Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I’ll seek your guidance on whether I’m actually addressing this in the right part. Anyway, just in clause 4—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): As long as you’re on clause 4, you’re fine.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: OK, all good. Thank you. In clause 4, on “After section 20(c)insert: (ca) meets the parental income requirement” I just wanted to focus on the “parental income requirement” to begin with. Would the Minister for Social Development and Employment be able to outline what she intends to have the parental income requirements set at when the bill gets passed, and the rationale for it all. I’m interested in the amount she intends for that to be set at and why that amount has been set.

The other question I have in relationship to the parental income requirement is: why did she choose to have it as a combined parental income? For example, say that, theoretically, hypothetically, it was $70k, why would she not make it $70k individually—so $140k combined? If you set the parental income combined to just $70k, that means, for example, that somebody would not have their benefit if their parents earned $35k each. That feels like an extremely low amount to set the parental income test. I don’t know many families that would be actually able to cover both their needs and on top of that adequately support an 18-year-old on a combined income of $70k for, say, three people—maybe four people if the fourth person in that house was an underage person. I’m really keen to understand the rationale behind it and what amount she hopes that to be.

I am also keen to understand—and I may have some more questions on this depending on the answer—whether that income threshold requirement will be adjusted to reflect median-wage changes or Consumers Price Index changes, and whether that is her intention to adjust that threshold accordingly. While clause 4 may just be one sentence, I think the substance of it is really meaningful, because, at the end of the day, it’s the message that this clause sends to everyday working parents as to whether they’re in a position to adequately support their children. As we have heard from the members on the other side of the Chamber, even when the issue around cancer patients has been raised or people with ill mental health, with psychological and psychiatric conditions, the members on the opposite side have talked about how those are the responsibility of the parents, even if they’re full adults. That’s why I’m asking about the rationale for the amount and whether it’s going to be adjusted. I’ll have some more comments on clause 5 after that. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The member Ricardo Menéndez March asks questions around the parental assistance test. There are two components, and for a young person they could either have one or both of the following components. The parental support gap test—we recognise that there will be some 18- and 19-year-olds who, for a variety of reasons, have a disconnected relationship with their parents. So there is a parental support gap test.

Then he was also asking specifically about the parental income test. That is looking at the combined gross parental income of the young person’s applicable parents. The income limit is currently $67,225. That’s been aligned to the gross income cut-out point for a couple with dependent children receiving the supported living payment. It’s one of the highest benefit cut-out points in the Social Security system, and that’s why that’s been chosen, to allow young people from low-income families to access relevant benefits.

In terms of the member’s question around whether it will be adjusted annually, it will be adjusted as part of the annual general adjustment.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. I agree that clause 4 is important, because it sets up the system; although it’s a short line, it actually stands for a lot. I want to ask some questions about the culpability of parents for this responsibility. We have here, a group of people who are 18 and 19, and they are, traditionally, adults in our society; they stand on their own two feet. I’d like the Minister for Social Development and Employment to tell us why it is that we have drawn a line here, when, in fact, this is the time when people vote; it’s the time when they can take a whole lot of actions and they are actually recognised, traditionally, as independent in that way. Yet, they’re not going to be in this circumstance.

I’d also like to know about the decision made to set a parental income test, which is not dependent on the reality of the life of that family. For a minute, let’s assume that we have decided that we’re going to have the parents responsible; there’s a really big difference between families in terms of how far an income goes. If, for example, the family has lots of children, that’s going to mean that an income doesn’t go as far. There are other expenses. How has the Minister taken those other expenses into account when setting this test, which seems to be just set straight on a threshold of income and doesn’t seem to take into account how far the income will go given the liabilities of that family? Obviously, that’s true with regard to things like mortgages, because mortgages and rent are something that makes a big difference.

If you’re lucky enough to live in your grandma’s home and, in fact, you’ve got minor expenses, which happens in some families were there is property, it’s a very different situation from a situation where you’re mortgaged up to the hilt and, in fact, you’ve managed to keep it together and your kids have been at the same school because you have taken on that kind of debt—you’ve managed to do the right thing by your kids, but you’ve got very, very little discretionary income. I was wondering about that decision and what the story was in terms of making any kind of allowance for a discretion in that situation where it’s causing issues. And obviously that relates to something that others have raised around the potential of issues like disability being involved. What happens when you’ve got expenses that are just out of the ordinary, in that way? Is there something that brings some humanity to this picture?

I was also interested, in terms of evidence, about the amount chosen. My understanding is the amount chosen is $67,225. What’s the basis for this figure? Why that figure? Why not $70,000? Why not $75,000? Why not $49,000? What’s going on there that picks this number above all others? And what is the Minister doing when she decides on that figure? Is she saying that that really is sufficient in any circumstance? I’ve given an example there of a family with lots of children, or a family with a child with a disability, or a parent with a disability, or a parent with an illness. Where is the humanity in that system built into it? Is it built into it? And did she consider building it into it?

I definitely agree that we got submissions that were very considered, and they were very strong in their opposition to this bill. Did she read those submissions and take them into account, in terms of these issues? They seem to me to be, actually, practical issues, and they will cause practical harm if we don’t have something that reflects that kind of concern, which I just see as utterly practical.

I appreciate my time is up so I might just hope for those answers, and then I’ll come back on some more questions.

Committee of the whole House

I have explained the reason behind the setting of the parental income test and the dollar threshold, so I won’t go over that again. The member asks about why the ages of 18 to 19 years old and why didn’t we go up to 25, which is what the settings are in other countries.

One of the concerns, obviously, in terms of why we’ve brought this bill to Parliament is the number of future years that a young person in New Zealand will stay on welfare, if they go on under the age of 20 or under the age of 25. We have an expectation that young people are in education, employment, or training. That’s the intent behind this. For us, there’s lots of different parts of New Zealand legislation that go up to 25—are 18, are 20, are 21—but we felt 18 and 19 years old was a fair and reasonable age for parents to be responsible for their children. But, look, we want them to be in employment, education, or training, and that’s the clear, simple answer for that.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I have one more call on clause 4 before I move on to clause 5, which I’ll have quite a few questions on, so I’m just flagging that. I’m mindful other members may still want to have calls on clause 4.

First of all, I’m interested in the debating point that the Minister just opened up, around the intent of the consecutive years that people spend on a benefit as a rationale for the settings from the parental income test. Would the Minister be able to confirm whether those years are—how many there are? I know that she’s talked about quite a large amount, and it’s not clear to me whether they’re 20 years, for example, in one go, or whether they’re throughout a lifetime. I’m also interested in knowing whether the figure that she refers to has any sort of additional criteria that, for example, hinges on those young people having experience in State care, poverty, ill-health, because I understand there may be some Ministry of Social Development research that shows that to be the case. Since she opened up that debating point on the consecutive years as a justification for clause 4, I’m interested in knowing the rationale behind the study that she is referring to when it comes to that consecutive year talking point to justify these provisions. Like I said, I’m particularly interested in whether they’re actually consecutive or throughout a lifetime, and the sample or modelling that was done from that argument to create these clauses.

Another point that I want to address in relationship to the response she gave us: she talked about—and she is right, and I appreciate the engagement on my first question—where the parental income test threshold came from. I heard it was the supported living payment (SLP) threshold. Can I ask whether that threshold—the supported living payment threshold—is sufficient to live well on. We know, and we’ve heard from disabled people and people on the supported living payment, that $67,000-odd is actually still a pretty small amount. The thing is, when you take into account the fact that this is taken as combined income between two parents, that’s still quite low. I’m interested in knowing whether she actually deems the supported living payment threshold to be enough for families to live well on.

