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

I move, That the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on my bill, and I do not take that lightly, so I appreciate the time of the House. I wish to start by acknowledging the members of the Social Services Committee: Melissa Lee, who was the chair at the time, Phil Heatley, Jan Logie, Asenati Lole-Taylor, Sam Lotu-Iiga, Sue Moroney, Alfred Ngaro, Rajen Prasad, Mike Sabin, Chris Tremain, and Louisa Wall. I acknowledge them because their support—unanimous support—for this bill from the select committee has absolutely nothing to do with me. I acknowledge them because that select committee took seriously the submissions of the people who came to speak with it—submissions like those of David White and Di Vivian, who is the founder and the chair of the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust. After this speech I will hold my breath and see who is the first contributor for the Government side, and I will listen carefully to what they say, because I know that at the select committee there was a will—a genuine will—to support the righting of what is this terrible inequality between these children.

So to just quickly recap, what this very little bill does—it is not very long for people to read—is it gives a clothing allowance of, at the most, $1,600 in a year to orphans and unsupported children who have been taken in by somebody related to them by blood. At the moment, if you are an orphan or an unsupported child and you do not have a family member or a person related to you by blood who can take you in—who is in a position to take you in—and you are placed with foster parents or a foster family, you have access to, at a maximum, $1,600 per year for clothing. Now, $1,600 per year does not sound like much, but what I think, what I hope, is that the members of the select committee and, I hope, all the members of this House, will agree with me that the point of this bill is not actually about the money; it is about the fact and the recognition by this House that if you are an orphan, you are an orphan, and if you are unsupported by your immediate family members, then you are unsupported. It does not matter into whose home you go from that moment you become an orphan.

Again, I challenge any member of the select committee who listened to the submissions to not agree with that statement when you heard or read David White’s submission and how his grandchildren ended up with him and his wife. I am not going to recount that story here because it is their story, and David very kindly came to the select committee to tell it to us to make the point. He has placed it in a book because it is the story of his daughter and this journey of her children after incredible tragedy.

It is a shame that this bill has taken so long to come here. Again, I hold my breath and I hope that it goes forward, because the grandparents, the kin carers, have been calling out for this assistance for a large number of years—certainly for a lot longer than I have been here. They do a much harder job than I do when I walk into this place every day, and all they have asked for is the same support. All they have asked for—and it is not for themselves. This clothing allowance cannot be spent on an adult’s clothing. This clothing allowance cannot be spent on anybody’s rent or anybody’s alcohol or anybody’s cigarettes. It cannot be spent on anybody else but the child, and it can be spent only on clothing for the child. So it is not possible to take advantage. It is merely righting what has been a serious discrepancy in equity for these children.

I think the other thing that has moved the members of the select committee has been the reality many of them knew. I also want to acknowledge the right honourable Paula Bennett, or the Hon Paula Bennett—

💬 Chris Bishop: Not quite yet right honourable.

—I know, I apologise; I take back the “right”—because I know she also has a will to fix this inequity. I recognise that the Minister was kind enough to place me on a ministerial working party to work on a $10 million fund to put in some immediate support for these families and these children—that is, the school and year start-up payment. I think there has been a 73 percent pick-up of that this year. There is no requirement to justify your application, but you do need to register for that money, and we would encourage any kin carer caring for an orphan or an unsupported child to do so. But the maximum of that fund is $550 for school start-up, and what concerns me is that I am already hearing that that is covering just summer uniform. That is another issue we are going to have to deal with—the fact that in this country $550 covers only summer uniform in some State schools.

Again, we come back to the fact that although it is $550, that is not the point; the point is that the legislation right now discriminates against these children merely because a policeman and a Child, Youth and Family services worker showed up at the door of these grandparents or these kin and said to them: “These children need a home. Will you take them in?”. That is the single thing that differentiates them from foster children on this issue, and yet the grandparents did not seek them out in most of the cases; the State came looking. The State came knocking on the door with these children and said: “Somebody needs to care for them. Will you do it?”. And just as David White said to his granddaughter when he picked her up from primary school on that day and she said to him: “Who will we live with?” when he told her that her mother had been murdered by her father, the answer is: “With us.” What else is the answer?

