon a time, other people, like the Minister, received. Now that the Minister is in a position of power and influence, she is unable to do the right thing and help those who are in need.
We have seen what this Government has done, and it is in a similar position with this legislation. This legislation states that there is to be an unrelenting focus on getting people into jobs. The reality is that this legislation is about forcing, coercing, and bullying beneficiaries to find jobs. I have to ask: where are those jobs? There are almost 160,000 people who are unemployed. The rate is 16 percent for Māori and 14 percent for Pacific people. We ask this Government what it is doing to create jobs. If it is to have this unrelenting focus on getting beneficiaries into jobs, then we want to make sure that those jobs are available. If these beneficiaries are to be punished for not getting into a job, and they have their benefits reduced or cut by 50 percent, and ultimately by 100 percent, what will happen to them? Will they then spend the rest of their lives on the streets, begging? Is that what we want to see? Is that what we are trying to build? Do we want to see the masses on the street, as beggars, while the select few control all the assets and the income of this country? I say that this legislation is threatening beneficiaries.
Debate is good if the Government is listening, but overwhelmingly the submitters to this legislation opposed it. They opposed it by saying that the assumptions that this Government is working on are flawed, especially the assumptions about dependency. Associate Professor M A O’Brien said: “The bill is flawed in every sense, and should be withdrawn.” He said further: “There is no evidence for the gross and obscene assumptions of dependency. The Government was making things up, saying that there are significant numbers of dependent families and generational dependent families.” He continued: “These assumptions are flawed in every sense, and should be withdrawn.” Another submitter, the Waitakere Community Law Service, said: “The Government’s bill assumes that women choose to be on the domestic purposes benefit.” Women do not choose to be abandoned by their husband or partner. Women do not choose to be bashed by a drunken husband, and then left alone to fend for themselves and their kids. Women do not choose when a husband cheats on them, and then abandons them and their children. This professor says that the assumptions made by this Government in defending its legislation are wrong.
The Waitakere Community Law Service said further: “The Government assumes people choose and want to be on a sickness benefit.” That is wrong. A person does not choose one day to go out and find a drunken driver to run over his or her legs, so that that person can go on the sickness benefit. One does not choose to have rheumatic fever. One does not choose to have leukaemia or have a stroke. These are people who are sick and destitute as a result of no fault of their own. Dr Hūhana Hickey of Auckland Disability Law gave strong evidence opposing the Government’s bill “as it will harm disabled people.” She said further that this bill contravenes the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities—the right of disabled people to live well; the right of disabled people, or any people, not to be poor.
According to the overwhelming evidence of submitters, I say that this legislation will drive families—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.
As I was saying before we were interrupted for the dinner break, this bill will hurt the masses. It will hurt the many communities that are already struggling. The House may recall that once upon a time Mr Key said of beneficiaries and of the poor that they were the underclass—
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) Link to this
Tēna koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēna koutou katoa. The Green Party does not believe that being rich is a crime, but it seems that the National Government believes that being poor is a crime. This legislation chooses to punish, abuse, and discriminate against children. This legislation will entrench poverty. Even more people will need food banks and emergency housing. It will cause extreme hardship and fail to increase employment. It will ultimately cost the country more for its failures, with the costs borne by the most vulnerable. It is also debatable that it may be in breach of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
This legislation could be described as rubbish, but if we are going to say that we must ask what else should be done. A lot more can be done to provide fair income support. A fair society is one that guarantees the essentials. If we guarantee the essentials, we guarantee the opportunities. Critically, an income support system must support and be supported by a commitment to full employment. An income support system can operate as an effective safety net for those in need only if there is an economic policy of full employment so that all those who can, and want to, are able to get a decent job. That is hardly the situation we are facing at the moment.
One of the claims used to drive up division between beneficiary communities and others is the cost of income support, which is what is driving this legislation. The Welfare Working Group went to great lengths to dishonestly claim a $50 billion bill, and that kind of extremist, unsubstantiated claim serves only to prove how ideologically bound and irrational Minister Bennett’s working group is. By manufacturing a crisis it badly undermined its credibility.
The claim has been roundly and widely condemned, even by the more conservative media, every day for the last couple of weeks. But what does it highlight? It highlights that the extremist right, which Paul Bennett represents, will be using the cost of income support as a stick with which to beat the anti-beneficiary drum. As inaccurate as the numbers are, they will be effective in creating fear and driving up fear and distrust.
There is an alternative. We encourage everyone to get involved with the work of the Alternative Welfare Working Group. It is asking for submissions from citizens. This group is focused on welfare justice—on what families and children need to be healthy, happy, and productive citizens who are treated respectfully and with dignity—and it uses different language, not the language of “work test” and “punishment”. The first public meetings of the group are next week on 24 August in Wellington, and we urge people to participate in those forums.
We know that the National Government has no solution to the issue; if it did, it would not have put forward this legislation. So what are the rational, sensible, economic solutions that will provide support for individuals and families when they need it and ensure that every person who wants to and can work has a decent job? The Green Party has a raft of solutions that will meet both objectives in a cost-effective way. If we guarantee the basics, we can guarantee the opportunities.
The fact is there are choices that any Government can make. National makes choices to undermine families in the economy; the Greens make choices that benefit families in the economy. One of our solutions is to repair the targeted financial support that discriminates against the children of beneficiaries. Children should not suffer any form of discrimination simply because of the source of their parents’ income.
All children need a loving, warm, dry home; safe, healthy food; high-quality public education; and decent health care. But the children from the poorest families in Aotearoa New Zealand go without it, not because their parents do not care but because there is simply not enough money in beneficiary households to meet all their needs. Children are going without shoes, breakfast, school trips, etc. They are going without their basic rights—good health-care and a good education.
One can give parents all the budgeting advice in the world but it will not help if there is not enough money to go around. Enforced budgeting will not get blood out of a stone. Those children in the worst poverty can eat stones, according to this legislation, because their families rely on income support and therefore they do not get the in-work tax credit. Why, then, have a child support subsidy that discriminates against those children, as the in-work tax credit does?
We would deliver the in-work tax credit to 140,000 of the poorest families in Aotearoa New Zealand. This would significantly increase the incomes of the most vulnerable families. It would cost about $300 million per year, about half of Peter Dunne’s progressive tax cut for the wealthiest families. Those who need the most should be the priority, not those who have the most. That measure alone would help to relieve some of the worst poverty, because a fair society is better for everybody.
How, then, would the Greens support a full-employment economy? Our communities are still suffering from the effects of the recession, and there are indications that the New Zealand economy will suffer another serious dip. The Government is doing a Pollyanna. It is talking up recovery, but although the Government’s wealthier constituents might be doing better, those at the bottom are not. I talk to taxi drivers every day and they laugh when I ask: “Do you think the recession is over? Have you seen this in your life?”. They say it is a ludicrous idea. When thousands turn up for just a few jobs, we know that New Zealanders are desperate for work and that the jobs are simply not there. We have not had a full-employment policy for decades, and even with the recession National has utterly failed to increase employment. National wrings its hands and claims it is all too hard. It is not; it is a matter of choice. The Government could easily invest in job-rich infrastructure development if it chose to.
Two weeks ago the Housing Shareholders’ Advisory Group released its report on social housing. It is a very comprehensive report, with excellent recommendations about supporting third-sector housing. But it also highlights the extent of the housing crisis in Aotearoa, particularly for those on the lowest incomes—that is, those who need income support. The report shows that we have a deficit of 70,000 homes. It has also highlighted that the inadequate private rental market is failing to provide affordable housing. More than half the renters in the private market require an accommodation supplement in order to pay their rent. That tells us a lot about the state of the housing market.
We must invest in social housing. Three in four homes are cold and unhealthy, and 300,000 children live in housing that is too cold and damp to be healthy. Cold housing costs more than $500 million. It leads to 50 hospital admissions a day for respiratory illness, costs $54 million a year, and means that 180,000 workdays are lost because of sickness, which costs at least $17 million. Also, over $400 million is being spent unnecessarily on power. We need more warm dry homes. So instead of this legislation, which punishes the poor, one of the Greens’ solutions is to build 6,000 new homes over the next 3 years. That could easily be done by the Government in partnership with the third sector. It is waiting to go. It would create 28,000 new jobs. That is a plan towards full employment. That is a plan that costs less than half of the tax cuts to the wealthy. That is a plan that will house our families, protect our children, and give their parents a desperately needed job.
Today National chooses to punish, condemn, and discriminate through this legislation. National members can dress it up how they like, but that will be the effect on the ground. Today National chooses to leave thousands of children in poverty. A fair system provides the essentials for every child, and it is not impossible. It is about the special benefit being returned, it is about in-work tax credits being extended, it is about housing, it is about warm homes, it is about progressive electricity pricing, it is about public education and adult education, and it is about ensuring that parents can provide for their children because the State provides them with the basic opportunities.
We are appalled by this legislation. We have had to go through the whole process, listening to the rhetoric, while we are receiving emails and lobbying every day from people on benefits. They are asking why they are being attacked. I think those voices are really important; the voices of people who feel attacked, who are stigmatised by the sanctions ethos that threatens to take away but offers to create absolutely nothing.
That is why the Green Party has put out our plan Mind the Gap. If we are going to critique a bill as strongly as we have, we have to say what else we would do; we cannot just critique it. So we are—this is what else we would do. We would welcome the Government adopting this kind of proactive approach on the basis that all children in Aotearoa New Zealand deserve warm, healthy homes, income, food, and clothing. It is not a very difficult baseline to commit to. A fair system that provides essentials is our fundamental principle, and we will be opposing this legislation at this reading. God help the poor of Aotearoa.
DAVID GARRETTOh no, I have plenty to say. Su’a William Sio finished his speech by asking what people will do. When I interjected about the welfare system in Samoa, where he was born, or in Tonga, where I have spent a good period of time, I heard nonsense back, because there is no welfare system there. What people do is become entrepreneurs. If one goes to Tonga, one will find lunch stands set up, people selling peanuts, selling vegetables, and selling home-made clothes. That is what they do when there is no welfare system.
The tragedy of members on that side of the House is that they want people to be condemned to a life of poverty on a benefit; that is what they want. The reason that is so tragic is that the evidence is absolutely clear. Ms Bennett referred earlier to there being some evidence that people respond better and have better outcomes when they are in work. There is not some evidence; there is massive, massive evidence to show that those who are mentally ill or have any kind of problem are much, much better off if they are working, rather than sitting at home. Those members want beneficiaries to be trapped into poverty, to sit at home on a bare—[Interruption] It is not a luxurious lifestyle. That is a myth; it is a complete myth. There are silly people who say that beneficiaries live their life on the back of the hog. That is quite wrong; certainly it is quite wrong. What those members want is for these people to sit at home, on a subsistence income, barely able to get by, and then leap up and protest vociferously at the suggestion of a gentle encouragement and nudge back into work. That is all that this legislation is.
As I said in the Committee stage, as a lawyer I could drive a truck through the exemptions that are available. Anyone who really wants to try to avoid being nudged back to work will be able to do it. The tragedy is that these guys think that that is a great idea, and that a life of getting up at 10 or 11 o’clock in the morning and sitting watching daytime soaps, while existing on a bare minimum income, is a good idea. Is that not terrible? What an aspiration to have for our people! Those members really want people to live like that, so that they will stay dependent on nanny State and vote Labour for the rest of their lives. As long as they do that, those members do not care—they do not care. As long as those people keep voting Labour and keep thinking that those clowns will benefit them and represent them, then that is all right. What a terrible existence. Anyone with any brains knows that being on a benefit—any kind of benefit; whether it be the domestic purposes benefit, the sickness benefit, or the invalids benefit—is not a luxurious lifestyle.
This legislation seems to be the type that brings out anecdotes from both sides of the House, but more so from Labour members. I will chip in with another one, and it goes back 25 years. This was when the disease started. The welfarism disease began 25 years ago. In 1984 I was waiting in Invercargill, an area familiar to the Assistant Speaker, Eric Roy, for a job. I was the next replacement on an oil rig working off the south coast of New Zealand. I was waiting for the first guy who quit or who got injured; then I would get the job. I was staying at a motor camp in Invercargill, waiting for that to happen. It could have happened at any time: the next day or the next week. In fact, it never happened, and I found a job elsewhere. But I went down to the labour exchange and said that I would like a job, please. They asked me what my registration number was. I asked them what they were talking about. They said that I had to be registered. I said that, all right, I would register. They said that, no, I had to register for the dole. I said that I did not want the dole; I would like a job, please. This was 25 years ago. They looked around and said “This guy is looking for a job?”. Anyway, to cut a long story short, one was not allowed to look at the job vacancies until one registered for the dole and became a beneficiary. I told them that that could not be right, I wanted a job, and I did not care what it was—a casual job, a part-time job, a full-time job; I did not mind. They told me no, I would have to sign on for the dole. So I have been on the dole for 1 week in my life. Later that day I had three job offers, and they asked me which one I would like.
The welfarism disease began 25 years ago. This sorry shower over there wants to perpetuate that disease. The kids who are now the children of beneficiaries were not born in 1984, and those members would like to condemn them to the same misery for the rest of their lives, as long as they continue to vote Labour. This is, may I say it, a fairly timid measure. It is a fairly timid attempt to move away from the disease of welfarism that condemns people to sleeping in until 10 in the morning and watching daytime TV all day, whilst being on the minimum income.
This legislation is to be commended, but it does not go far enough. What a terrible aspiration for a political party with the proud history of the Labour Party. The founders of the Labour Party were workers—real workers. They use the term workers in this House. No one else calls them workers anymore; they are all employees. But in the old days, in the 1910s, the founders of the Labour Party were workers. They would turn in their graves if they saw the system that we have created. Michael Savage, Bob Semple, and those guys would not believe it. Peter Fraser’s statue is across the road. The thing he hated most in life was shirkers. That is what he called people who did not want to work or get off their backsides. He would turn in his grave.
These measures are an attempt to encourage people away from a life of sleeping in until 10 o’clock and watching daytime TV, and we applaud that. We do not want to condemn people to that kind of life, to encourage them to sit at home, sleep, and watch daytime TV, when there is an alternative. We would like people to get out and to advance themselves, as Minister Bennett has and as have other members in the House who have been on benefits from time to time. But the Labour members hate that. They cannot stand it that the Minister has bettered herself. She went off the benefit, gained herself a university qualification, and now she is here in Parliament, and those members hate that. They despise her, because from their point of view she is a traitor to the beneficiary class. What a terrible, terrible attitude. We are very happy to support this very modest set of measures to try to turn round that whole disease that condemns people to living in poverty. Thank you.
RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) Link to this
The legislation sets into statute the commitments made by the Government prior to the election to ensure a fairer welfare system with an unrelenting focus on work. The bringing together of the welfare system with the world of work is key to the legislation. The aim is to create a shift away from State dependency and into full or part-time employment. Although the aspirational goal of reducing State dependency is a logical one—and one that we fully support—the economic downturn has resulted in a greater need for social security, and significantly more so for Māori. We come to this reading shattered by the loss of two leading figures in our world: Te Meringa Hohāia and Te Kapunga Matemoana Dewes. Both of these men lived their lives committed to the pathway toward self-determination. They were leaders who helped shape the transformation of their iwi, and directly led to the cultural revival and renaissance of te reo Māori, of Treaty settlements, of the unique cultural heritage of Hinerupe Marae, of Parihaka Pā, and of our wider history and assets. They were staunch to the kaupapa, they were unafraid of conflict, and they were prepared to act with decisiveness and with courage to set a pathway forward. They were driven by the aspiration of being self-determining, self-managing, of walking the talk.
But the process of positioning themselves in their own pathway was always done with the best interests of the people in mind. Self-determination does not mean sacrificing the well-being of the people, and that is where we must agree to disagree with the policy enshrined in this legislation, for, although we are intent on achieving our own aspirational goal of reducing State dependency, our foundation is always in the whānau.
I remind the House of the key message that we campaigned on in the motu, in the lead-up to the last election: “He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.” What is the greatest thing in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people. So we look at National’s policy direction and we see that the legislation is intended to promote an unrelenting focus on work. According to the Collins Dictionary “unrelenting” is defined as “refusing to relent or take pity, relentless, merciless”. That is the hub of our concern. In the changes to the legislation from the select committee we note that if a person does not recomply with his or her work-test obligations within the first 4 weeks, then a further 50 percent reduction will be applied on top of the first 50 percent reduction—the punishment that keeps on punishing.
A lot has been made about limiting sanctions for beneficiaries with young children to a 50 percent reduction. But the point remains: “Who cares for the children?”. Why hurt the children because of their parents’ failure to attend a work test? What did the children do to cause the State to punish them?
This legislation amends the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act, among others. That Act enshrines the paramountcy of the child; this legislation takes away that protection for children, this legislation punishes our children. Our mokopuna are precious; we must do everything we can to nurture them and to keep them safe, warm, and well fed. We are the first to admit that the system is unsustainable and not working, so change is needed. We believe that a bold and visionary approach is required—a bold and visionary approach such as Whānau Ora is needed, not one of blame and punishment. We agree that people who can work should work. But children must not be punished because their parents are beneficiaries. We must maintain a safety net for them. In 2006 there were over 50,000 Māori children living in single-parent households reliant on benefit income. This figure is likely to have increased. That in itself is 50,000 reasons not to support this legislation
Some positive changes were made during the process that we found favour with. We acknowledge the Minister particularly for introducing the new exemption so that people on any benefit who are leaving situations of domestic violence will not be work tested. This is an important exemption to give them time to adjust to their changing circumstances. We also support the focus in recognising the importance of full-time study as a way to improve job prospects. The exemption for work-test obligations at level 4 or above, and the new $500 loan for course-related costs are positive changes.
But I come back to the origins of this legislation. This package was originally branded as the Future Focus package. Due to the fact that Māori are disproportionately represented in the beneficiary sector, coupled with a downturn in the types of jobs our people are expected to be employed in, we believe that this legislation will be detrimental to Māori at this unique point in time. It is all well and good having an unrelenting focus on work if the jobs are there, but we have a real question around that. We know the intergenerational effect that the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s had on young Māori when their parents were forced from work and then found themselves in considerable poverty. We know the helpless despair of unemployment. In addition, there is cause for concern regarding the availability of part-time work and the 90-day probation period, especially where solo parents are concerned. We cannot look at these bills and policies in isolation from each other; we need to look at the whole range of bills that are coming up and the whole range of policies that affect people in those areas.
Tertiary training as an alternative is only as good as the health of job creation, which is showing only a marginal recovery. All of these factors do not give us the confidence that those of our most vulnerable whānau, who most need our protection, will not be adversely affected by this legislation. We acknowledge that both this Minister and our co-leader Minister Turia have worked really hard to do what they can to address the employment crisis that particular impacts on our people. The latest unemployment figures were nothing short of shocking: 159,000 out of work, 16.8 percent of Māori unemployed. The majority of people want to work, and every day thousands of people spend most of their day looking for a job—for any job. For these people and their families it is little comfort to recognise that unemployment numbers in Māori communities have been consistently high since the 1980s, and even in the time of plenty, Māori unemployment figures have still been high, particularly for those under 25 years of age.
They want a chance, and Community Max and Job Ops have given them that. Community Max, essentially, prepares our young people for work and gives them an opportunity to learn new skills, develop a good work ethic, and find a pathway out of unemployment. The programme has been immensely successful in the short time of its duration. In fact, at last count, some 3,200 positions had been filled, and of these approximately 1,900 were taken up by young Māori. These are wonderful statistics and we acknowledge both Ministers for their vision and their commitment in placing these schemes on the Government’s agenda. But we cannot pretend that Community Max, no matter how good it is, is providing the long-term sustainable employment required. There will be casualties—those who end up back on the unemployment line—and we fear for their future as a consequence of this legislation. It is because of these people, our most vulnerable, and because of our children that we have split our vote—one for, and four against.
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this
It is a great thing when a political party maintains its promises. The Social Security (New Work Tests, Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill, which this legislation started out as, is an example of National bringing to fruition those things that it campaigned on. National campaigned, for instance, on beneficiaries being able to earn $100 a week before the benefit abated, which is in the legislation moving through the House tonight. Members on the other side of the House never did that. They had the opportunity to do that, they had a long and substantial opportunity to do that, they had 9 years to do that, and they did not bother. Yet tonight they try to castigate National for bringing to fruition exactly what its members campaigned on and what Labour did not bother to do.
Labour members did not bother because, I believe, they did not care enough to do that one little thing. It would not have been much. They passed a number of other pieces of legislation, they brought a number of bills before the House to enact things that they had campaigned on during the course of their campaigns in 1999, 2002, and 2005, but they did not bother to do this one little thing, and we have to ask why. They have never ever provided an answer. I look forward to the next calls from Labour members, but they have never ever provided an answer as to why they did not bother to do that one little thing.
We campaigned that solo parents who received the domestic purposes benefit—and so they should; I do not see that as magnanimous; I see that as sensible and practical—and who are the parents of children over 6 would need to present for work. If there were jobs available and if it was within their capability to work, they would have to for some of the time.