I want to know why she didn’t explore—or did she explore?—other thresholds that could be said to, perhaps, better reflect the cost of living that we experience in this country. For example, the supported living payment threshold, as far as I’m aware, is not set through calculating a basket of goods or the average median rent payments, or other costs in this country and other sorts of expenses. As far as I’m aware, other forms of calculation are probably used to get to that point, so it’s just not clear to me whether that supported living payment threshold was just an arbitrary number that was chosen, or the rationale behind it.

The parents of these adults are not people with long-term health conditions or disabilities; they’re often people who may be in work. Their conditions are, actually, completely unrelated to the criteria for the supported living payment, so I don’t understand why a benefit payment that is so unrelated to, say, for example, working parents, is being used as a data point or as a parallel point of a dollar figure to actually use for the calculation of this parental income requirement. That, to me, just points to a concern around the lack of evidential basis as to setting this threshold in line with the SLP.

If she would be able to tell the committee whether other types of threshold were considered, and what were they, and whether the supported living payment threshold actually is enough to adequately make ends meet, and what evidential basis she has to justify this—without this, it just kind of feels like the Government went “Eeny, meeny, miny, moe” and then chose the SLP threshold without any actual proper justification for it. I’d be keen to know whether she thinks all these parents have a similar criteria or circumstances as people who are on the SLP, who may be, for example, trying to enter into employment or otherwise.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a question I want to ask which relates to the issue of the decision made to couple an adult child with a parent. It’s a question that I would really love an answer to. I would like an answer to that too—that initial question—but my question is: in this situation, the parent is being required to give information across about their financial status and their private financial information. How does that reconcile with the fact they’re being required to do it for a person who is of independent status in the eyes of the law?

I hope that you understand my question, but it seems to me a strange thing. It would be as if the Minister was applying for a benefit and, as a result, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) could actually ask me for my personal information. I appreciate that the relationship is slightly stronger, but it actually, at law, isn’t. There’s a separation of people, at that level. What advice did the Minister for Social Development and Employment get on, basically, an insistence on information from a third party—being, in this case, a parent—for that information? It becomes a lot more complicated when you think about estranged families as well where you do have another party, often a father, but there could be anybody who may be relevant to that conversation and to that information as far as MSD is concerned, given that their income is relevant here.

I’ve asked a related question in other cases where the Government’s been restricting access because I get concerned, particularly about agreements out there between parents based on income. They usually come to an end when the child is a certain age and it’s very unusual for them to go on indefinitely, and they’re private contractual agreements, albeit often with the sanction of a court. What happens in those circumstances where the other parent has no liability at law because that decision has been made, absolutely, in good faith at a certain time? What happens, then, to that question of requiring information and liability? Because that parent has often taken a stand that the child is no longer eligible for any kind of support after that age. While that might not be what we’d all want to happen, it is what actually happens. I would be very keen to know what the Minister has to say to that.

I’d also like the Minister to answer the question about that level of payment when we talked about the $67,000. I still haven’t heard an answer to that, and it actually is an answer I need to be able to find out so I can ask other questions, so I’d ask for some priority in answering about that level. It relates to what my friend Ricardo Menéndez March has asked about what kind of testing was done on the viability of that amount. I do note that the figures that are used are all gross figures. It seems that there’s a disconnection from the reality of what a family has in their hand, because at $67,225 gross, that’s not exactly what they’ll have in their hand at all. It relates to my question about expenses, but why was the amount that was decided upon a gross amount rather than an actual amount given that’s the reality of what that family are living off?

I’ve got a big question that I want to ask, and I’m not sure I have time to ask it in this round, and perhaps I can just start it. That question is about the divorcing of these kids who are coming in and not being able to get a benefit from other services that MSD provide. I could continue with that with the leave of the—nope? I’ll just wait and ask it in the second round.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): No, you can keep going.

HELEN WHITE: I can? Thank you. I’ll just take this call. My concern here is quite a big one. You’ve got a group of kids that we know are our most vulnerable kids. They have come out of school, and we know they are our most vulnerable because, as the Minister says, they’re the ones who are most likely to end up staying on the benefit system if we don’t get it right. We used to actually have a front door for them, which was MSD, and it was related to them going in and saying, “Look, I can’t find a job.” At that point, all sorts of things should kick in.

Now, we haven’t done a great job over the last few decades of that. We’ve tried and it’s improved at times, and I’m glad to say that it improved under the last Labour Government, but that’s when we need to look after them. That’s when we can pour in the energy and we can connect them to work. What I don’t understand here is that the focus of this is to cut off that doorway, and it doesn’t seem to address it separately. It isn’t a bill that says, “We are going to say that you can’t have a benefit, but here’s the help we are going to give you. We are going to make sure that we wrap around you in this way.”

What is going on here? One of the things that’s going on is actually really, really hard to fix. It’s that there are no jobs for that group of people. But, actually, it’s also the time when we can wrap around, and yet what we are saying to them is go and find yourself a course and pay for it and have a student loan, and even though you’re not ready, or you might not be appropriately in that space, that seems to be what we’re saying to them: you’re on your own and your family will sort it out in that time frame. Isn’t that the critical time for the design of the legislation to be that those people get that assistance in finding an appropriate solution to unemployment at a time when they’re extremely vulnerable to that becoming something that keeps going? Because that’s what I heard the Minister tell me repeatedly, that she was connecting unemployment at this stage with a kind of “many years of unemployment” situation, as if it was a bad habit. But isn’t it much more likely that it was the result of our failure to deal appropriately with that group at that time? Isn’t that what the Ministry of Social Development is all about? Isn’t that one of Government’s roles—to make sure we’re connecting people?

It is about why we have focused, in this legislation, in these first paragraphs, on denying the benefit to this group in a kind of cut-throat way and not being focused on what we’re going to do with this group of people. We do know, because it said in the regulatory impact statement repeatedly, that (a) their unemployment is a result of the economic conditions, but (b) that that was their preferred option. They say it really clearly. They say they don’t like what the Minister’s done here. They say that what they think would work is a whole lot of wraparound at that stage. I’d like the Minister to answer it in terms of the context of these early focus paragraphs on cutting off support, and she can tell me what provisions she’s made to make sure that there is still an open door at MSD. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Mr Chair, there are quite a few questions in there, some of which we’ve covered. In terms of 18- or 19-year-olds, the forecast social outcomes modelling that’s been done over many, many years looks at the average future years someone will spend on the benefit. It is not consecutive. It might be someone moving on and off. If they go on to the benefit under the age of 20, their future average years is 21. The member referred to some factors. If people have some of those factors, it’s likely to be longer than the 21 years. A similar system is the student allowance scheme, which we’ve had in New Zealand for a very long time. That is actually under 25, where there is reliance on family for support and the family income test, so there’s nothing new about asking for parents’ income information. That’s been well deployed for decades in the student allowance system, so no dramas there in terms of asking parents for their information.

As I said before, the level has been set because we recognise that in terms of satisfying a parental income test, we wanted to ensure that households with low incomes weren’t required to provide that financial support for their 18- and 19-year-olds. The low-income families—that was determined at the most generous rate of the social security system. That’s why that level has been set.