I challenge anybody who has argued against this equity before and used the argument that grandparents just should—well, grandparents just do. But grandparents do not have a limitless bucket of money. Contrary to popular opinion, many grandparents are living on the fixed income that is the superannuation. Contrary to popular opinion and popular, I guess, perception, these children do not all come as smiley-faced Rosies. They are not all Annies. They are not all Annies dancing up and down the corridors. Many of them come seriously damaged. They have seen things they should not have seen. They have lived through things they should not have had to live through. They have psychological disorders. They require many of the things that cost that bit extra.

Again, there was a special fund that these families could apply for out of that $10 million pool, and I am sure that Mr Ngaro, when he contributes, will expand on this. So that pool is for things above and beyond—extras that can be applied for and, if the need is accepted by the panel that reviews those, can be paid for. I know at the moment that some of the largest numbers of those requests are for orthodontic treatment. This bill would not fix that, but what it would do is it would give $1,600 at the most—that is the maximum this bill will do—to supplement the clothing so maybe some other money could be spent on dental work.

Before I finish my contribution there is an amendment that the select committee made, and it is around the implementation date of this bill. If this bill does pass through this House, it would come into force on 1 July 2018. I agreed to that because I understand the financial constraints. But I just want to add that 1 July is my birthday, and so I think it actually was somehow fate that 1 July, no matter what year, was taken as the day that this bill would actually come into force. I commend this bill to the House and I seek the House’s support. Kia ora.

I rise and take a call on the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill in its second reading. This is my third speech in the House today. On members’ days I have always begun a speech by acknowledging the sponsors of the bills that I have been able to speak on. Like all members, we look for our member’s bill to be drawn out of the ballot because it allows us to be the champion of a cause that we believe wholeheartedly and passionately about. It allows us to connect with our communities and to advocate in a way that we believe makes a difference. However, the challenges before any member with their member’s bill is to see that it aligns with the Government of the day, with intentions that are true and right, and that it obviously connects with that which is fiscally responsible—all of those things that make it important. I just want to acknowledge the member Tracey Martin for the cause that she has championed. I can start off my speech by saying that the National Government will support this bill in its second reading, and it is fortuitous that 1 July is Tracey’s birthday.

Tracey and I were on the ministerial reference group. We heard from a number of different members who are part of the sector of support who are out there in the community, like Katherine Rich, who was the chair. There was also Diane Vivian, from the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust, who is a feisty little grandmother who has a bucket of energy and just wants to go out and make a difference. She shared with us the survey of what the trust had polled its grandparents on. What it clearly showed was that at the moment we have around about 8,500 kin carers who are out there caring for approximately 12,000 children. As Mrs Martin has said, often these children, through no fault of their own, are in circumstances of brokenness and despair, and are really just looking for some support and help. I totally support this bill and I know the Government supports this bill because it is the right bill for the right need and for the right purpose. We believe that it is important to do that.

Then it comes down to the aspect of how we make this work within our means but at the same time too how we make it work for those in need. I believe that our role in the reference group was to be able to hear from those providers and to hear the things that were important. Diane Vivian talked about the importance of grandparents and how we make sure that their support is there. Often children would just end up on grandparents’ front doorsteps and grandparents had to immediately meet their needs—things like beds, drawers, clothes, and food in the cupboard. Many of them were still of working age, and yet at the same time too they were only making ends meet for themselves, so they needed that support. We heard that from Diane Vivian. We also heard from Linda Surtees, who was with Fostering Kids, and she talked about the importance of the system playing its role, working with schools, and how that worked in regards to the allowances, which is what this bill is actually about. It is about parity for the allowance of clothes for children. I know Mrs Martin made it clear to us all the way through that all the other allowances we are providing are important and are for the needs, but that did not include what this bill is about. I commend you, Tracey Martin, that we are true to what this bill is.

I also want to mention Katie Murray from up in the far north. What she reminded us of was about some of the reality. Although people keep saying: “We want more and more and more. More money, more resources.”, she also was a challenger for those who are receiving that. So from the inside looking out she said that sometimes we also need to challenge those who receive this resource. How are they prioritising? That is something that we cannot do, because from the outside, in the sense of trying to give these sorts of messages, it can make us look like we are mean-spirited, cold-hearted, and trying to force change when really, for Katie Murray and the work that she does in the far north, it was important to say that this is what she is seeing and these are the challenges that she is seeing as well. An important fact that also came out of that conversation was the fact that nearly 45 percent of those 12,000 children are Māori children. I think that is an important issue to be raised because out of this, although we talk about the generic aspect of children, there are our Māori children and whānau who absolutely need this help. We believe that this bill will be a way of being able to address that.

I just want to comment on a few things. Just as Mrs Martin has talked about, at the Social Services Committee we believed that there were two amendments that needed to be made to the clauses. One was amending clause 2 to delay the commencement of this new legislation, should it be passed, until 1 July 2018. It seems like a long way away, but, as they say, 1 week in politics can be a long time—it can be a short time—but I believe that we have come to an agreement where we will work towards that and I believe that it is important. Also too there will be parity in the payment of clothing-related allowances for foster children, orphans, and unsupported children, should the school and the year start-up payment be no longer available.

The second amendment that was made in the select committee amends clause 4 to clarify that an orphan or unsupported child would be entitled to a clothing allowance only if the chief executive used their discretion to set a rate of payment for a clothing allowance for foster children under section 363 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act.

National does support this bill. We believe it is a good bill. We have had positive negotiations with Tracey Martin. National believes that we can provide further financial assistance to kin carers in a better way and a more targeted way. Although we talked about the universal aspect of providing generically for all children in need in regards to the unsupported child’s benefit and the orphans benefit, we also then looked at some of the targeted approaches. I just want to make mention of them because I think that the targeted approaches also came out of the ministerial reference group. Here are some of the things that it talked about. The Government recognises the incredible work done by these families, so there is the Extraordinary Care Fund. More than 300 children and young people have benefited from the first round of this fund. This fund recognises the job that grandparents and extended family members do in raising children who come into their care. What we have done is provide grants that are now available for up to $2,000 per child, and this round of funding distributed more than $360,000.

The example I want to give came from Katie Murray. For instance, she said: “There are times in which, yes, you provide for the basic needs for the children in your care, such as uniforms, beds, food, and so forth. But then how do we help them to achieve their dreams when, in a sense, their lives have been tragic and with trauma? How do we find a way to excel that?”. She talked about how there are times when the children whom she has cared for had an opportunity for them to excel in sports. She talked about a number of the young children whom she cared for—so taking them to, for instance, representative sports teams or functions or events. She said that this is another part that if we are going to help them overcome their circumstances and not allow their circumstances to define their destiny, then this Extraordinary Care Fund would be an important inclusion in the fund as well. I want to acknowledge that we heard this and believe that this was a very important part of the support that we wanted to offer as well. There had been about 36 applicants who were successful in that inaugural funding round, and we are providing extra support so that the children whom these carers are looking after have the opportunity to truly reach their full potential to thrive, achieve, and belong. The second round of the Extraordinary Care Fund opened in January 2015, just past, and an additional three funding rounds are planned for 2015 and 2016 as well.

Just a couple of other comments that I want to make as I begin to summarise is that we heard from the ministerial reference group, from the dedicated person at Work and Income, in regards to being able to provide that support because often when grandparents went there, they felt that sometimes some of the front-line support people they got were a bit unsure about what they needed. They asked for a dedicated person to work with them, and also for some greater parenting support. This is from Diane Vivian. She said that many times grandparents were having to sort of re-parent themselves. It has been a long time since they have been parenting. So in partnership with the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust and The Parenting Place, we have also developed a tailored tool box programme specifically for kin carers at a cost of around $600,000 a year. It is a refresher course for grandparents.

I conclude my remarks by congratulating Mrs Martin on her tenacity and her passion and her ability to be able to advocate very strongly. She has put together what I think is a good bill, a practical bill, which I believe will meet the needs of and support for our children and especially those who are our kin carers. I commend this bill to the House.

It is my pleasure to contribute to the second reading debate on the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. I will begin as other members have done as well and thank and commend Tracey Martin for bringing this bill to the House. It is absolutely the right thing to do and I am pleased to see that it has been supported by the Government. I wonder whether or not greater immediacy on the implementation of the bill would still equally be supported by the Government. If the Government indeed agrees that this is a beneficial amendment, then it is beneficial tomorrow, rather than in some time in the future. So we would continue to encourage Government members to just take that extra step.

I think the member Tracey Martin has done well to bring the stories of the origins of this bill to the House. I want to just expand, though, a little bit on the distinction that we have in our legislation currently around a foster child and the difference in treatment that their carers would receive if they were on an unsupported child’s benefit. There is not parity between the two in terms of those additional allowances. I guess that extending the clothing allowance is a significant contribution, but our concern is that we would like to see parity in all allowances. Why the difference for a child who is being cared for by someone who is not their biological parent but through reasons that are not of their own choosing are having to be supported by someone else? It is through the goodwill of that someone else that they are being raised in a loving and caring home, but often without the financial resources to necessarily deal with that new member of their home.

In fact, if anything, it is often a foster carer who may be able to do more pre-planning around these circumstances to deal with the change in income that they may experience as a result of taking on a child in their home, whereas those who are on an unsupported child’s benefit are often family members who are taking in a child because they feel compelled to ensure that that child is still cared for within their family. So they are less likely, necessarily, to be able to manage their financial circumstances or to plan their financial circumstances to accommodate that extra cost. So it is Labour policy that we would like to see, for instance, grandparents raising grandchildren—which represents a significant number of people who are in receipt of the unsupported child’s benefit—receiving the same access to allowances as a foster care family would. We think that makes absolute sense.

One of our other concerns about the unsupported child’s benefit—and it seems wise to raise it at this juncture—is that a number of families struggle to access the unsupported child’s benefit. I have had a number of grandparents who have contacted my office seeking assistance just to get that basic allowance, let alone access to the other allowances that the member is trying to extend to them. The threshold for an unsupported child’s benefit is very high, but the family member has to demonstrate that there has been a breakdown in the relationship that means that that child is no longer able to be cared for by their biological parent or their long-term guardian and caregiver. That often places a grandparent in a very difficult situation where they are forced to demonstrate the dysfunction in their own family, even though they may have been caring for that child for a number of months, thus demonstrating that they are the ones who have been compelled to take up the care of that child.

The other issue that it causes is that if a grandparent seeks the unsupported child’s benefit and there is a situation where there is a parent who is in receipt of a benefit that is a result of caring for a child, the grandparent seeking that benefit and support triggers Work and Income to see that the parent is no longer caring for the child and is no longer eligible for, for instance, sole parent support. That causes that parent to then go to try to take back a child from a grandparent who has cared for them because that is the best place for them to be cared for. I am not arguing that it is right that someone be able to access an unsupported child’s benefit when they are not supporting a child, but you can see the complexity of the family situations that these grandparents are often having to deal with. They are difficult and we should ease the path as much as possible. At the moment, having to care for a child for up to a year to demonstrate that they are the long-term caregiver is a significant barrier for those grandparents.

Two other issues that I would like to raise that are relevant to this debate include that a lot of our foster carers are currently in receipt of these allowances—and they might include allowances for Christmas and birthday presents, health and education costs, and other financial assistance for recreational items that just come with caring for a child. A foster carer who may be in receipt of those allowances often is now being encouraged by the Ministry of Social Development to take bulk, one-off payments in exchange for becoming Home for Life parents. There are two issues with this. Home for Life seems to have been used as an intermediary for adoption rather than actually reforming our troubled and antiquated adoption laws. Secondly, Home for Life, in and of itself, has meant that some families have thought that they would get greater legal certainty by moving to this different classification when actually, to date, they still deal with the same issues that they might have dealt with as a foster carer—for instance, a litigious biological parent who constantly challenges any decisions or battles for access rights when that is clearly not appropriate—and none of that is necessarily resolved with Home for Life. In fact, all it does is leave what was previously a foster carer without the allowances and access for support that they may have otherwise had.

A lot of families who moved to Home for Life do so because they want to indicate to the child they care for that it is not about that financial support and that they want that legal recognition. But when they do so, they are also finding that they are abandoned by Child, Youth and Family in terms of long-term support on the legal challenges they face with biological parents and with other issues, like conduct disorder. So if we want to make sure that we are giving a secure family home for a child who is being supported either on an unsupported child’s benefit, with a foster care family, or by Home for Life, we need to make sure that the support is appropriately tailored for each of those different circumstances, and currently it is not.

