Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill

This is debate on clauses 22 to 27 and schedule 2.

This is going to be just a brief call, and it is actually in the nature of a question for the Minister in the chair, hopefully. This is partly because I was not on the Social Services Committee. I know it is much to Mr Lotu-Iiga’s regret that I was not there. But I was not quite able, when I was looking through this bill, the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, to understand the impact of clause 27, “Transitional arrangements for financially disadvantaged people”. Essentially, what clause 27 does in various parts is allow for regulations authorising the provision of financial assistance to any people who are financially disadvantaged as a result of the net effects of the amendments made by Part 1 or Part 2. This is able to be done in two parts of this clause by the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development and also by the Governor-General by Order in Council.

It seems a curious clause, because other parts of the transitional provisions entitle some rollovers of the youth payment or young parent payment and some issues around the domestic purposes benefit, but this clause seems to be placed here for a reason of some description. Firstly, it pre-supposes that there are people who are going to be financially disadvantaged by Part 1 and Part 2 of this bill. It is quite clear when we look at Part 1 of the bill that we do, in fact, see that there are a number of changes, obviously, around eligibility, particularly for the youth payments and the young parent payments, and also—as was earlier raised by Holly Walker—questions around the sanction regime on those payments.

What I am looking for clarification on here from the Minister in the chair is exactly who is intended to be covered by clause 27 of Part 2 around transitional arrangements for financially disadvantaged people. Although some transitional arrangements are being made for those on the youth payment, there must be somebody in mind with this particular clause, and I would like some clarification from the Minister. Are we talking about everybody who is financially disadvantaged? Is it the Government’s intention that nobody will be financially disadvantaged out of this bill? That would be an interesting position for the Government to take, particularly in light of the sanction regimes that are outlined in Part 1 of this bill.

We on this side of the Chamber are obviously concerned about the impact of these changes on young people. The Government has a particular agenda that it is pursuing within Part 1 of this bill, and now in Part 2 it is saying that if you are worse off, there is the possibility of transitional arrangements. So the questions I have for the Minister in the chair are who is designed to be covered by that, and are we talking about people who are in receipt of the young parent payment? Some transitional provisions exist for them in clause 25. I do not know whether that is everybody who has been getting it up to now who now will not be getting it. Or is it for others who are perhaps in receipt of the youth payment and are not covered here, who will no longer be in receipt of that payment?

The Government, I presume, has done some work to understand the impact of the changes that it is making—who will not now be in receipt of these payments—and to have a transition clause like this one indicates that the Government obviously has something in mind in terms of helping those who are financially disadvantaged. So the questions we have for the Minister in the chair are whether this is everybody, who it is, and who the Government intends to apply it to.

It seems to me, having made a decision to have a clause like this in the bill, that clearly there are people who will be financially disadvantaged, but I also want to know how this interacts with the sanction regimes that are mentioned here. Clearly, some people will end up being worse off as a result of this bill, and obviously on this side of the Chamber we find it hard to understand that the Government, in an environment where so many young people are out of work and where there are so many young people who would like to be in training and in work, could be so focused on the punitive side of the regime. The Government is not focused on ensuring that we have people who are being given assistance, but in these transitional clauses it gives some hint of the fact that perhaps there is some consideration being given to those people who are doing that.

So really what I am looking for, as someone who was not on the select committee, is some clarification from the Minister as to who it is envisaged will be covered by the transitional arrangements in clause 27. I would ask the Minister to take a call and let us know.

This is, again, a very brief call, on clauses 22 and 23 in Part 2 of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. We have already articulated the views of this side of the Chamber that here is a major change, and we are a little bit suspicious because we think some of the provisions are the ticking-the-box type of approach that Grant Robertson talked about earlier.

I wonder about the reference here to income-tested benefits. What has happened is that we have changed the terminology from “benefit” to “payment”. That is then used consistently in clauses 22 and 23, and elsewhere as well. I wonder whether the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister for Social Development, could explain why there was that change, what it is that the Minister is trying to convey through this particular change, and whether those payments will still be counted as benefits down the track when we begin to count to see whether benefit numbers have gone up or down. We know that the independent youth benefit, which is the one that is replaced here by a youth payment, was one that was specifically designed some years ago, and we know that those who are on that benefit, generally, have somehow fallen on bad times in their relationship with their family and their parents, and they got that particular benefit. Now it is going to be a payment—a youth payment. So if the Minister could just explain to us why there is this change, what the implications are of this change, and whether the payments will still be counted as benefits down the track when we count the number of people on benefits, or whether they will be taken out of the benefit count as well. It looks like a technical amendment, but I want to know what was behind it. If the Minister could give us some explanations of that, it would be very helpful. Thank you.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 83 in the name of the Hon Paula Bennett to Part 2 be agreed to.