In terms of whether or not 18- and 19-year-olds can access Ministry of Social Development (MSD) support, of course they can. There is a wide range of support that the team at MSD provide each and every day for someone who walks in the door. They might not be eligible for a benefit, but there are jobs available. There’s job matching, work-readiness resources, training information, driver-licensing support, and online learning opportunities, and there may well be the ability to enrol a young person—depending on their circumstances—in an employment programme, but also MSD has got access to a wide range of training providers.

As I’ve said at the start, this is about ensuring that young people are in employment, education, or training. We accept that for some young people, it might be challenging to find employment now, and so a better option for them right now might be training or education.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Before I take the next contribution, just note that contributions have been contextual and high level, but it would assist the committee and the Minister, I suspect, in addressing questions, if those contributions could be focused to the specific clauses. That would assist the Minister to be able to address that more specifically, and it would help us to move through the bill.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’m moving on to clause 5. First of all, this is inserting new sections after section 23 of the Social Security Act. I’m interested in—sorry, the Minister is talking. I’ll just wait so that she can—OK, cool. I’ve got the attention of the Minister—great.

Clause 5, “Jobseeker support: parental income requirement: when specified young person is subject to it”, basically, is the one where I’ll be asking some more questions on the settings around it. First of all, one debating point that the Minister for Social Development and Employment opened up was the argument around the fact that households with low incomes are being excluded, and the most generous rate in the welfare system is treated as the threshold to delineate who is a low-income household and who is not a low-income household. Can I ask the Minister, to begin with: is a family earning $68,000 not a low-income household? It seems like she chose a line, and I’m asking whether a family on $68k is not deemed to be a low-income household, because that just, personally, kind of feels a little out of touch, but I’d love to hear the Minister’s rationale for it.

I’d like to now focus my attention on my tabled amendment that was tabled at 15.20.00 today. This amends clause 5 by adding new section 23A(2)(d), at page 4, after line 35, to make it clear that, basically, we would want to make sure that somebody with a health condition, an injury, or a disability is able to get their benefit, despite these tests. The reason for this is that I’m interested to know if the Minister would support it. We know from the select committee work that there are about almost 2,700 young people between the ages of 18 and 19 who are on jobseeker—health condition, injury, or disability. By definition, these are people who would have been deemed to not be able to work full time and, therefore, they have been exempt from some of the requirements in the jobseeker system.

I just do not seem to understand why, when I look at the Social Services and Community Committee’s report and evidence—and we know that in that list we have cancer patients, people with skin disorders, congenital disorders. The vast majority of people in that list include people with psychological or psychiatric conditions, and my amendment to clause 5 would seek to exclude those very same groups because, basically, if the Minister doesn’t take my amendment, what clause 5 does, effectively, is include thousands of young people with health conditions that could be quite severe. That, to me, is really concerning because, particularly, the language around new section 23A and in clause 5 more broadly doesn’t differentiate between just jobseeker beneficiaries and jobseekers on the grounds in terms of their having a health condition, an injury, or a disability. Without sort of demarcating a line in how the bill is written to directly exclude that group, the Minister is acknowledging that those people—who may be facing quite serious health conditions—may still have to be forced, as adults, to depend on their parents’ incomes.

It takes me back to my previous question. Say that you’re one of the cancer patients included in this list and you’re in a household with a combined income of $70k: does the Minister think that that is an adequate level of support a household will provide to a cancer patient; if not, why not? If she does not think it is adequate, would she be willing to accept my amendment to clause 5 to exclude people who are on job seeker, but on the grounds of their having a health condition, an injury, or a disability, from having to be subjected to the parental income requirement, from being the sort of “specified young person” being subjected to it, as is written in clause 5?

The Minister will know that this is an area that I particularly care about, and it is one that I just feel does not adequately meet the intent of the bill, because I’ve been told that she wants people to be in study or training. But tell me that a cancer patient or somebody with ill mental health—you know, the Minister may not know whether it’s severe or moderate or not, but based on the statistics—

Stuart Smith: What clause?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: That is clause 5, around the types of benefits. I recommend that the member on the other side reads and understands the welfare system if he wants to challenge how it is relevant.

I’m interested in getting the Minister’s support for my amendment, and I’ve got more contributions on clause 5.

Committee of the whole House

I think it’s really important just to put on the record that any 18-or 19-year-old that is permanently or severely restricted in their capacity to work would be eligible for a supported living payment. I think it is important to make that distinction between those who are on the jobseeker benefit. What is also, I think, useful to note is that a third of those who are currently on jobseeker—health condition, injury, or disability—are already working, actively seeking work, or wanting more hours. We’re clear about the focus and the intent of this bill being about the long-term and future outcomes for young New Zealanders, and the closer they remain to the labour market and/or they’re participating in training, even if for a small amount of time, we know that that does improve their future outcomes, and that’s what we’re focused on. So we won’t be supporting the member Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you so much, Mr Chair. In focusing on who the Minister deems to be a “specified young person”, I’m kind of looking at also, for example, the language around new section 23A(2) and just more broadly about how we deem these people. Can I confirm with the Minister whether she deems that 70 percent of people who are on jobseeker—health condition, injury, or disability—are not worthy of receiving support just because they’re not in employment? Just based on her previous answer, it just kind of feels like including them on the “specified young person” list in clause 5 is a little bit odd. She talked about how 30 percent of those who receive that benefit are actively seeking work or are in employment, but that means that 70 percent of them are not. They would still be categorised as a “specified young person” for the purposes of the parental income requirement in new section 23A, and so I just wanted to test that with the Minister.

Additionally, in regard to the definition of a specified young person who is subjected to the parental income requirement in clause 5, I’m interested in knowing whether she genuinely believes that—you know, she talked in the previous answer about there being better improved outcomes and proximity to the labour market. But if the support that a specified young person would be receiving right now is due to their health condition and, therefore, it is intended for that health condition to improve, how exactly does stripping a young person of their support while they’re facing an injury actually get them closer to the labour market, as she has just claimed in her answers? Those two things just do not seem to be actually consistent with the evidence that we know around health outcomes. The inquiry into mental health, for example, found that there’s a close link between incomes and mental health outcomes.

I know that the National Party whip, during my previous contribution, tried to challenge the relationship with the clause, but these are the people who are the specified young persons in clause 5—like I’m putting a face to who this clause refers to, and so we can’t actually decouple the “specified young person” as an abstract concept when we know that it includes thousands of people who are injured, sick, or disabled. The rationale that the Minister just gave me for including them in the “specified young person” definition just seems to not really add up in terms of what we know. I just wonder whether she consulted, in the definition of a specified young person in clause 5, with any health experts that told her that, actually, cutting income support leads to better health outcomes.

Lastly, in this contribution on clause 5, I wanted to ask whether the Minister is genuinely confident that anyone who actually should be on the supported living payment (SLP) is currently so, because I think she’ll know, and I think any constituency MP will know, that a lot of people on jobseeker - health condition, injury or disability face huge barriers to enter into the supported living payment. She knows quite well that the Ministry of Social Development can review those doctors’ letters and challenge the doctor who may want to push someone on to the SLP.

She’s giving us this guarantee, “Don’t worry. If you’ve got a serious health condition, you’ll be on SLP.”, but can she guarantee to me that no specified young person, as defined in clause 5, will include anyone who is trying to get on the SLP and has been unable to? Does she recognise that, because of the time it takes for a GP to get your documentation ready to meet the criteria of the SLP, there will be some people who are trying to get on to the SLP who are currently on jobseeker and are deemed specified young persons under the definitions of this bill who will be missing out on income, despite having serious health issues?

