Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill

Members, when we were last on the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill, Melissa Lee had the call and has 3 minutes remaining if she wishes.

I would indeed like to continue a little bit, because as we draw closer to the dinner break I was wondering whether I was once again going to have to break up my speech. If I remember correctly, I was speaking in support of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. I wanted to bring a little bit of the ethnic perspective into it and I talked specifically about my mother who is raising my child.

As members of Parliament we often leave our homes and, given that I am a single woman, my son, who has just turned 15, is often at home with my mother. My mother, I sometimes joke, has become my wife. It is so in many ethnic communities, and I think people have often talked about the goose parents, the goose mums, who migrate to New Zealand and often their husbands go back to their home countries because they cannot get a job. The wives then try to find a job here while looking after their children, and when a wife does in fact find a job, often the young children are looked after by grandparents.

The Government recognises this incredible work being done by family members who are raising children who have lost their parents or who are unable to live with their parents. At the moment kin carers are entitled to assistance to help with the cost of raising orphaned or unsupported children, and in 2009 National ensured that kin carers would get the same weekly amount as foster carers, which I think is excellent.

You know, traditionally in ethnic communities grandparents played a very big role in teaching young children about their culture, about their language, about their tradition, and about their family history. They play a significant role. But the thing is that when they are lumbered with the care of children whom they do not necessarily have responsibility for after they have raised their own children, they have to relearn how to be parents. I think it is a wonderful job that they are doing and we need to support them.

More than 12,000 children are being cared for by wider family members for one reason or another, and I know that we have agreed with New Zealand First MP Tracey Martin, who has introduced this bill, to look at further options within that $10 million capped fund that we have already committed to in the Vulnerable Children Bill. I look forward to the submission process in the select committee and I look forward to building on the good work that is already under way. I commend this bill.

I too am pleased to rise and offer the Green Party’s support for the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill proposed by New Zealand First’s Tracey Martin. It is a good bill, though I must say that there are shades of Dickens in this, in that the House needs to be debating the merits of a clothing allowance for orphans and unsupported children.

💬 Tracey Martin: There is.

There is. But what this bill does is it makes a simple change, which is appropriate for a member’s bill, to remove an inconsistency between funding for foster children and funding for unsupported children and orphans. Currently, caregivers of foster children receive a quarterly allowance for clothing for those children, paid at a rate set by the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development. Caregivers, though, of unsupported children and orphans are currently not paid this allowance. This allowance for foster children is often used to apply for clothing such as school uniforms and just everyday clothing—important thing that that is.

So supporting children, especially those who need a bit of extra attention and care as a result of having been through loss or family breakdown, is really important to the Green Party. I would just like to say that the clothing allowance fits within the context of a family’s ability just to manage the financial pressures of caring for children, but, specifically, I think that clothing has a meaning that often may not be recognised, particularly for children who have been through really tough times. Some of those children will have developed coping mechanisms through what they have been through that may not be working so well for them now in their current life. There may be behaviours around anxiety and anger—just a whole range of behaviours that are often quite a challenge for them and those around them. Having family to care for them through that transition and working through those issues really can help, but it does not lessen the challenge for them or their new carers.

Although I am a really strong advocate for second-hand clothing and I love op shopping, I recognise that if young children and young people are not in that group of young people it adds a layer of difficulty for them in terms of fitting in and feeling that they have a place to belong in the world when their clothes are not the same as their peers. So the clothing allowance is particularly important to give them and their family a bit more choice around how they are seen in the world, particularly as they are dealing with some of those challenges in terms of behaviours.

It is also really important to acknowledge that this bill arises in part from the inadequacy of current wages and benefit levels. It sits within what I consider a context of absolute meanness—a situation where 8,614 people, about half of whom are grandparents, who care for over 12,000 orphans and unsupported children are currently being work tested. That needs to be acknowledged in this debate. Grandparents who have spent years raising troubled grandchildren are being told to get back to work, sometimes just months from retirement. Some grandparents nearing retirement age have been required to attend job training courses where they are asked what school they attended and what their long-term career goals are.

That is the context that this bill sits within. It is a context of absolute meanness, it is ridiculous, and it is worthy of a Dickens novel. But it is nice to have a moment of hope within that, of a little thing that we can do as a House to make the lives of those families a little bit easier. So we are very, very happy to be able to support that and we hope that it inspires the Government to a little bit more kindness in the future.

