Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I move, That the Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill be now read for a first time. I also move for this bill to be considered via a truncated legislative process with all stages under urgency, as provided under Standing Order 57. As such, this bill will not be reviewed by a select committee.

The bill before the House is not large, but it contains important technical amendments to ensure that a few hundred New Zealanders, many of whom are superannuitants, can be lawfully paid the rate of accommodation supplement as originally intended, and don’t lose support to pay their housing costs.

The accommodation supplement was introduced to provide financial assistance to low-income people, so they can pay for their rent, board, or the cost of owning a home. Like many of our social security assistance programmes, the accommodation supplement was designed to be flexible to respond to individuals’ and families’ evolving circumstances. One such scenario involves couples, where a person may enter long-term residential care while the other remains in the community. The partner in care may be in a rest home, a long-stay hospital—due to disability or illness—or a specialised unit to treat a condition such as dementia. As such, their income will be used to pay for their care, and therefore they will be unable to contribute to paying the lease, mortgage, or board, leaving the full housing cost on their partner. The Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD) longstanding policy and practice has been to treat the community partner as though they are single, recognising they are now solely responsible for paying their own accommodation costs.

While this common-sense approach reflects this cohort’s unique circumstances, it has been determined to be inconsistent with legislation. Under the Social Security Act 2018 currently, the community partner and partner in care should continue to be treated as a couple, and therefore assessed and paid the appropriate rate. The bill before this House intends to align legislation to the original policy intent and current practice related to the accommodation supplement. This bill means that we can continue to support the estimated 300 New Zealanders in this situation. If we don’t do this, around 260 would otherwise experience a reduction in their accommodation supplement benefit by as much as $62 per week, or approximately $3,200 per year. As many of these recipients are older people receiving New Zealand superannuation or a veteran’s pension—and therefore likely on fixed and limited incomes—this assistance represents a sizable portion of their income.

This bill also includes consequential amendments to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the Veterans’ Support Act 2014, and it clarifies the approach for the abatement of benefits for a community partner across these two Acts, along with the Social Security Act. Specifically, the consequential amendments confirm that a community partner would not be subject to abatement of accommodation supplement in respect of any income that was included as part of their partner in care’s financial means assessment. Under section 73 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act, I have consulted with other political parties in this House about the consequential amendment, and none have expressed any concerns.

The social security legislation is complex, and issues like this have happened before. In fact, under the previous Government, the last National Government, several errors were identified where the policy and legislation were not aligned that required fixing. For example, in 2014, the Social Security Appeal Authority alerted MSD to an error in an amendment of section 80BA of the Social Security Act made in 1988, that meant a benefit should commence on the day that a stand-down period ends. As a result of this, operational practice had to be amended to align with legislation for the period between September and November. This meant clients who were subject to a stand-down period received an additional day of benefit. Legislation was then amended to address the error.

Should this House agree to this bill, I propose the changes come into effect a day after Royal assent has been provided, no later than 1 December this year. Immediate action will ensure that recipients will not experience any disruption to the level of accommodation supplement they currently receive. We want to ensure that the accommodation supplement continues to positively impact the lives of New Zealanders by helping eligible couples and individuals to pay for their rent, board, and owning a home; this bill helps to achieve this. I commend this bill to the House, and I move that this bill proceed to second reading.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I intend to take a short call on this to introduce the National Party’s view. We are supporting this piece of legislation. We understand that the practice and the legislation have not been aligned over many years, and so the adjustment to the legislation is required to match what has become common practice over a very long time.

I do note the consultation period that the Government undertook with this began on 1 November and, sadly, none of the parties had responded by 8 November. I did think it was a bit ironic, having corresponded, myself, with many Ministers—and one in particular that I wrote to in April, and again in May, and still have not received a reply. A week is not a long time to have to wait in a consultation phase.