I just cannot see how the Minister could genuinely guarantee to me that no one with a serious health condition will be deemed a specified young person for the purposes of this bill.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. This is my first call on this bill, so I do want to just check a couple of things with the Minister for Social Development and Employment. Noting what you have stated previously, Mr Chair, I just want to ask a couple of very quick questions. The first one is: looking at the regulatory impact statement, page 3, can the Minister just very succinctly let the committee know why the option that the Minister has preferred is different from the option that is in the regulatory impact statement? That just helps, I guess, the committee to set some of the scene.

I want to pick up on what the Minister said before in terms of when it comes to parental income requirements already being available in the student allowance, and I think the specific term that Minister has mentioned is that there are “no dramas there”. I wondered, in that particular instance, when we’re looking at existing parental income requirements that already exist in the student allowance, has the Minister actually consulted with the peak bodies for students, who do potentially have experience around the student allowance—such as various university student associations, like Otago University Students’ Association, Auckland University Students’ Association, and Victoria University of Wellington Students’ Association—just to check on whether there actually are any dramas with the current parental income threshold when it comes to the student allowance, to be able to know some of the policy issues that we are looking at here when we are introducing new parental income requirements under clause 5?

Moving on to clause 5, I want to start with new section 23A(1), and I want to specifically focus on paragraphs (a) and (b), because (a) and (b) are worded in a way that looks at “applied or reapplied” and “granted or regranted”. I think this is an interesting point to mention, because what this does is it’s not simply targeting people who are applying for jobseeker support, with a range of various jobseeker support that is affected—my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March has already mentioned some of them that, potentially, would be challenging. But, in this case, can I just check that will also capture people who would be then reapplying for jobseeker support as well, and whether there is any work that is being done or any modelling that is being done on how those who are reapplying, who are now going to be captured under this new system, will be affected by this new system if the support isn’t there between when they applied and were maybe successfully granted the jobseeker support versus what is currently now stated under this new legislation?

Now, my colleague’s amendment—this is my final question, Mr Chair, for this particular call—is around the fact that, as it stands, those with health conditions, disability, or illnesses are being captured in this, but what I’m not seeing in the regulatory impact statement is how this upholds our requirements under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Has the Minister received any formal advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) on this particular bill’s alignment with our international obligations?

Again, we see that there are certain obligations that we have in terms of our international obligations but also in terms of things, as we see in some of the other bills that have been introduced, with our international trade agreements as well. I do want to check with the Minister because of specific requirements that we have, for example, in the NZ-EU free-trade agreement (FTA). In the context of this particular bill and the fact that disabled people are going to be captured as a part of this, has there been any advice taken from MFAT on how this would also impact our current FTAs or trade agreements?

Committee of the whole House

The member asks about “grants or regrants”. When the bill comes into effect, the parental income test and parental support gap will be applied across the board.

The comment around the student allowance referred to a previous member’s question around whether it was suitable to be able to ask about a parent’s income. I was simply saying there is already a way in which that is done with student allowances.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. I just want to ask questions that are concerning my portfolio, which is the prevention of sexual and family violence. I’m concerned, in terms of this clause, with the provisions that go from new section 23G right through—they’re all under this clause. They go on and they say that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has capacity to decide who the parent is, who is liable, etc. There are a group of different people who might be liable in various circumstances, and then it’s MSD that makes that determination.

My concern is that, when it comes to disclosing sexual abuse and physical abuse in families, that’s something that people don’t necessarily do. It isn’t the reality of the situation. I’d like the Minister for Social Development and Employment to answer in terms of what safety measures have been put into place which mean that somebody who is an 18- or 19-year-old coming into the office and being subjected to that kind of assessment as to which parents are liable—what kind of measures are there to make sure that young people who will not necessarily disclose those things are dealt with appropriately before the responsibility for them is assigned to one of the groups under these sections?

Then I’ve got a question about clause 6. I can see there that clause 6 is about emergency benefits and it’s about the discretionary grant that is usually available upon proof of hardship. Now, I appreciate that this is an attempt to line things up, but it says in this section that the young person who would be ineligible, as far as I can understand it, under this particular change, for jobseeker support, will also not meet this criteria. I just wanted to know what sort of grants we are talking about and what sort of circumstances of hardship we are talking about. They’re not just locked out of jobseeker support; they’re locked out of those discretionary grants. I am really keen on discretion in these systems, because it mops up some very real situations people find themselves in. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

The parental support gap is designed to cover situations where there might be a young person who’s had a family breakdown or relationship breakdown or where there is family harm involved and risk. That’s exactly why there is a parental support gap test in the legislation as a safeguard.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I’m on page 5, on new section 23C, inserted by clause 5. One of the areas that I wanted to cover was the language that says—around lines 30 and 35—“(regardless of whether A has a spouse or partner who is subject to, and meets, the parental income requirement)”. This is the dynamic in relation to how the relationship rules in the welfare system are applied to a specified young person, so I just want to get the Minister’s clarification as to whether it is her intention that, say, if you’ve got A applicant—for example, an 18-year-old, an adult, who lives in a combined income household of $70K, and they have a partner who is also unemployed, which probably statistically is not insignificant, considering the youth unemployment rate. Under new section 23C, my interpretation of it would be that if that other partner, say, comes from not just a low-income family but a very, very, very low-income family—say, a combined household income of $45K—that A still wouldn’t be able to get a benefit. This means that an adult couple—say an 18-year-old who may have a relationship with their parents but live outside of the house; and, say, this person is someone who is battling a skin condition or a congenital disorder or has cancer or has depression—would still be having to rely on a single income when it comes to the rate that they receive. It beggars belief to me why a person with a psychological or psychiatric condition would be put in that situation.

Then the question I had was at what rate would the partner or spouse of A, under new section 23C, be receiving? Would that partner receive half the couple rate, or would they be entitled to a single person’s rate since the partner wouldn’t really be eligible for a benefit altogether? If they’re eligible for either half the couple’s rate, the partner of A, that’s a lower amount than a single rate. Half a couple’s rate is less than a single amount. I’m really interested because new section 23C, and some other subsequent lines, specifically talk about A in relation to the partners, and I would like the Minister to put on the record as to whether it is the intention that the partner of A would have to survive, if they are on income support, on half the couple’s rate or whether they would at least receive the single’s rate if their partner A is not eligible for a benefit.

Subsequent to that, the way that new section 23C is worded would lead me to believe that you could then end up having circumstances in which people would be having to not disclose who their partner is to Work and Income in order for, potentially, the partner of A to receive the full rate—if it is the case that the way that new section 23C is worded means that the spouse or partner—and, again, I’m referring to lines 30 to 35—would only receive half the couple’s rate. I hope the Minister is following what I’m intending to sort of probe here, because—and I say this from experience at the front lines—if you force a couple to live on half a couple’s rate, they will be more prone to try and not disclose that relationship to Work and Income. It’s not just hypothetical; it’s just what happens in reality. This is not a decision that is taken lightly by those young people. Often it is a means of survival, particularly since the parental income threshold has been set at such a low income.

So I would like clarification on whether the partner of A who does not meet the parental income requirement would receive the single or half the couple’s rate. I’m also interested to get the reflection of the Minister as to whether the way that lines 30 to 35 are worded under new section 23C would lead to, potentially, more people not disclosing their relationship status to Work and Income.

Committee of the whole House

This has been through a select committee process, and I accept there are parties in the Chamber who don’t agree with the fact that it’s the policy intent of the bill for 18- and 19-year-olds to be in employment, education, or training and that there is a parental income test. I’ve explained why it’s been set at the level it is. For those parents above that, the expectation is that parents support their children. I think we could have that conversation for hours. We’re not going to get over the difference in opinion. Obviously, when anyone falsely provides information to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), MSD takes that seriously—as they should. Fraud in the MSD system is—

Hon Member: Against the law.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —against the law, and I wouldn’t hope that anyone in this Chamber is encouraging that.

Joseph Mooney: Mr Chair.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m hoping that the Government members are taking a call because, as members of the legislature, it is our role to hold the Government accountable. Simply what we’re doing here at committee stage is holding the Minister and the Government accountable for the bills that are being put through this committee. I would challenge the Minister by saying it is not a matter of difference in opinion; it is whether what we’re looking at here addresses the issue that we’re seeing, and in good faith, whether the Minister and the Government are doing their best to benefit the people of Aotearoa New Zealand.

On that, I just want to check with the Minister. One of my questions is still outstanding, which is around whether the Minister has sought any advice on alignment with our international obligations or advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Further to that, I want to ask if the Minister has received any advice herself from Whaikaha on that particular issue. Also, I want to have clarified my question around student allowance and whether there was any consultation, not with the parental income requirement as it exists currently when it comes to student allowance.

Now, moving on to new sections 23B and 23C, my question here is: what is the Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD’s) process when we’re looking at determining whether the parental income requirement has been met or not? Now, in the regulatory impact statement, page 3, it does state that that will be cost to MSD for implementing and administering the parental assistance test (PAT). “While funding for these costs were provided through Budget 2025, there may be some additional costs due to changes to the policy since May 2025.”

Noting that in the Budget urgency this year, we had the Social Security (Modernisation) Amendment Bill, which allows for the use of AI, can I check with the Minister whether AI would be used with automated decisions? I’m seeing the shaking of the head from the Minister. I’m assuming that it is not going to be the case, and I’m going to take the Minister’s word that that means that AI will not be used in any way, shape, or form when looking at parental income requirement for jobseeker support for 18- and 19-year-olds. I just want to see that clarification.

Now, I want to move on to new section 23D(1) around definitions. I want to specifically focus on the definition for “parental income”. This is on page 7, line 31. This particular term and the term “income” is “within the meaning given to that term by Part 2 of Schedule 3”—presumably the Social Security Act. I had a look at the Social Security Act. There are two possible definitions here. One is money received and interest acquired, but it does not include interest in capital. In that case then, for, let’s say, parents of children that are 18- or 19-year-olds where the parents’ sole income is through capital gains, would that mean that then they, actually, don’t fall below the interest requirement, because they don’t technically earn any income in the definition of “income”? That’s my first question when it comes to the definition of “income”.

My second question regarding the definition of “income” is: when we were looking at one of the definitions under Part 2 of Schedule 3, “money received” and “interest acquired”, does the interest in that sense also include interest as a beneficiary of a family trust? If a parent’s sole income is as the beneficiary of a family trust or through a family business, would that be considered income under the definition of income for parental income? Those are my two additional questions for parental income.

Committee of the whole House

There’s no change to the definition of income as to the rest of the Social Security Act.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you so much. I’m mindful that my colleague may have questions on new sections 23D and 23E, but I’ve got questions on new section 23F; this is page 11, between lines 5 and onwards. This is the “parental income requirement: priority for applicable payment determinations”. I have concerns that the Government has tied itself into knots trying to ascertain which parents are responsible to meet the parental income requirement should the natural parents, the biological parents, be separated. If you look at the example provided between lines 25 and 35, does the Minister for Social Development and Employment accept how convoluted the legislation has been created, to the point that, potentially, it could be really impossible to implement?

I don’t say this lightly considering the recent media articles on the lack of ability of the front line to adequately implement policies, through no fault of their own but through policy decisions. The example that was given on page 11 talks about, for example, two natural parents—“P1” and “P2”. They’re not in a relationship, but “P1 is in a relationship with a “step-parent (SP1). P2 is in a relationship with a step-parent (SP2). A is living with P1 and SP1. A is not living with P2 and SP2. MSD may determine whether SP2 is an applicable parent of A only after MSD has determined that SP1 is not an applicable parent of A.” On the following page, it says, “If A is not living with step-parent, step-parent in relationship with parent with whom A does not have support gap must be considered before step-parent in relationship with parent with whom A has parental support gap”.

Does the Minister accept that the way that this example and the lines have been provided does not really take into account the strength of the relationship that, for example, the children may have with stepparents in this situation? Or, for example, even just the fact that some children—well, actually, in this case, adults. I have to remind myself that we’re not talking about children here; we’re talking about full-grown legal adults, who may be living, for example, with a parent and stepparent who are cohabitating, but are actually maybe having a stronger relationship with a parent and stepparent who may not be cohabitating. Why is the cohabitation of a parent and a stepparent treated as any sort of criteria for the purposes of determining who is going to be subjected to the parental income requirement?

Can she see how this has opened the doors to some pretty messed up interpretations of, say, family structures, familial connections, the relationship between an adult and, say, their stepparents, and also making pretty outdated assumptions on whether cohabitation is directly linked to, for example, the health of a relationship or the ability for parents or stepparents to provide support? A lot of healthy parental relations may choose not to cohabitate with each other, sometimes because those people may have other sorts of familial responsibilities; they may just be facing health issues or work issues that require them to commute to other places that may make cohabitation just not practically possible. Does she accept that this sort of cohabitation component between P1 and SP1 and P2 and SP2 opens the door to pretty discretionary decision-making based on some assumptions that I think could be pretty outdated?

My question is: what are the assumptions that has led to the—and again, this is not a difference of opinion; it’s me trying to elucidate information from the Minister, so I just want to request that she does not just fob off a question by claiming that this is a difference of opinion. I am genuinely trying to ascertain what are the assumptions that went behind—from the Minister, not officials—to agree to a definition where, potentially, the cohabitation between a parent and a stepparent may be used as a determining factor for who will be tested when it comes to their incomes, which could, therefore, affect a cancer patient or someone with a psychological or psychiatric condition from being eligible to income support.

Committee of the whole House

It’s just purely reflecting modern day families, and they are very different from what they used to be. There’s a range of different scenarios and parents that will be considered in terms of both the parental support gap as well as the parental income test.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The committee will resume at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.55 p.m. to 7 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Good evening, members. I hope you dined well. The committee is resumed on the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill. Before the committee suspended for the break, we were debating Part 1. The question, again, is that Part 1 stand part.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I appreciate that members want to take a call, but there’s quite a lot of pages in Part 1. Just starting off with something in the new material in new section 23D, inserted into the Social Security Act by clause 5—can the Minister outline what is the net parental income outlined on page 8, between lines 10 and 20? I know she outlined what the gross parental income is, but is she able to outline what the net income is? And I wonder if there’s any sort of, I don’t know, supplement that MPs or Ministers get that maybe is comparable to the net amount.

