Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill

It is my pleasure to stand up and take the first call on Part 3 of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. I point out that, of course, this part does have a different commencement date from the other parts we have previously discussed. It is taking effect on 15 October of this year. Obviously, the substantive changes are, as previously raised, to do with new work-testing arrangements, so these are clauses that will affect a significantly larger number of people, certainly, than those we have discussed up until now.

I would like to focus in on some of the amendments that have been put forward by Labour members around some of these clauses. Rather than going into the substantive changes made by the Social Services Committee, I want to hone in on where there continues to be ongoing debate and where we would still like to see some change. I want to start with clause 29(3), in which there is some discussion around the definition of “suitable employment”. That is a critically important definition to have entrenched in this bill, because if you are putting in work-testing arrangements that then have a flow-on in terms of sanctions that can be applied, it is obviously very important to set out the criteria under which Work and Income is able to use its discretion to determine whether or not something that has been put forward to a Work and Income client is considered suitable employment. As set out in subclause (3), “suitable employment in relation to a person, means employment that the chief executive is satisfied is suitable for the person to undertake for a number of hours a week determined by the chief executive having regard to the employment required to satisfy the work test for that person.”

What we wanted to see was as much consideration as was given to the definition of “suitable employment” given to the definition of “suitable childcare arrangements”. The reason for that is because obviously it is the prerogative and up to the discretion of a Work and Income case manager to determine whether or not all of the needs of that client have been met, and if the client is then turning down work, they have the ability to sanction them. That means, as set out in section 60GAD in clause 34: “The purpose of sections 60GAE and 60GAF is to improve the financial and social outcomes for families that include people to whom those sections apply by providing earlier access to employment services and expectations, while recognising the care and development needs of children.” In order to recognise the care and development needs of children, we felt it was important to set out a specific clause that set out what were considered suitable childcare arrangements.

There was some discussion at the select committee as to whether or not defining this ended up placing a prescription on the job seeker that might mean that we would be setting a bar that they would have to reach. So, for instance, if a job seeker came up with their own childcare arrangements, such as a grandparent whom they thought was suitable, would setting in the legislation a definition that had a higher bar mean that their arrangements were not considered suitable and therefore they would not transition into the job?

We would dispute that that is what setting a definition would do. We wanted to set a definition that is not necessarily around determining, if someone has found their own childcare arrangements, whether or not those arrangements are suitable. If they are suitable for the individual, and they have determined that for themselves, that should be their prerogative. But if a Work and Income case manager says: “We have a job that we believe is right for you.”, and that person then disputes that and says: “But I do not have suitable childcare arrangements.”, we thought there needed to be a definition if a dispute then ensued and a Work and Income case manager said: “Well, we believe there is a babysitter network on the corner of your street that is suitable.” In that circumstance we believed it was appropriate to have a definition for the sake of clarity, but also for the sake of ensuring that we are not putting children in vulnerable situations because, at the discretion of a case worker, Work and Income deemed those childcare arrangements, from their bar, to be suitable.

So what we have proposed is a new subsection under section 60Q where we wanted to make clear that “ ‘Quality child care’ is defined as one that provides healthy environment that meets standards prescribed by regulation,” so those standards we set ourselves, including “the availability of registered professionals, and the appropriate ratio of care-givers to children prescribed.”

We wanted to go on as well and pick up on one of the recommendations that, from my recollection, I believe was raised by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, which reflected on this as well, around whether or not we should be taking into account the availability of suitable early childhood education where the child is aged 3 or over. We know, based on the substantive work that the Office of the Children’s Commissioner has already done, that the availability of suitable childcare in some parts of our community is poor. So if we are going to oblige those on a domestic purposes benefit to transition into work at a particular point, and it is on the assumption that early childhood education is available with 20 hours free, surely we should be testing that that assumption is correct, because it is not in all cases. This is why our amendment adds subsection (6), which says “Where the child is 3 or over, the parent (beneficiary and their spouses and/or partners) must have access to registered early childhood education requiring services to be widely available in the area of residence prior to the obligations …” being applied—and those are those work-testing obligations. That is an amendment in the name of Sue Moroney, as our early childhood education spokesperson. I think it is sensible. It is not saying that if someone finds their own childcare arrangements that meet their needs, the arrangements are not sufficient. But it is saying that if it is mandated by a Work and Income case manager we should have some standards in place, and I think that that is only fair.

I want to come to a couple of additional amendments. It was interesting that the Minister for Social Development raised in one of her earlier interventions from the chair the issue that this is a bill that does not make assumptions about those on Government support. Yet one of the clauses we have in this part of the bill places earlier work-testing requirements on those on Government support who may for whatever reason have an additional child whilst on Government support. That is making an assumption, I would wager, about those who are having additional children whilst on Government support. If I am wrong, and if the Government is not making assumptions about those on Government support in the circumstance of having additional children, then I would be very happy to hear the Minister clarify what the purpose of this bill is. I have heard it very plainly stated that there is a perception that people have additional children to stay on Government support, and yet I did not see the evidence of that in the select committee. So if the Minister has evidence of that, I would welcome seeing it. Until that evidence is provided, we believe that work testing when a child is 12 months old, when that would require care arrangements, would, therefore, be imposing that provision on that family, and our preference is to remove that clause because of developmental reasons of the child. If the Minister has some counter-evidence to counter that amendment, we would welcome seeing it.

The next amendment I want to speak to is around clause 37. We had a discussion around the exemption from obligations. In particular, a very good case was brought by CCS Disability Action, from my recollection, around parents who are looking after disabled children in particular, children with behavioural issues, or, for instance, children who have been expelled from school. We believe that it is important to set out that there should be the ability to have an exemption from work-testing obligations where a parent has a very high-needs child. In high-needs we include potentially a disability that prevents the parent from being able to step away from their full-time care arrangements or if there are significant behavioural issues that require that parent’s full attention and care. Although we were given assurance at the select committee that that ability existed, we thought there was no harm in that being explicitly stated in the bill, and that is why we have an amendment to clause 37 suggesting that in section 105(1), after the words “from complying with section 60HA”, we insert “or where the beneficiary has a dependent child who has a disability, has been deemed to have significant behavioural issues and/or has been excluded from school.” That does not stop a parent exercising their choice to transition into work if that is appropriate for their arrangements. But it does allow a bit more flexibility for individual circumstances. I think, given the discussion had at select committee—

I just want to take a call on Part 3. The previous speaker, Jacinda Ardern, has identified some of the clauses to this part. Ultimately, what we are doing is lowering the age of the youngest dependent child from 6 years to 5 years for DPB sole parent recipients and partners of beneficiaries, so that they are available and can be looking for part-time work at least. Lowering the age of the youngest dependent child from 18 years to 14 years for the commencement of full-time work availability is quite new.

Obviously we have had a part-time work test for those whose youngest child is 6 years, and we are moving that to 5 years, which, quite frankly, still puts us at the lower end of the OECD as far as work testing for DPB mums. But the full-time work test for those whose youngest child is 14 years is very new. It has been 18 years for ever, which has meant that before National was in Government last time there was actually no work test at all for DPB mums until their youngest child was 18 years old. We have now moved that part-time work test to when their youngest child is 5 years, but a full-time work test at 14 years.

What we occasionally hear from others and from the Opposition on this particular policy is that it is unfair, that parents cannot do it, there is no possibility of finding work, and what will happen to their children. When looking at some of the facts it is quite interesting that for those whose youngest child is 14 years - plus, actually 68 percent of sole mothers currently work—68 percent—and 83 percent are partnered. The proof is kind of there that they can do it. It does not mean that there is always the right job available, hence that kind of suitability around work. But to say that it is not possible to find work is simply not true.

What we have done is made sure we have put some clauses in the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill that accept that those who are coming on benefit, in particular because of domestic violence incidents, or because of a death, or because of something that has been quite traumatic, are given due time to work their way through some of that. It is not an instant work test, even if their youngest child is over 5 years, for part-time work or their youngest child is 14 years - plus. We have taken some advice on that. There is a level of discretion around it, in particular. The other reality around it, when we really looked at it, is that there are just so many individual circumstances. What Work and Income case managers in particular want more than anything is something that is very clear and very plain and very straightforward. We are giving them that, but we are also giving a degree of discretion and flexibility around it, recognising people’s different circumstances.

To the member’s call around the insertion of a Supplementary Order Paper that covers quality childcare, to say at the least that I find it kind of sanctimonious and ridiculous would be an understatement. The reality is that the early education and childcare legislation actually already has defined what quality childcare is. We have regulations around that, and we subsidise only to that. For parents not to have an actual say in what is childcare and what is suitable for their own children because we feel it needs over-regulation, which is what we saw for so long, is actually what is half the problem with the cost blowout in the sector itself. The reality is that parents are very good at making informal and formal arrangements themselves. In fact, I challenge a mum or a dad in this House who has not actually had an arrangement of some description with their friends or parents where they said “I’ll pick up yours”—

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable Minister. The time has come for me to report progress.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill with amendment, and progress on the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.