There have been some misinterpretations of the legislation over time. One of the things that the National Party will be keen to clear up is how this misinterpretation was discovered, when it was discovered, and the consequences of not progressing this amendment, which we will explore further in the committee of the whole House. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In later life, it’s quite a common scenario for couples to reach a point where one of them needs to go into care. At that point, the income of that partner needs to go towards contributing to the care that they receive, and so what happens with the partner that’s remaining in the community is that they often have proportionately higher costs because they’re living alone. It’s really, really important, in particular, when couples are on a lower income that they can receive the support that reflects their circumstances, and so what this bill does is it ensures that for the partner that is living in the community, they have their circumstances reflected as if they were a single person. So I’m very happy to commend this bill to the House because it will ensure that their circumstances are reflected accurately and they can get the support that they need.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise and take a brief call on the Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill called under urgency. I acknowledge what Minister Sepuloni has shared with the House, in terms of this bill being really an amendment so that it aligns lawful practice, which would suggest that the interpretation by the Ministry of Social Development of what the law is has been incorrect, and, on that basis, there has been unlawful practice. However, in saying that, the policy application is recognising the need within the community.

Although this is a brief call, I was interested to look at the numbers of New Zealanders who are recipients of the New Zealand Superannuation and also the veteran’s pension. Those numbers indicate that we have, in total, 871,002 New Zealanders who are recipients of a pension. It has also been identified that those who are recipients of the accommodation supplement total 47,562. Those figures, as at September 2022—this year.

So it is important that there is a realignment so that policy intent is lawful application. This is an amendment to the law to bring that adjustment into lawful practice, which is a concern because this is under urgency. It is a matter that has been known by the Minister and her ministry for too long. It should have been brought before the House with a reasonable period of time for engagement at select committee level. There is concern that there is a rush, and the Minister has quite correctly identified that this is complex law, but it is important to make sure that there is lawful practice with our ministries and that this alignment is for the benefit of our New Zealand pensioners. It’s on that basis, the National Party supports this bill under urgency.

Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. It’s an absolute privilege to speak on this Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill.

The passing of this bill today would mean 260 people that this disproportionately affects will continue to receive $62 a week. For many in this House, that might not be a lot, but that will buy food, that will help purchase, really, much-needed services for people who are affected in this bill.

I want to support what the Minister had said and I’d like to commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak to the Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill, first reading.

For context, we do need to unpack a bit what the accommodation supplement is there for, which is to top up people’s incomes to support them and meet their accommodation costs. It’s important to reflect that the fact that we have an accommodation supplement in the first place is an admission that pensions and benefits, and even wages, are often not enough to meet basic standards of living. Then we have this top-up, which, effectively, becomes a subsidy for private landlords in many cases.

The intent of this bill in itself, and what this bill is trying to achieve, is to provide clearer legislative basis for the current practice of calculating the accommodation supplement entitlements for people whose partners are in long-term residential care. This is a necessary change, because, as the Minister has said in her speech, this is about ensuring that there is no doubt between this approach and its consistency with the Act. As other members have raised, if we have known that there is no consistency and we need to actually ensure that there is consistency between practice and the Act, there are legitimate questions to be asked about whether there have been instances where this practice hasn’t been aligned. And, if so, for how long, and how many people have been impacted by this?

So we will be exploring those in the committee of the whole House, but, on the whole, we do support changes to ensure that people receive enough for them to live with dignity, and particularly for people whose partners may be in residential care. Once again, though, the Green Party reiterates our call to ensure that pensions, benefits, and wages guarantee a livable income and that we do not need these top-ups so that people can survive.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill. This bill has just been brought before the House and I’ve been looking through it, and we will support this bill because nobody wants to stand here and say, “We want to see people in vulnerable situations lose funding that is helping them to keep the roof over their head and food in their belly.” So we will be supporting this bill.