Then on new section 23I, but I know that maybe my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan will come to ask about some of previous sections—this is page 14. I am particularly interested in between lines 10 and 35-ish, so this is maybe line 33: “Jobseeker support: parental income requirement: relationship determinations”. Now, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) here will now basically start capturing parents who may both be working into the kind of people who MSD has the ability to prod into the kind of relationship that they are in. Normally, MSD would, for the purposes of determining whether a beneficiary is single or receiving a single couple’s rate, be able to determine whether they’re in a relationship in the nature of marriage. That means that MSD may ask intrusive questions. Almost a decade ago, for example, MSD was subject to a Privacy Commissioner investigation into how they investigated these relationship types, which I was part of helping trigger at the time in my previous job. It’s an area that I am familiar with quite intimately, having sat in relationship investigation meetings.

My question is: how many parents will be captured under new section 23I? These are parents who MSD will be able to determine whether they’re single or not. There’s a specific definition here for whether they’re single or not, and this is around line 15, which is “(a) is living apart from that parent’s spouse or partner; and (b) is not in a de facto relationship”. I wanted to ask the Minister, as well, about what definition of “a de facto relationship” MSD will be using—for example, I know that MSD and other parts of the system use “a relationship in the nature of marriage” as the basis of determining a relationship between two individuals for the purposes of benefit eligibility. Here I’m seeing being in a de facto relationship and, also, cohabitation as a component of it. Will MSD be using the criteria that they use to determine whether someone is in a relationship in the nature of marriage when determining whether a parent is?

And can parents, when determining whether they’re single or not, be subjected to welfare fraud investigations or integrity interventions by MSD; if so, has MSD made any calculations on the level of additional resources the integrity unit may need to develop now that a bunch of additional parents who may both be in work could be subjected to prodding by MSD on whether they’re single or otherwise? And what kind of level of resources or additional staffing resources will MSD require to start now assessing working parents’ relationship status?

I raise this as a matter of seriousness, right—the Privacy Commissioner, when they investigated MSD last time, found that MSD had the power even at the time to require, for example, intimate conversations between parents, and that their information-gathering powers compared to the likes of the Police and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. I don’t say this lightly; it was found by the Privacy Commissioner. I am concerned that some of these parents could be subjected to really intrusive welfare fraud investigations just on the basis of their relationship status.

Again, I could see that, perhaps, as a matter of survival and for the determining of the parental income threshold, parents may—take a solo mum who has just started being in a relationship and who has an 18-year-old. She probably wouldn’t want the income of that person who she just started being in a relationship with to count towards whether her son, who may have cancer or may be facing a psychological or psychiatric condition, has his benefit cut. That is why I would like the Minister’s engagement on how this will be defined relationship-wise compared to other parts of the welfare system; resources; and how many parents this captures, according to her estimates—and I have other questions on this matter.

Committee of the whole House

As I’ve referred to with other aspects of the bill, it’s not changing any of the significant definitions in the Social Security Act. It was actually the member himself who referred to the fact that he thought that more people would attempt to be fraudulent in this system. I actually disagree with that decision.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I just want to challenge those comments a little bit, not because I think the Minister for Social Development and Employment is lying by any means but because, I think, she may just not be interpreting. There is a new definition here in determining whether someone is single. That is the literal new definition. There is a change. Previously, in the welfare system, if you have two working parents in full-time work, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) actually had no business in their relationship status.

This specific new section 23I, inserted into the principal Act by clause 5, allows MSD to prod two parents in full-time work or two people in full-time work, who may not be receiving a benefit—it allows MSD to basically prod and ask about their intimate lives. This is a substantive change in how MSD operates and who MSD is giving themselves power to inquire about their intimate lives and their relationships. As I just mentioned earlier, MSD does not have the ability nor reason to ask two full-time people whether they’re in a relationship or otherwise. This allows MSD to do exactly that. Therefore, I would like to know how many parents and people are captured in here. If the Minister would like to engage at least on the substance of my questions, which are not in bad faith, I would deeply appreciate it, because I don’t want to keep litigating this specific new section 23I, but she didn’t engage with the substance of my question. She also didn’t engage with whether additional resources would be required, and, again, I’m seeking the Minister’s engagement on this.

Finally, I would like to know whether, if she genuinely thinks that nothing is changing in the system, can she confirm, then—because if she thinks nothing is changing, she is basically telling me that these full-time working parents could be subjected to integrity interventions. Whether she agrees with me or otherwise that some parents may feel like they don’t have to be fully upfront with their relationship status is beside the point. I am asking whether two full-time working people who do not receive a benefit could be subjected to integrity interventions by MSD on the basis of their relationship status.

Finally, my last question would be what impact this will have on, say, a disabled parent who may be trying to find connection or a solid parent who, for example, may have escaped family violence and may be entering a new relationship. Again, the reason why I’m not trifling with these questions is that when I worked at Auckland Action Against Poverty, one of the news stories we did when I first got in was that a woman had her benefit cut because she was deemed to be in a relationship with someone she went on a Tinder date with. That is the level in which MSD sometimes chooses to cut people’s benefits when they deem someone to be in a relationship. And so, when I have had real-life examples that I’ve seen at the front lines that have hit the media, that have seen a person who goes on two dates have their benefit cut, how can she give me confidence that this will not happen between two working people who just simply go on a few dates? Because if she’s saying, “Hey, look, the relationship definitions haven’t changed on how we apply them to beneficiaries”, she cannot give me a guarantee that this won’t happen again to two working people. And what is the business of MSD in determining two full-time working people’s relationship status? Why should that ever be MSD’s business? I think that maybe she would like to give some reassurance to the parents as to whether the provisions in new section 23I actually allow for integrity interventions into working families.

Again, I just really challenge the idea that nothing here is changing. This wouldn’t be the first time that I raise this important issue and she says, “No, nothing is changing” or “No, nothing has happened” and it turns out things have happened. If some engagement happened from the Minister on new section 23I I would be happy to move on, but I think this is one of the most substantive changes in clause 5 in relationship to the powers that MSD is giving itself to investigate—potentially—full-time working people.

Committee of the whole House

The only reason this is relevant here is if there’s an 18- or 19-year-old who is not in employment, training, or education and is applying for the parental income test or support gap. That is the only reason a young person would be seeking—or that the Ministry of Social Development would be seeking—information or assurance from them: looking at their parents’ income requirements, and also if there is a support gap. As I said before, it’s similar to student allowance, where other parts of the system consider what the parents’ income is to see if their student—at that stage, up to the age of 24, under 25—is eligible. It’s really not that much different.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Lawrence Xu-Nan—but we’ll be needing to move on from this particular point. It’s been well exhausted.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair, but I do want to seek your clarification first. We’ve been trying, since the start of this debate, to actually ask genuine questions of the Minister, and seek the Minister’s engagement. The Minister’s responses thus far has been: “it’s the same as student allowance; it’s the same as before; nothing has changed; nothing to see here”. It’s very hard to, from a parliamentary perspective, seek engagement from the Minister so that we can have our own record on some of these, including the answer to my previous question to the Minister around the definition of income, which was simply: “nothing has changed; nothing to see here”. I’ve asked specific questions which have not had the Minister’s engagement.

In saying that, I will move on to clause 5, which inserts new clause 23G. Something is introduced here, specifically, with the parental support gap. The question I have here is: if in clause 23G(1), we’re saying that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) is determining if “MSD is satisfied that it is not reasonable in the circumstances for A to rely on P for financial support.”, in the event of a parent gap. We’re seeing in clause 23G(2), two circumstances where MSD must be satisfied. However, in 23G(3), we’re seeing that “Subsection (2) does not limit MSD being satisfied”, which means that the two requirements under clause 23G(2) are not exhaustive.