It was very interesting to listen to submissions on the bill during its select committee hearing and to note that many of the submitters who came forward in opposition to this bill, and many members on the other side of the House, said that it was very mean because it deprived children over 6 of their parents. They were saying that the bill was an incredibly harsh thing and an incredibly punitive thing to do. They did not realise that the vast majority of solo parents whose youngest child is over 6 work voluntarily. So members on the other side of the House were effectively saying that any parent, and any solo parent particularly, whose youngest child is over the age of 6 and who works must be a bad parent. That is an absolutely stupid position to be in and it is absolutely stupid to suggest that. Everybody knows that work is a good thing. Parents should work to the maximum of their potential as long as that does not detract from their ability to parent or to care, love, and nurture those who are closest to them and who rely on them. Work is essentially a good thing.
For a number of years I worked as a small-town policeman in Pātea. After the Pātea Freezing Works had closed, I watched families grow up under a regime where the children did not see mum and dad tipping out of bed in the morning and going somewhere to work. The single thing that made me give up my support of the Labour Party and join the National Party was in 1987 when the Labour Minister of Labour, Richard Prebble, decided that unemployment had grown so big that it was easier to just pay people the benefit, and not bother making them turn up for work under the Project Employment Programme scheme. A large number of the members opposite were senior members of the Labour Party at that time and some of them campaigned in 1990 in support of all those policies from 1984 through to 1990 that did that. Labour did exactly what my colleague David Garrett said; it relegated those people to the unemployment system. It said what we have heard many, many times over the course of this debate: there are no jobs so we should not try. Well, what a load of rubbish! All that approach does is relegate people who want to work and who have aspirations for a better future and to get on and work for themselves and their families. The other side of the House says that that is not good enough, and that we should not try to help them; those families are just collateral of a system that those members support, and so they will vote against this legislation. Absolutely ridiculous!
Well, our party believes, and those who support this legislation believe, that these people are people whom we were elected to this House to represent. We were elected with a very strong mandate to fulfil the manifesto that we campaigned on, and I am very, very proud to be part of a Government that is doing what it promised. I stand in support of this legislation, and I commend it to the House.
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) Link to this
I am really glad that the member who just resumed his seat, Chester Borrows, did not stay a member of the Labour Party. He deserves to be in the National Party. I will take up two of his points. The number of people on the domestic purposes benefit under the previous Labour Government went down for the first time since the domestic purposes benefit was introduced. That member said that we did nothing; well, that is one fact for him. The second point the member might like to recall is that the previous Government worked hard to get the unemployment rate down, and it was the lowest in the OECD. So there is plenty that the previous Government did to address the needs of every citizen in New Zealand society.
No matter how much this Government dresses up the provisions of this social security legislation as representing its focus on fairness and its unrelenting focus on work it is another example of this Government’s punitive approach to the most vulnerable in our society. That is what it is. There are many other examples in the legislation that has come before this House, brought by that Government—this is another example. This legislation could have provided a great opportunity for the Minister for Social Development and Employment to focus on fairness and to focus on work, if she had really wanted to. But she did not do that. She was not up to it, and, therefore, the sadness about this third reading debate is that it is a lost opportunity. The Government was never interested in social security, but it now comes to the House and says that is on its agenda. How come then that nobody believes the Government? Nobody believes it.
This Government has really internalised and been driven by, if we think about it, the views of those who believe that beneficiaries are unfairly receiving State assistance. That is the rhetoric and those are the beliefs that those members opposite in this Government have internalised. This is the reason for this punitive approach to welfare reform. The Government also believes that the lives of those who receive assistance should not be easy. We should make it difficult for them. They should be expected to continually prove that they are deserving of the assistance the State provides. It goes back to the Charity Organisation Society days of the deserving and the undeserving poor. The only step after that is to give them bread and circuses. Those who argue for this legislation rarely demonstrate any in-depth understanding of the lived experiences of many beneficiaries, and, indeed, Mr Garrett was a case in point. He has demonstrated that a number of times in this House. There is no reason to really begin to use the kinds of names that that member used for this group of people. I think he ended his speech by saying that it was like they were diseased, it was like a disease.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence to that. At no time did I say that beneficiaries were diseased; I said that welfarism was a disease. That is a very different thing.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) Link to this
That is a point of debate; it is not a point of order. The member has mechanisms for that.
I think that the member’s language demonstrates his contempt for this group of people. The member’s thoughts were that this group should be like some others he quoted from the Pacific Islands and make their own clothes. Well, that is the bread and circuses argument. We are not taking New Zealand back to that kind of experience.
At every stage of this legislation this side of the House has tried to bring some balance to the issues that the Government faces in what it proposes in this legislation. But at no point has the Government started to listen to what was said in the Social Services Committee. Hardly anybody spoke in support of the changes affecting the unemployed and those on the domestic purposes benefit. These submissions were not from just anybody. Annette King went through the submissions in some detail. They were from respectable organisations that administered to our most vulnerable. It was their considered opinion that this legislation does not address the needs of the most vulnerable in our society. These organisations said that the changes will make the situation much worse. The Hon Annette King listed the thoughts they had, such as that this legislation was discriminatory and that it would increase poverty. That is what we were told. We were told it would affect children and it would increase the chances of violence within families. We fight against that in other programmes but here we are passing another set of rules that will make it worse. So in this legislation the Government has not considered the perverse effects of these provisions on the important role of sole parents bringing up children. The Government was not listening; it knew best.
The Government’s approach to fairness is interesting. Fairness does not mean, as it does for this side of the House, providing an adequate income for those who are bringing up children on their own so that they may be provided with the best opportunity to provide the best environment. That would be fair, if we really focused on that. Fairness means not subjecting mothers—they are mainly mothers—to the frustrations of access to childcare; it means opening up opportunities for them to undertake training and education so that they may prepare themselves for re-entering the workforce when their children require less of their time and when they can gain employment that provides them with an adequate income. Fairness on this side of the House means balancing the negative views of beneficiaries that some hold in society, which members opposite reflect, with a plan to give every New Zealander the opportunity to make a valued contribution to our society. It is another example of where the Government does not have a comprehensive plan; it goes along one dimension hoping that will work. This is another example of that lack of plan and lack of principle, and it is really wolf-whistle politics that we see.
In the third reading debate one National member asked what was wrong about expecting sole parents, when their children were 6 years old, to take on some work. I say to that member that there is nothing wrong with that expectation, provided that we have taken into account all that a solo parent has to do to provide good care for his or her children. Solo parents have to do single-handedly what many of us struggle with as part of a two-parent family with more financial resources. We must also factor in those who are taking courses to prepare themselves to enter the job market when their children require less of their time, and those who provide a significant amount of the volunteer work that keeps our schools, our communities, our recreational programmes, and vulnerable people supported. These provisions do not take into account the real experiences of those people. The legislation gives enormous powers to case managers to make decisions. The only fall-back criteria will be whether sole parents have work. The punitive regime will then kick in.
If the Government adopted our definition of suitable work, I would take its intentions seriously and accept that it is sincere. There are sole parents on benefits bringing up children whose youngest child has just gone to school. They could well be preparing themselves for work through night school etc., and they could also be doing the volunteer work that our communities depend on, in our schools, in our old people’s homes, in our recreational programmes, and in our churches. That is real work. It is not, as Mr Garrett says, just sitting down and watching television in the afternoon. Our Supplementary Order Paper recommended that that be counted as reasonable work. The only difference is that if it were paid it would be work, but it is not paid. It is valuable work, but there was not even a moment’s consideration on the part of the Government or the Minister to take that into account.
The case has been made. We are sending people to find work when there is no work, when it is quite difficult. I have worked with many of these people and this is a sad moment. This was an opportunity to do something really useful but the Government has come up with another set of punitive measures that will be used to punish those who provide valuable care for our children and our communities. Thank you.
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) Link to this
This is a significant measure that deals with a very important social and economic issue, so I have to say that I have been really disappointed by the quality of the debate we have had from the Opposition, the lack of intelligent engagement as to what the legislation is actually about as opposed to what it is not about—
Hon Steve ChadwickThat is a very patronising comment from Ms Chadwick. Whether I have been here for one term or 10 terms, I have a valid opinion to express and I have worked hard on this legislation.
During this debate Opposition members have consistently resorted to slogans and clichés, and in particular to making a whole lot of accusations about things that the legislation does not deal with. I point out, because I think it needs to be written into the record, that not one speaker on this side of the House at any stage in this debate has engaged in beneficiary bashing, and I would be very disappointed if any of them had done so. Earlier tonight the deputy leader of the Labour Party criticised the Minister for not undertaking a complete rewrite of the Social Security Act. There is little doubt that such a task would be a valuable long-term exercise, but it is also, as surely everybody acknowledges, a huge job that would need time and detailed work. I have to ask the deputy leader of the Labour Party, who has been here for a long time, why, if that was such a priority, Labour did not tackle that task in the 9 years when it was in Government.
After Mrs King, Catherine Delahunty described the legislation as punishing the poor, but she produced no evidence for that criticism that was related to the contents of this legislation. I have to ask whether we have really reached the stage in this country that it is considered a punishment to move off a benefit and into paid employment, because that is exactly the implication of what she was saying.
I was especially disappointed to hear Rahui Katene—a member for whom I have great respect—repeat the allegation that this legislation is an attack on children. The implication that children whose parents depend on welfare are more secure than children whose parents are employed is contradicted by all the evidence in our society. The focus of this legislation is on encouraging people into work, not if they cannot seek work—and, sadly, there are many in that category—and not if there is no work available that they could attempt. We know that the global recession has hit our country hard, as well; that it has had a big impact in our towns and cities, and that in some areas, yes, jobs are scarce. But where jobs are available, or training is available to equip those who are out of work to seek new jobs in the modern economy, it has to be a better option for the worker and for his or her dependants.
I want to return to some of the comments that we heard last night. Metiria Turei spoke of beneficiaries being forced into degrading and demeaning work, and into working for nothing. She described this as a recipe for impoverishing people. Not only was it disturbing to hear her prejudice against manual work but also it is fascinating to try to understand the twisted logic that sees a benefit as being more financially attractive than a wage. I have to say that we heard the same argument from one of the submitters to the Social Services Committee.
Hon Ruth DysonWe did hear that exact argument from the first submitter to our select committee. I totally reject that reasoning. I firmly believe that all honest work is inherently valuable and I respect everyone who commits to taking an unappealing job if that is the only option available to that person. It is insulting and offensive to suggest that those who accept a low-paid job are demeaning themselves, or have been demeaned by their employer or by society at large. Many people in my electorate work long and sometimes unsocial hours, on the factory floor, as cleaners, or in a myriad of other roles that attract the minimum wage or just a little bit above that figure. They have my total respect and gratitude. Invariably they are also very good parents and grandparents and decent members of caring communities. They give much and they ask for little. They do not feel demeaned and they certainly would not feel more secure or worthwhile if they traded in their jobs and wages for life on a benefit. I am proud to represent those people from my electorate in this House and I thank them all for what they are doing.
Dr Prasad, in his comments a few minutes ago, agreed that it is desirable to encourage beneficiaries into work where work is available. That is all this legislation aims to do. But in the same breath, Dr Prasad repeated his earlier claim that this legislation is punitive.
I say again to that well-intentioned but misguided member that there is nothing punitive about expecting those who can work, and for whom work is available, to do so. Those people for whom work is not available, or who are unable to work for valid reasons, will continue to enjoy the security and protection that they have now. Nothing will change for them under this regime, yet from listening to some of the Labour speakers one would think that the sky is about to fall in.
I say to Dr Prasad that this legislation is not punitive at all, but it does set out society’s legitimate expectations.
I say to Dr Prasad that it is punitive to expect our nation’s taxpayers to invest more in the welfare system than is genuinely needed or justified. It is punitive to tolerate Labour’s approach that a lifetime on welfare is a legitimate lifestyle option for some who could—and I emphasise that it is those who could—take responsibility for themselves. Labour seems to think that they should be funded by low-income earners who are working long hours in challenging jobs to care for themselves and their families, and who need every hard-earned dollar they get. If this legislation was making life difficult for those who genuinely deserve welfare assistance it might be punitive, but it is not, and under this Government it will not be.
This legislation strikes a blow for fairness, for hope, and for a brighter future. We owe it to those workers, especially those on fixed and modest incomes, who have very little disposable income after they meet their accommodation and other essential living expenses, to ensure that we are not placing an extra burden on them by tolerating abuse of our country’s benefit system.
This is an important measure and we are now on the cusp of it becoming the law of New Zealand. It is aspirational. Labour members do not like that word, but it is aspirational and it is realistic. I look forward to it making a positive difference for many in our country, and I am sure that it will.
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) Link to this
I want to touch on what has come from that member. I was yelling out in my interjections that this legislation is nanny State, and that is what members on that side need to realise. They assume that people on benefits do not want to work. They assume the very worst of the people who are accessing benefits. The National Government assumes that if it does not legislate for work testing, and if it does not legislate with punitive measures, then those people will not get out there and work. That is nanny State, and those are the assumptions that members on that side of the House are making.
I will touch on two things, because I think I understand this issue a little more than does that member over there. I will refer to two things—two things that I remember, having been a single mother and having been on the domestic purposes benefit myself.
The first memory I will refer to, I tell Mr Borrows, when I went on that benefit was the stigma, even amongst my own friends, of being on the domestic purposes benefit. I remember at the time—because I was studying; I was a young brown mother who had got pregnant whilst at university—that I thought “I am going to access this now, because for the majority of my life I will be working and I will be paying very good taxes.” I knew that, at 20 years of age. Members on that side of the House assume that young mothers do not know that, and that they do not want to do that.
The other thing I remember very clearly is being a young mother and getting on a bus with a pram, with a baby, and with a bag, and watching the reactions of the people on that bus. They were looking at me as though I was the scum of the earth. That is the stigma that I am talking about, which the National Government is perpetuating in this legislation. Its members are making assumptions about beneficiaries. They talk about aspirations but they do not acknowledge that these people may actually have aspirations, without there being the need to legislate, with punitive measures, to try to get them out into the workforce—as if they do not want to work.
The other thing that those members do not acknowledge is that some people, especially some mothers, may be better off staying home and looking after their children, and that it must come down to their being able to have the choice. It is about putting measures into place to support single parents to go on to further study, if that is what they want to do, and to support them to go on to employment—and to good employment prospects—if that is what they want to do. But if they feel they need to be at home with their children, then the Government should be supporting them to do that rather than putting out messages to our society that say that all single parents should be out there working. Quite frankly, even though I always knew that I was going to work, and even though the vast majority of the single parents whom I know knew that they would go on to work, as well, for some it may not be the appropriate choice to make. But it comes down to them. It is quite interesting, because members on that side of the House are usually about individual responsibility and individual choice, but it is individual responsibility and individual choice for the people who are like them—like those members on that side of the House, but not like the people we are discussing tonight.
I will refer to a few examples from a Facebook group called Single Parents Fight Against Discrimination—It’s Not OK. Here are a few examples of women who have put their stories on that Facebook page. Let us start with a woman called Vanessa. She said: “Thank you so much for initiating this. I am an overwhelmed single mum, and whilst angry about the ludicrousness of this policy haven’t known what to do about it. I am actually on the DPB caring for an adult daughter with a rare disorder, and have now lost my ability to access the training incentive allowance. Even with the training incentive allowance it is stressful, and never ever enough. I am doing one paper at a time, as it’s all I can afford. The National Government’s policies seem to be so Draconian—trying to get us back to work, yet taking away the rug from under our feet.”
She is doing one paper a semester. Having worked at a university, I think back, say, to the average arts degree, which is about 24 papers over 3 years. If this person is doing an arts degree she can expect to finish that degree in 12 years, at the rate she is going, because she is not supported by our welfare system to take up full-time study as that side of the House cut the training incentive allowance. The legislation we are talking about here covers welfare reforms, but on the study front members on that side of the House are denying women like this one the opportunity to take the pathway into higher level tertiary study, because no longer will those women be able to get support from Work and Income New Zealand if they want to take up study at levels 1, 2, or 3. For many people, jumping into level 4 study would be quite a huge jump, particularly if they have no secondary school qualifications. But common sense does not prevail on that side of the House. Those members do not understand that they should be supporting people to take up study at all levels because of the necessary requirements in terms of staircasing through.