There are a few concerns that I have with how this is processed and how this has happened, and I understand that it’s become existing practice and it’s outside of alignment with the legislation’s original policy intent—I do understand that. My concern is: when did this become existing practice, have people missed out on this accommodation supplement before it became existing practice, and do we have a two-tier system currently where some people have got it and some people haven’t got it? I mean, I’m not saying that’s happening; I just have a concern that maybe some people misinterpreted the intent and some people didn’t and have been following the legislation to how it is lawful. I’m just wondering, when was the, you know—the concern is: when has this error been identified, how long have we taken to fix this error, and why, all of a sudden, if this has been existing practice for so long, has it become such an issue that they’re going to stop it and reduce 260 people’s accommodation supplement? So there’s just a few questions around that.

I’m glad we’re looking at fixing this. I want to see less stress in the lives of our elderly, especially when sometimes they’re going through such a stressful process already—seeing their partner or seeing someone they love and care about being put into a home. And many couples in that situation try and keep that member home as long as they possibly can, and putting them into residential care or long-term care can be quite a heartbreaking decision. So if we can lessen that stress, all the better. And with the cost of living crisis and everything that’s going on at the moment, anything we can do to assist in making the lives of mostly our elderly, by the looks of this—we will be supporting. So ACT supports this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. With the Ōtaki electorate having the highest population of elderly in Aotearoa New Zealand, this change in this bill will benefit people in my area who live individually, with their partners maybe, in rest homes, to be able to make sure they’re not penalised and are able to pay their mortgages and rent. This bill is another example of this Labour Government looking after people—all New Zealanders, including our elderly—with not only the winter energy payments, not only a reduction in doctors visit fees, not only an increase to dental support now to $1,000 non-recoverable, but also this bill with the ASUP, or the accommodation supplement. An individual who is at home and whose partner is in residential care will no longer be penalised. This is a common-sense bill, and I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. For the benefit of the member who has just taken her seat, Terisa Ngobi, this doesn’t change anything other than making legal the practice that the Ministry of Social Development have being carrying out. Look, it’s great to have that tidied up to ensure that those payments are continued legally.

It also, though, highlights that putting legislation through in the normal processes can still make mistakes; going through under urgency puts that risk much higher. That’s why we have a select committee—which, that process, we won’t be going through. That said, I do support this and commend it to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I see that colleagues from Te Paati Māori don’t seem to want to take a call on this piece of legislation, so I will simply acknowledge that it’s an important catch-up in terms of making sure the accommodation supplement is fair and equitable for all. I commend the bill to the House.

As previous colleagues have said, this is around equity. It’s around supporting people in their golden years, when the stresses of life—and it should be a time to relax and to make the most of those last years. So to have a piece of legislation that ensures that someone in long-term residential care can be calculated in a different way is important.

Speaking for myself—and I have been involved in community initiatives—my neighbour ended up in care, and so things had to be done in terms of the processes and paperwork to get there. It was stressful. It was unnerving for the family. So to have a piece of legislation in place will, I know, make a difference, as much of our work on this side of the House does. So I commend the Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I’m happy to add my voice of support to the progress of this piece of legislation, the Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill, at its first reading, ultimately looking to fix up a mistake the Government made four years ago when they put this through.

Ultimately, it’s not impacting on the benefit that’s received, but I think the important part to note is that if this wasn’t corrected, and there was some sort of attempt to comply with the law which then led to a reduction in the benefit for those receiving it, that would be a real challenge for them.

I think it’s important to note that, particularly at a time when we have a cost of living crisis unlike we have seen for I don’t know how long—if ever—these people are really facing challenges. Of course, the accommodation supplement is part of it, but when you look at the costs that everyone is facing and that contribute to a drain on the overall income levels, taking this money away from them would simply be unachievable and they wouldn’t be able to cope, I suspect, in most cases.

So it’s important that we do tidy up the mistake that the Government made in 2018 and get on with passing this through to make sure, of course, that we are complying with the law.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s great to be able to take a brief call on the Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill. It’s really important that people have that security in their golden years to make sure that they continue to be sustained.

This bill makes a good change. It seeks to align legislation to practice by recognising an individual whose partner is in long-term residential care is single for the purposes of calculating that entitlement for accommodation supplement. It’s only right and fair that we should make this change, and I commend it to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading