It is of course a tried and tested refrain from politicians – right up there with "the only poll that matters is on election day" – to provide wiggling room away from ambitious and potentially costly policy ideas.

And yet, despite this, during his debut appearance as Social Services Minister at the press club, Morrison was more than happy to warble the praises of a central part of Patrick McClure's recommendations – the move to an "investment approach" for welfare.

The idea is inspired by New Zealand, which, after its own major review in 2011, adopted the model for the long-term management of its welfare system. Using actuarial modelling (as insurance companies and the National Disability Insurance Scheme do), it identifies groups at high risk of ending up on long-term welfare – such as teenage parents, young unemployed people, single mothers – via demographic and geographic data .

Programs targeted at these groups are then devised – and monitored toestablish what works. A key element of all of this is a "flexible funding pool", that allows bureaucrats to stop programs that don't work and reinvest funds elsewhere. The whole point is to stop vulnerable groups from spending their whole lives on welfare and save lots of money in the longer term

Morrison spent a significant chunk of his speech explaining the New Zealand model, noting that when it came to fixing youth unemployment in Australia, "we are going to have to take I think, a very novel approach".

"The New Zealand investment system has shown that intervening and investing early … helps prevent debilitating cycles of intergeneration welfare dependence. And they're getting results," he said, adding that billions are already being saved.

The McClure review, quoting the New Zealand Ministry of Social Development's own figures, states the "current liability" (lifetime cost of income support for existing clients) of its welfare system, fell from $NZ86.8 billion as of June 2012 to $76.5 billion a year later – which was $7.4 billion less than expected.

"The key reason is that more people are getting into work and staying in work," Morrison triumphantly declared.

As the review also reports, there was also a 5 per cent reduction in the number of job seekers and single parents receiving income support.

Morrison stopped short of saying the government would actually adopt a similar approach, but he has told reporters the Coalition is looking at it closely. His positivity around the model also follows that of his predecessor, Kevin Andrews, who was particularly enthusiastic about what the New Zealand cousins were doing.

Who wouldn't like a model that gets people into jobs – a Coalition buzz phrase – and saves money at a time when the budget needs fixing?

Indeed Morrison also spent a large proportion of his speech talking about how much money welfare costs. It currently takes up one third of the federal budget and is far and away the fastest growing area of government spending. Welfare spending is projected to grow by $11.7 billion over the four years from 2014-15, while health comes second with $2.6 billion. Defence trails with a measly $1.5 billion.

On top of this, Australia does have anunemployment problem – the overall rate is at a 13-year high of 6.4 per cent, while an analysis of Bureau of Statistics data by Fairfax Media shows the number of people out of work for more than a year rose to 175,200 people in January, an increase of more than 150 per cent since mid-2008.

At the press club, Morrison was quick to point out that he had no "magic solution" to the problem of youth unemployment – or indeed to any of the other target groups that he was hoping to get back into work, namely, young mothers and older people.

But the investment model shimmers like an almighty oasis in the desert of government debt and spending. As ANU Crawford Public Policy School professor Peter Whiteford, says, "it makes a lot of sense that if you do something at the right time, it can have a big impact".

However, it is not necessarily the answer to the sector's prayers. For starters, Whiteford cautions that New Zealand's glittery figures are not as promising as they seem. The forecasts about how much New Zealand's welfare is likely to cost, are very "long-range forecasts", the expert in social policy and welfare said.

About $3 billion of their reported savings from 2012 to 2013 were due to changes in assumptions around the unemployment, inflation and discount rate. Another $1.8 billion was due to people coming off welfare – who had been targeted by stricter policy measures, while forecasting changes accounted for a further $2.6 billion.

Whiteford explained that the flexible funding that is supposed to be so significant when it comes to the investment model had yet to be implemented when the first year of savings where recorded – in other words, before the approach was fully off the ground.

"I think there are some important questions to think through before thinking it's going to have a big impact on the cost of the system."

University of Auckland human services school associate professor Michael O'Brien has an even harsher assessment of the New Zealand numbers: "They are at best dubious, and at worst, have no solid base to them".

O'Brien, who chaired an alternative welfare review to the one NZ completed in 2011, is also critical of promising figures about moving people into jobs, describing it as a "head counting" exercise.

"I've been told ... anecdotally that there is a significant amount of churn [people coming in and out of work and on and off benefits]."

He added that it was difficult to attribute the figures to the investment model, given a more punitive policy approach that was introduced at the same time. These include requiring people to reapply for unemployment benefits every 52 weeks and part-time work obligations on single parents with a youngest child over five.

"The poverty numbers, those remain pretty solid," he said, adding that the pressures on community agencies for financial support have grown.

The Australian Council of Social Service also warned that its counterparts over the Tasman were concerned and sceptical about the investment approach.

"We've seen no specifics about this. We need more information," chief executive Cassandra Goldie said, stressing that there has been no independent evaluation of the New Zealand model.

But a source close to the government told Fairfax Media that the McClure review had not recommended a carbon copy of New Zealand's approach, acknowledging that the countries were too different for that anyway.

The New Zealand model simply provides innovative and exciting idea that would need to be adapted to Australia's conditions, they contend. For really vulnerable Australians, it could mean the difference between a short time on welfare or the rest of their lives.

It would not be a straightforward or as quick as "stopping the boats", but could be a much longer lasting legacy.