It is a pleasure to also take a call on this Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. In doing that, I congratulate my colleague Tracey Martin on picking this up—first, thinking about it, designing it, and then having it drawn. It is part of her advocacy for vulnerable people, which is consistent with what we believe in here.

But as we reflect on the period through which we have as a State developed approaches for providing assistance to vulnerable people, particularly to vulnerable children, we have always done that with strings attached. The history that New Zealand has of providing support to families, or individuals in vulnerable families, is a chequered one. It is beginning to change now as we are beginning to realise that the outcome for many of these families is not the result of their own behaviour, but of where they find themselves, and there are a lot of external influences on outcomes for families.

In that period when we have had this approach—a residual approach, if you like—to providing support to these families, we have been providing them with only as much support that ensured that they were no better off, and decidedly worse off, than children of those families who were in work. So we have had this struggle throughout the period of child welfare history in New Zealand in terms of providing support for families of the type that this particular bill addresses. Throughout the period of the Child Welfare Act 1925, which was in existence until the late 1970s, that certainly was the case.

I remember many, many cases working in the field with vulnerable families. A parent might have been in work but they were poor, and trying to get some assistance, little though it might be, through the then social security system was impossible because a moralistic set of principles prevailed saying that you could not do this, and if children were living with family or relatives, then you could not provide financial assistance for them.

We saw some of that in our foster care system for a long time. That system was not dissimilar to what this particular bill is trying to do, because foster parents were in a sense required to have their own input into the contribution they made to the lives of vulnerable children, often those in the care of the State, because the assistance provided for them was not all of what was required. There was a gap between what they needed—

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

It has been an interesting 1½ hours in the interlude. When I was talking before the dinner break, what I was saying was that there has historically been a reluctance in the New Zealand social policy and child welfare systems to do too much or to do more than a little for families whose children have been in difficulty but whom they are caring for themselves. Then I moved from that to talk about the foster care system. Indeed, it took a long time—and we still are not there—for us to develop a support system for foster parents looking after vulnerable children who are in the care of the State and to provide them with everything they require to enable them to go through that period of development and come out the other side in good shape. So foster parents do a great job in difficult situations, but they have always had to fight very hard for the kinds of services they require.

We come now to what this bill is about: the unsupported children who require assistance. Giving them just a small amount of money is not enough. What the bill is doing is saying that we should go to this next step, as Tracey Martin has proposed and which we support, and actually provide them with a clothing allowance that at least enables them to do one thing that is important. Clothing is important, particularly for young people at that stage. The Green member Jan Logie was talking about this before as well. Clothing is an element of identity, and having the clothes that will enable them to interact with their peers, etc., in a way that enables them to have an identity that is not negative but positive is really important.

So the provisions of this bill enable that to happen. I am glad that all sides of the House are supporting this bill, and I look forward to the debate in the Social Services Committee. Thank you.

National happily supports this bill, the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill, at first reading. I must say that colleagues certainly passed back to me—as someone on the Social Services Committee, which is probably going to receive this legislation—that they have enjoyed their engagement with Tracey Martin on this particular issue. It has come from a very genuine concern for those people who are caring for vulnerable children, and from wanting to make sure that the foundations of those families looking after the children are strong and, in this particular case, are economically strong. That is why she is bringing this bill to the House. We recognise that she has seen an issue that needs to be addressed and we certainly acknowledge that, so we will support the bill at first reading.

National believes we can provide further financial assistance to what we call kin carers in a better and more targeted way. She will be well aware that we have committed $10 million in a capped fund as part of the Children’s Action Plan to provide further support to kin carers. We have set up a ministerial reference group, which is currently working through the options for how this extra funding will be applied. The select committee, I hope, will explore these options in good faith, building on the good work already under way, but will also more specifically work on the issues that Tracey Martin raises. So we have agreed to explore further financial assistance options. I want to make that assurance. We are supporting the bill at first reading because we agree with the bill’s intent, but we would want any funding to be within the $10 million capped amount. We have sort of made that clear as well.

We have got lots of demands on our welfare spend. This is by no means a least or a lower order priority. That is not the case at all. We know that more than 12,000 New Zealand children are being cared for by members of the wider family because of the death of a parent or because of family breakdown. Currently, kin carers are entitled to assistance to help with the costs of raising orphaned children, but this whole issue around clothing allowances needs to be dealt with.

The circumstances of grandparents raising grandchildren are often complex. Families find it complex navigating the myriad of assistance options that they could be eligible for. We are hoping that during the select committee process in the advent of this particular piece of legislation we can clarify it more publicly and get much more of a public discussion, so that those who are kin carers are much more aware of the assistance and options that are available to them. Conversely, we want members of Parliament, across political parties, to get a better understanding of what is available to kin carers and what is not available to kin carers. We may very well identify areas where we can do more.

We know that Work and Income has been quite involved in making some changes to make things better for those people who take on children in these circumstances. It has assigned a manager at the national office to work with grandparents who are raising grandchildren. Field officers will be a single point of contact to work through the trickier, more detailed elements in some cases. In partnership with the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust and The Parenting Place, we have also developed a tailored tool box programme specifically for kin caregivers, at a cost of $600,000 a year.

What I do want to signal to the House and to Tracey, who raised this matter above many other matters that have been discussed in this House over the last 5 years and that have not gone anywhere near this issue, is that we are very, very interested in the points that she raised. They are legitimate. We have enjoyed the professional approach that she has undertaken in engaging with the National Party team, and we absolutely support this bill at first reading. We, the select committee members, will be approaching this with an equal amount of genuineness and openness to her suggestions. We support the bill. Thank you.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. We have to congratulate Tracey Martin on two particular aspects.

Firstly, this is an excellent bill. It is well overdue, and, as the previous speaker, Phil Heatley, said, nothing has come into this Parliament on this particular topic.

Secondly, we congratulate Tracey Martin on getting her bill drawn from the ballot. It is never easy to get a bill drawn from the ballot. It is totally dependent on luck. I am very pleased that one of our new members has had a bill drawn from the ballot.

The fact is that many families are changing, and we do not want children to be disadvantaged because of their family circumstances. It is not their fault and, therefore, they should not be disadvantaged. We know that a lot of grandparents and other kin carers are raising children who are not their own. This is not an easy job. This group of carers gets the same basic payment as those fostering children under the care of Child, Youth and Family. But the bottom line is that they do not receive additional assistance for things like clothing, which the Child, Youth and Family caregivers get through the foster care allowances. That makes a significant difference of up to $1,700 per year—$1,700. That is an inconsistency that does need to be removed and rectified. The family caregivers do not receive the foster care allowance, although many of them will be eligible for the unsupported child’s allowance, which is now paid at the foster care allowance rate. Minister Paula Bennett made this adjustment in the Budget in 2009, and we recognise that good work in this area.

In 2009—also a very good year—the Government provided 500 respite care places a year for grandchildren in week-long holiday health camps. Grandparents do need a break. It is not an easy job bringing up a child, especially in these difficult circumstances. There are many challenges that can be experienced by these families.

We have to be clear: this bill proposes to give the orphan and unsupported child clothing allowance parity with the foster care allowance. How much will it cost? Well, not a significant amount. The bill will cost approximately $16 million a year for parity. When we relate that to other areas where money is spent by the Government, it is not a massive amount.

As at February 2012 the membership of the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust stood at 5,024 grandparent or kin carer families, representing a significant number of grandchildren. It is conservatively estimated that the number of children in full-time grandparent or kin care is in excess of 10,000, and I would say that 10,000 is the very minimum number that we can expect. In fact, it will more than likely be more because not everybody is recognised in this way. However, it is well-known that a lot of the caring for these children occurs informally, rather than formally. The Families Commission in 2009 commissioned a UMR Research report to survey the changing role of grandparents. We know that that role is changing. I must say that looking after children is never ever cheap, and I am sure we all know that.

This is a good bill. We do not want these grandparents and kin carers to face any more challenges than they need to. They are largely unappreciated. We support this bill totally.

I rise to add another voice to Labour’s support for the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that unsupported children or orphans receive parity with foster children when it comes to clothing allowances. The Work and Income weekly benefit for the unsupported child and orphan is currently the same as for a foster child under the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989. However, the unsupported child or orphan is not eligible for the clothing allowance, which is graduated according to age. For children over 13 years of age, this quarterly allowance usually covers the child’s secondary school uniform.

It is pleasing to see an outbreak of peace in the House this evening. A couple of bills, so far, have received near unanimous support from all sides of the House, and it is hopeful—or at least we on this side hope—that that outbreak of peace may carry on as we venture further into the evening with the bills that are further down the Order Paper. But for now let us discuss the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill.

A foster carer can apply for a quarterly clothing allowance and an allowance for Christmas and birthday presents. Health and education costs are met, and, depending on the child’s care plan, a carer may also be able to apply for financial assistance towards recreational items. All of this should be extended to unsupported children as well. The policy must be fair, so that children are not disadvantaged. Where other items are not extended to unsupported children, they should be extended, or equal value for them must be received. Quality between the two allowances is a must, and that is what Tracey Martin is trying to achieve, I believe.

Labour believes that if New Zealand really wants the best outcomes for children, then we need to invest in and prioritise policies that put a real focus on parents and children. All children in New Zealand, regardless of their background, regardless of their upbringing, regardless of their parents’ situation, deserve the best and the same opportunities in life. We believe that this Government needs to do a lot more than it has in its 5 years in office to try to alleviate child poverty. What we needed back at Budget time this year was for the Government to set out a clear plan for child poverty, including setting targets to reduce it. Instead, basically the cupboard has been left bare. If Budgets show where a Government’s priorities lie, then the 2013 Budget shows that this Government is not interested in child poverty.

The National Party has started to talk a reasonably good game, but it has been a late party on a number of initiatives initially proposed by Labour. These include food in schools, for which we have not one but two members’ bills on the Order Paper now to address, and that gives the Government two opportunities to get in behind that programme and support it. There is also the Housing Warrant of Fitness, a social lending initiative. These are all ideas that National now appears to at least be lukewarm on, but it has been a long way behind the Labour Party and other progressive parties in this House in promoting those ideas.

The Government has spent the last 5 years talking about the problem and refusing to acknowledge the advice from experts, including the Children’s Commissioner, that measures and targets must be set to eradicate child poverty. Labour, unlike National, is serious about ensuring that the 270,000 Kiwi children who are living in poverty do not miss out on the many things that most of us take for granted, including basic health-care, good nutrition, and educational opportunities.

Over the last 5 years there has been a widening gap between the rich and the poor, between those who have and those who do not have. It has been, to a certain extent, a result of the international financial crisis. In times of recession the gap between the rich and the poor does grow, but it has been enormously exacerbated by Government policies—decisions that this Government has taken to give more to those at the top and to take more from those at the bottom. Our inequality gap is shameful. Although we support this initiative from Tracey Martin to try to alleviate that gap for some children in our society, what we need is a Government that is prepared to tackle the whole problem.

That last speech, from the member Iain Lees-Galloway, started off by celebrating peace in the House and then, all of a sudden, went on to the attack. It did not last very long, did it? Those words of peace did not last. In fact, he even challenged us that, hopefully, throughout the night peace would reign, and then the very person who did that then started attacking. It actually went away from the intent of this bill.

We are talking about the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge Tracey Martin. Barbara Stewart did talk about luck, and yes, luck plays a part in it, absolutely. All of us who are new, first-term MPs would hope and wish that our member’s bill is drawn from the ballot. But I think it has to go further than that. I want to acknowledge the fact that luck plays a part in when your bill is drawn from the ballot, but, in actual fact, what surrounds the support is the intent of the bill. I just want to acknowledge that.

The intent of this bill is not only good but does good to those who most need it. I have been fortunate to be part of the Minister for Social Development’s ministerial reference group, along with Tracey Martin. The thing that stood out for us was that the purpose of this bill is around allowance parity. I think that is quite critical, and that is important. It is to increase financial support to kin carers who look after children, such as grandparents raising grandchildren. One of the things I really enjoyed, being in that group, was the feistiness and the ability of some of our members to really give us a reality check.

There was in that group a number of representatives who are part of the sector. I want to acknowledge Diane Vivian, who talked about grandparents raising grandchildren. We know that there are over 8,500 carers who are out there, and what she said to us is that there is a growing number of grandparents raising grandchildren. It is important because they need to have a voice. She brought their voice. She talked about their concerns. She had done some surveying around them. Therefore, we were not only informed but also had the aspect of shaping the options that would be submitted to the Minister with the intent of recognising the role of grandparents raising grandchildren.

I also want to acknowledge Linda Surtees, who is a representative for foster care. She too gave us a reality check of some of the concerns from foster carers who are there. Again, she raised the areas of need that they have. That was important.

Lastly, I want also to acknowledge the iwi representative, Katie Murray—the feisty Katie Murray from up in Kaitāia, who often would give us that sense of the reality of what they were receiving. But what I appreciated from Katie was her saying that there were also times she was asking the hard questions to carers themselves about the allowances that were given: “Are you making the most use of the support that you are getting as well?”. That becomes important.

This bill is a very good bill. I think that people will be pleased with the options that will come through. We have worked hard on that. One of the things that was important, which was put forward to the ministerial reference group and which the Minister said, was for us to think outside the box. That was important, because we saw that there were not only needs about clothing—and I think we have talked a lot about that—but also a variety of other needs there as well. I suppose the intent now is to say, with the support that was given, how we could unbundle that, and how we could prioritise where the needs were. But there were some interesting ideas. I will not go into those because those options papers are still there, but needless to say I think that what will come forward in those options papers will be things that are really important to us.

One other point that I want to raise, which I think is a significant point, is that we began to look around the geography of where some of these kin carers are. Firstly, what was quite clear from the statistics around the carer ethnicity is that over 45 percent of kin carers are of Māori ethnicity. I think that is really important. Katie Murray acknowledged that and asked then whether we were targeted in our approach. I think that becomes important because one of the key things we talked about was whether to have the universal approach or a targeted approach. I think what we came to was having a combination of both those things coming together. I think that this is going to be important.

I look forward to the submissions that will be heard in the select committee, along with the options paper that has been delivered to the Minister. Again, I want to acknowledge Tracey Martin for her integrity and for her passion in this whole process. It has really, truly made a difference. Most important, at the end of the day—and I finally finish my speech—we hear about children in poverty and we hear about their needs, absolutely. In this case, for this bill, it is about children in the care of the kin carers who most need our support. I support this bill, and I look forward to its first reading and its select committee. Thank you.

Kia ora. Can I firstly thank members of the House for their kind words and their support for this bill, the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. This bill does have personal meaning to me, but over time I have gained a deeper knowledge of the many and varied families that it affects.

I want to take this 5 minutes to be very, very clear not only for the members of this House but also for the public, and for those families particularly, that they should submit their stories to the select committee to make sure that the picture of what they are dealing with is understood by the wider community of New Zealand taxpayers, so that when the $16 million possible price tag is put out there, it does not stop conversation. This is about children and their equity in circumstances beyond their control. We can talk about the money and we can move money around, but really what this is about is that an orphan is an orphan. It is interesting to me that when I have been asked to speak on this bill, people have asked me not to use the term “orphan”. They do not like it; it is not a word for today. But they are orphans.

Today I spent lunchtime with a grandmother whose daughter was murdered. She is now raising her 6-year-old grandson. She gave up a six-figure income because that child needs her to be there. She is a grandparent. She is not of retirement age. She requires, and lives on, this benefit for that child—$10,700 a year—but because she is a kin carer, because she has a blood relationship with that child, she does not receive the $1,000 to $1,700 a year that she could receive. She does not receive an allowance for psych services for that child. There are some ACC payments of $134 a week. I want New Zealand to hear that this is not massive amounts of money. This is not grandparents becoming rich off this as a scam. This is a real equity issue for these children.

I want to acknowledge Melissa Lee, and just take up the comment about the role that grandparents play in different ethnicities. My mother was raised by her grandmother. My mother was then taken in under a whāngai relationship by Maude Mohi. My mother now lives in an extended family situation with our family and assists with our grandchildren. Grandparents do it all the time.

I ask every member of this House who is a grandparent and every member of this House who is an aunt or an uncle to now take a moment to remember the last time you played with and visited those grandchildren or nieces and nephews. Now I want you to imagine that tonight, in the dead of the night, there is a knock on your door and a police officer with a Child, Youth and Family officer shows up saying: “Somebody has to take in these children.” There has either been a murder, or there is now drug addiction, mental illness, or another very, very real reason why these children need to come into your home. Can you continue working? Is your home big enough to take those children?

There is another grandmother I am working with in Wellington here. She got a call from the Australian authorities. She flew to Sydney to pick up four grandchildren and bring them back here. She gave up her $60,000-a-year job. Due to the drug addiction of the parents, she now is looking after four grandchildren. I ask you to think about it in your own life before we make a decision that this is something we cannot do.

I thank the House for its time, I thank the House for its support, and I look forward to working with the select committee going forward. Kia ora.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Social Services Committee.