I will give members another example of someone who made a comment on this Facebook page. A woman called Hayley said: “Currently studying part-time towards my degree. If I had gone full-time I would have had less than $30 a week for food, cleaning products, and doctors’ bills left after childcare costs. We are not on an equal footing when it comes to higher education.” She is talking about sole parents. I remember very clearly last year when we were debating the cuts to the training incentive allowance, and we questioned the Minister for Social Development and Employment. She said that times had changed, and that if those women who are sole parents can get to university, they are on an equal footing with everybody else. Well, that is absolute rubbish. I have seen it from having provided support to students at university. Single parents have a lot more to contend with than do the vast majority of 18-year-old students. When they are trying to balance not only their study but a household by themselves, they need as much support as possible. They are not on an equal footing, and some equity consideration does need to be discussed and considered by that side of the House.
I will read one more example from this Facebook page, called Single Parents Fight Against Discrimination—It’s Not OK. A woman called Debbie said: “Thanks for starting this group, guys. I am a single working mum. I am really angry and upset about Mr Dunne’s proposed income-splitting bill, which would directly discriminate against working single mums like me, whilst giving more play money to the Remuera housewives to spend on tennis and getting their nails done, and to pay for their coffee, over which they could bad-mouth women on the DPB, oblivious to the poverty that many single mums suffer. We have to do something.” Those are real stories; those are the real people who are suffering at the hands of bad legislation—
Mr Garrett is saying “Yeah, real people on Facebook.” Well, there are a lot of real people on Facebook. A lot of them would be slightly fearful of coming out and telling their stories publicly, because of what they have witnessed, with the Minister for Social Development and Employment dragging those two women through the mud last year—or was it earlier this year—in respect of their stories.
I know that Mr Borrows is looking over here and thinking that we are acting as though members on that side of the House do not care, or do not have any compassion or heart. But when the Government puts through legislation like this, and when the stigma that already exists for the groups of people we are dealing with, and whom this legislation will affect, is perpetuated, then of course we will think that. Of course we will think: “Where is the compassion?”.
There is absolutely no reason to do this. It has annoyed me—to no end, actually—that when those unemployment rates came out 2 weeks ago, and the country got to see how badly this Government was doing, what did we see? We saw the Minister for Social Development and Employment and the Prime Minister get out there and talk up these welfare reforms, and talk them up even more so than they had ever done before. Members on that side of the House know why. It is about shifting the lens, and diverting attention on to beneficiaries so that Kiwis blame them rather than blame the Government for a job badly done. But the fact is that the Government has had no plan, and it has created no jobs, and this country is worse off than it was 22 months ago before this Government took office.
Labour members do not support this legislation. We support the very real people who are out there struggling. We do not support the beneficiary bashing that is going on. We do not support the lack of compassion that members on that side of the House are expressing to some very vulnerable New Zealanders who are struggling at the moment. Thank you very much.
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) Link to this
It is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to this legislation. I thank Carmel Sepuloni, the honourable member who has just resumed her seat, for her contribution, albeit scarce in intelligence, content, or substance. But I thank her for her ability to connect with real people on Facebook. I thank her for turning up to public meetings in Mount Wellington, which is in my electorate, while she claims to be a westie out in Waitakere. I thank her for her contribution, because if she thinks she will beat the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Hon Paula Bennett, in Waitakere, then she will have to get off Facebook, get out of other people’s electorates, and start doing some real work in her own electorate.
This legislation is about National delivering on its pre-election promise, and it is about reforming the welfare system. It is about us, as National members and as this Government, trusting New Zealanders. It is about trusting New Zealanders to go out and work. When I walk the streets of Onehunga and talk to those who are in need, when I speak to so-called real people, as does the previous speaker—who, by her own admission, said that she was annoyed, angry, and frustrated—I hear them saying that they want to work. They do; they want to work. They want to get out there and deliver on the aspiration that our leadership has provided.
National members are committed to having a system that supports people when they need it most. There is no doubt that there are people who need welfare assistance. We are here to support them, we are here to encourage them, and we are here to ensure that if they would like to go out and get those job opportunities, they are provided for. You see, people who receive a benefit do so because others are out there are working, every day, earning wages and paying taxes. We believe that paid employment, provided not just by the public sector but also the private sector, which is important, will always offer better choices. It will always offer better choices than welfare dependency. Although we believe that welfare is important, we do not believe, unlike members opposite, that welfare is the only way for those with children.
This legislation is about action, and this Government has provided plenty of action in terms of the legislation that we need to go forward in this country. We do not refer to beneficiaries as “these people”. The previous speaker was talking about “these people” doing this, and “these people” doing that. No—they are people; they are beneficiaries. They are not clients; they are not “these people”. We do not want everyone to depend on the State. Like my colleagues, I commend this legislation to the House, and it is certainly a pleasure to put this legislation through.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Amendment Bill, the Education Amendment Bill (No 3), the Taxation (Definitions of Dependent Child) Bill, the Social Security (New Work Tests, Incentives, and Obligations) Amendment Bill, and the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time.
Ayes 65
Noes 55
- New Zealand Labour 42
- Green Party 9
- Maori Party 3 (Flavell, Harawira, Katene)
- Progressive 1
Bills read a third time.