This means that MSD can have additional considerations in determining whether there is an ability test when it comes to parental support gap. My question to the Minister is: those additional considerations, or additional reasons, that MSD would be able to consider under clause 23G(3), are they regulations? Are they guidelines? Is it secondary legislation? If they are not regulations or secondary legislation, what are the checks and balances that are involved to ensure that MSD isn’t going to be able to—in the example that my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March gave—just make up criteria on the spot? What are the checks and balances, and what is the consistency test when it comes to parental support gap, to ensure that new criteria under clause 23G(3) are being compliant with the expectations of MSD?

Committee of the whole House

I’ve got a question on clause 6, Section 63 amended, in relation to my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment, but again, I’m still seeking the Minister’s engagement on how many intermediate interventions—I’m happy to move on, but—I don’t even have to like the answers. She’s just refusing to engage in the debate, which makes this debate a little bit pointless.

I’m looking for the Minister’s engagement on that, and on the Amendment Paper—this is the one tabled at 15.20.01. It seeks to change clause 6, section 63(2A): “delete ‘only if P meets the parental income requirement’ ”. The reason why I wanted to have the Minister’s engagement on this is that clause 6 adds a provision in which an emergency benefit could be granted on the discretionary ground of hardship. If the person’s on hardship, why would they be subjected to the parental income test? You already identified that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has the ability to grant someone a benefit, discretionarily, on the grounds of hardship—why would one add a process that requires a person to not just test the parents’ incomes, but also potentially test the support gap that this part has sort of included in that? For example, when I was on the phone lines, you would be able to go and seek an appointment on the day for someone who was experiencing hardship, and on that very same day, have an emergency benefit granted—on the grounds of, say, hardship, or other issues that may arise. This provision basically prevents, in my view, MSD from adequately being able to provide that support to an 18- or 19-year-old, by adding another layer of requirements to the emergency benefits. That is at least how I understand it.

However, and when I say “however”, this is the line from clause 6, in how the language begins—adding another layer, another barrier, basically—my question is: if MSD already has the discretionary ability to grant someone a benefit on the grounds of hardship, why would they still want to test the parental income? What potential processing delays could arise from this additional requirement that clause 6 adds for the purposes of someone’s eligibility for the emergency benefit?

Perhaps, one way the Minister could give us some assurances of how much this may add additional barriers, or otherwise, could be useful. What are the usual processing times for emergency benefits? Are we expecting those median processing times to change as a result of this provision? How many people, for example, have received—who are of the ages of 18 to 19 on the emergency benefit—even if you’ve just got new data points, the past five years, the past year, or whatever. That may actually give us a bit of a picture as to how many people would this likely capture? We’ve got a provision for emergency benefits, specifically for 18- and 19-year-olds. I don’t think you, Mr Chair, or myself, or anyone here in this House, would be able to ascertain out of a magic hat how many people this likely will capture.

I’d like to know from the Minister if she sought to add this requirement in the emergency benefit on the grounds of hardship, does she know how many people could be subjected to it? If not, what level of analysis and robust work did she do to justify adding this on the emergency benefit? Part of the reason is that some people on the emergency benefit may then go and apply to a normal jobseeker benefit, eventually.

I could see the rationale, even if I disagree with the Minister’s intention of the bill, that at the point at which you apply for the jobseeker benefit, the parental income test may come into effect. I don’t understand why you would want to add it at a point in which MSD would normally grant someone a discretionary benefit under grounds of hardship. There is a purpose and principle of the Social Security Act already, that the role of MSD is to effectively alleviate hardship. If you add an additional barrier for benefits on the grounds of hardship, it could end up potentially resulting in decisions that are inconsistent with the purpose and principles of the main Act, which to me seems really problematic.

My final question is whether she thinks there could be any incidents here where MSD could be unintentionally making decisions that go against the purpose and the principles of the main Act.

Committee of the whole House

I accept that members of the Opposition don’t like the policy position that the Government is introducing in this bill, which is to say 18- and 19-year-olds are the responsibility of their parents first. If their parents, through either an income test or support gap, are unable to provide that support, then the State will.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Would you like to engage with the question?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: But the State is not the first—I’m answering your question, which relates to the emergency benefit. They will not be eligible unless there is an income gap.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I’m not going to take a closure motion, but we are in that direction. Members standing up and taking five-minute calls and covering a lot of area is probably not helpful to their cause. We’re at the stage where trying to change the policy is unlikely, so clarification is probably more likely to be fruitful at this stage.

Committee of the whole House

Point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to seek your clarification. For example, the question I asked on new section 23G was specifically seeking elucidation from the Minister on whether something is secondary legislation or it’s a regulation and how the guidelines are going to work. The Minister has not engaged, and the Minister has consistently gone back to making it sound like we’re challenging on the basis of policy. That question was not a challenge on policy; it was seeking clarification. I just want to check with the Chair if we can continue asking those questions without the Minister’s engagement.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): That in itself might have been a good question, rather than—it probably didn’t need quite the padding around it that it got.

Committee of the whole House

I just wanted to bring up a question which I would have brought up in the second part, but it relates to the issue around deprivation, which is around new section 16A in the cut-out for—sorry, I’ll just give you the section number. It’s actually part of clause 12.

What I want to know is: there’s the supplementary analysis report, which talks about the threshold for an income supplement, which is the second part of this legislation, which we’ll get to shortly. There’s a paragraph there with regard to families with children. It says that families with children are disproportionately impacted by this proposal—that being the issue about accommodation support—but it says, at paragraph 61, “There is a risk that this proposal combined with other budget initiatives (such as the changes to Jobseeker Support - tightening eligibility for 18- and 19-year-olds) could increase the likelihood of financial stress for families supporting their adult children.”

I’ve never really had an answer to my very early question about why we haven’t looked at the number of children in a family or the actual financial pressures instead of taking—I’ve got no answers whatsoever on that. What I want to know is: what do you make of that? You’re doing two things at once impacting on the same families, and there’s a warning here that it’s going to impact on them, and yet we’ve got paragraphs here which are all about, as you say, cutting away any other form of support to those families, such as emergency benefits, etc. Could you answer that question, very genuinely—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Not me.

HELEN WHITE: Sorry. Could the Minister for Social Development and Employment answer that question, very genuinely, and I’ll leave her alone on this one?

Committee of the whole House

As I said, we have set an income level. I’ve explained that multiple times—why that’s been set. At the heart of this is, actually, that we want young people in training, education, or employment, right? We don’t want them to go on to welfare and get stuck there, because we know what happens in terms of their long-term life outcomes.

I accept that other people in the House don’t agree with the policy position. I’ve explained why we set the income level at the level we have. The best way to avoid this is for parents to support their young people in their expectation to have them in education, training, or a job.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have just a short question. This is clause 7(3). This is inserting new section 113(3A). This is around when a beneficiary must notify changes.

Now, new subsection (3A) states that, in relation to a relevant benefit, the changes include paragraphs (a) to (e). My assumption is the term “include” means that, again, paragraphs (a) to (e) are not exhaustive; there might be other criteria that are being looked at as well. Can I check, in those cases, how would, if there are other criteria—OK, I guess my first question is: is that list exhaustive?

If that list is exhaustive, that’s clear; beneficiaries know exactly that these are the five circumstances when they need to notify a change of circumstances. If it is not exhaustive, how would beneficiaries then know what additional requirements there would be for notification, and would that be published by the Ministry of Social Development—what is going to be required—in a way that is through either the Gazette or publicly on the website?

Committee of the whole House

Again, “change of circumstance” is a fairly common process for the Ministry of Social Development. It includes those ones there but is not restricted to that.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I’ve got a question on clause 8, on page 18, but also just wanted to emphasise that my questions on parents are not to challenge the policy; it’s actually just to understand how many people are affected and how this will actually apply.

Look, the Minister for Social Development and Employment has made it clear that she won’t accept any changes, but I guess I just want to sort of test the Minister’s understanding, in clarification for the public, on, for example, whether the provisions under new section 23I—for example, how many people that will capture and how it will operate in practice?

As for clause 8, this is new section 310ZB, “Notice of review and seeking required information”. There’s a notice of review here that requires the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to, as soon as practicable and before the 21st working day after the child exclusion date, give a notice talking about the relevant benefit, the appropriate rate of the benefit. Then it talks about the required information that MSD needs to ask the person.

Now, following both the regulatory impact statement (RIS) from the bill, which identified that one of the biggest risks to this bill was actually the ability for MSD to keep up with the broader legislative agenda, and particularly the fact that we have seen news stories come out as of this week that, in fact, MSD hasn’t been able to keep up with this Government’s legislative agenda, suspending benefits due to persistent delays due to the fact that the front line hasn’t kept up, can the Minister assure me—well, (a) is she confident that MSD has the front-line capacity to operationalise the provisions in new section 310ZB? Again, it’s not about whether I want policy changes. I am just wanting to know whether she thinks the front line has capacity. Has she, since MSD has clearly been unable to keep up with the pace of the legislative agenda that the Government has implemented, sought additional assurances or briefings on the operationalisation of this provision or others?

If not, when the RIS identified that provisions that add additional requirements to MSD could face barriers in implementation due to other changes, does she think it is responsible, and therefore does she think that it could well be the case that some beneficiaries actually do not receive, in 20 working days, the notice around the child exclusion date? If the Minister sees that happening, could she clarify to members of the public watching or for the Hansard record what recourse is available should MSD not fulfil the obligations under new section 310ZB? The Minister will note that I am not proposing changes to any policy but simply elucidating information.

Committee of the whole House

Any time there is a change of legislation, it’s up to the agency to operationalise it. I’m confident that they know very clearly what my expectations are in them doing it.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We’re nearly there, members. I’ll give you one more question each. I suggest you utilise them very well.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, and I’d love to chat with any member here on, like, why this welfare policy particularly matters. When the Minister for Social Development and Employment talked about how she expects the ministry to just execute her policies, does she accept—and I speak about, for example, new sections 310ZL, 310ZN, and other provisions under clause 8, including, for example, 310ZQ, and I’ll focus a little bit on that one specifically. There’s one side of saying, “I expect the Ministry of Social Development to do what I say.” Then there’s the other one that is like, does the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) actually have the resources and is it actually equipped to do what she says? Just whipping MSD harder does not make these clauses just magically come into effect. All I’m asking, despite our disagreements on policy, is: has she sought reassurances from MSD that these provisions could actually take place? It adds additional reviews by a benefit review committee, appeals to appeal authority, and appeals to court.

Now, would she be able to outline for people—again, not a policy disagreement—has she actually checked whether adding additional things that could be reviewed would be workable in practice, considering the substantive delays that people already experience in reviews by benefit review committees or appeal authorities? And will she promise, if there are substantial challenges to this policy via the appeal processes through the courts, that she will not legislate at pace to prevent these resources from being accessed in the way that, for example, she did to clamp down on people having their debts wiped by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) after accessing supplementary assistance while they were waiting in ACC payments? Because, for new section 310ZQ inserted by clause 8 to actually be useful to everyday people, people have to have confidence that the appeal processes will be left alone and will be adequately resourced.

For the Chair’s elucidation, normally, review committees are made up of two MSD individuals and one supposedly independent community person, which I would challenge, but it maybe would be useful for the Minister to tell me if she expects to increase that number of MSD staffers that can participate in the benefit review committee if she’s adding another decision that can be challenged, because, first of all, some of the families that I worked with have waited months to have their meeting and their appointment with the benefits review committee to challenge a decision. In this case, what I am concerned about is that if they’re waiting for months to challenge a decision, it’s months that an 18- or 19-year-old would have gone without income support, right? So it’s not just that this is sort of a frivolity of trying to grab some random clause; we’re talking about the fact that she’s added an appeal clause without elucidating to us how long an 18- or 19-year-old would be expected to wait without income while this happens, or even giving us assurances that she actually checked with MSD if they are at capacity to operationalise this at pace, rather than just saying, “I expect them to do it no matter what.”

I think, to the earlier comments, all we’re trying to do is just seek elucidation from the Minister. I’m not even trying to convince her to get rid of any of these clauses at this point. All I’m trying to do is to debate and seek confidence that the Minister actually understands what she’s doing, especially when we had, this week, incidents in which, clearly, the Minister was found to be inconsistent saying no to questions about benefits being suspended when it turns out they were.

Committee of the whole House

As I said before, anytime there is a change of legislation that’s planned, the Ministry of Social Development prepares for that and prepares to operationalise that. As I said, I am confident that they have planned appropriately and can deliver it.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. My one will be short. I want to thank the Minister for Social Development and Employment for actually responding to the first part of my question. But my second part of that question on new section 3A is: if there are additional criteria that are required for the beneficiary to notify change of circumstance, would the beneficiary be notified of what those changes are or would that be, in some ways, sprung on the beneficiary afterwards, and then, where they get penalised for not declaring any change of circumstance that isn’t immediately, I guess, clear or transparent to the beneficiary. So that was my first question.

I’m going to move on to a further question. I think this might be clause 8, new Subpart 3B, new section 310ZF. There are other clauses that are similar when it comes to the cancellation. I do want to check that if the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has not received, I understand the 8 weeks’ notice—that’s fair enough when it comes to child exclusion date. Will MSD, in those circumstances—and this might be more of a general question around the operations of MSD—make multiple attempts to contact whoever they are seeking information from prior to those eight weeks? So rather than just a one-off, will they try it multiple times—for example, at week four, at week seven, saying, “If you don’t give it to us by next week, we are going to continue with the cancellation.”? Those are my two questions.

Committee of the whole House

There’s already a process around the way that the Ministry of Social Development communicate with clients. Generally, there’s a notification through MyMSD as well as emails. There are usually multiple emails that are sent to the client.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 39

New Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new section 23A(2)(ba) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 39

New Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new section 23AA be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 39

New Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 23A(2), inserting new paragraph (d) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 23A(2), inserting new paragraph (d) to (h) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 23D, replacing the definition of “parental income limit” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new section 23D(3) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 39

New Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 5 replacing new section 23F be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 39

New Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 5 new section 23G inserting new subsections (1A) to (1D) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 39

New Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 5 new section 23G inserting new subsections (2)(c) and to (2A) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 39

New Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 5 replacing new section 23I be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 39

New Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 6, new section 63(2A) is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill.

The Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 113, inserting new subsection (5) to (7) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 8 replacing new section 310W(2) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 39

New Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 8 new section 310ZB inserting new subsections (1A) to (1D) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 39

New Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 8 new section 310ZD inserting new subsections (2A) to (2D) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 39

New Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 8 deleting new section 310ZE(1)(a) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 39

New Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 39

New Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 1 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 2 Accommodation supplement: entry threshold percentage for homeowners, and Schedule 2

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, we come now to Part 2, the debate on clauses 13 to 15—“Accommodation supplement: entry threshold percentage for homeowners”—and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.