The second point that I wanted to raise relates to the age at which a child is covered for these different categories. The Department of Child, Youth and Family Services Act currently classifies a child as being a child until their 17th birthday. If I asked any parent in this House whether they, at the time that their child turned 17, would pack their bags, send them out the door, and tell them never to return, ask for money, help, support, housing, food, clothing, or even emotional help because it is game up, they are 17 and on their way—I know plenty of parents who, at times, would like to have done that but, reasonably, never would have. And yet the State, the parent of last resort, does exactly that. It functionally switches off all legal support at the age of 17. I think it would be hard for many of us in this House to fathom that, which is why those who work in the care and protection space—the Dingwall Trust, Lifewise, and many other agencies—are calling upon us as parliamentarians to lift the age from 17 to at least 18. Let us at least bridge the gaps so that a young person is eligible to sign a tenancy agreement, get a Housing New Zealand house, or access the unemployment benefit if they need to. But at the moment we have a gap in our law.

I would plead with members of this House to take up the opportunity to bridge that gap. We have asked Ministers before, but it seems pertinent here because that would, of course—as far as I understand it—extend the support that this bill would give to what I think is a reasonable age, and that is just the age of 18. These are extra issues that I would ask this House to consider, but otherwise I commend Tracy Martin for the work she has done in bringing this bill to the House.

Well, we have heard it all tonight—party at Tracey Martin’s house, 1 July 2018. I am rising to support the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill in its second reading, and I would like to acknowledge Tracey Martin. This bill is common sense. I know her party stood on that platform. I would not agree that all their policies were common sense, but this one has made it, and I think it is very much common sense.

I did take the time to read some of the notes around this bill, and I would like to acknowledge Tracey for sharing some of her personal stories and her personal connections to this bill, as well. And it is very much—from someone who comes from a mental health background—our stories, our personal stories, our shared experiences that bind us all together, and it is something that we can work towards in improving the well-being of this country. It is very much focused on improving the well-being of not only the young people but the kin carers in this situation.

As we have heard from previous speakers, there are around 12,000 New Zealand children being looked after by kin carers, and this is a great opportunity to acknowledge their work and everything they do. I know, for myself, that I have had a kin carer come into my office seeking help, and her story was amazing. Making no real thought about her own situation, she swiftly moved in to take over guardianship of a niece and a nephew. It is right that we look to support these kin carers and give them all the resources that we can.

I would like to support the words of the previous speaker, Jacinda Ardern, around that transitional age of young people going into adult services. I have worked a lot with adolescents in my mental health work, and we do know that that transition for young people is very difficult and it is where a lot of problems can happen. I would say, after spending a lot of time doing one-to-one counselling with young people—and many young people who were in foster care or in kin care—you can tell the difference when they have those people in their lives who are steering them in the right direction. No amount of money will ever support a young person to stay on the right track, but having adults in their lives who teach them the right way to live is the way that that will happen. This is why we should support this bill. This bill is seeking parity between the financial entitlements for orphans and unsupported children, and financial entitlements for foster carers. It is only right that foster carers and kin carers have this parity.

There was some acknowledgment of the Hon Paula Bennett, and I would like to reinforce that. I have had the Minister in my electorate, and we have taken her around social services. It is very clear that people relate to the Minister. They know that she knows what they know, and they get that. I think that it is very clear, in this situation, that it is about common understanding of what people need and what people need to improve their well-being.

I would also like to take this time—because this is my first time speaking to this bill and I am also new to the Social Services Committee—to just acknowledge the work of our hard-working Social Services Committee chair, Alfred Ngaro, who is very much guiding us in a collegial approach, which this bill is taking as well. It is right that the whole of this House will support this bill.

I have become a new parent over the last year, and it has given me some understanding of the commitment, patience, determination, and resources needed to bring up a young one in the world. I think it is only right that we look to support kin carers in any way they can be supported, as they provide this vital role. I do know we need to focus on young people of all ages. From years zero to 3 a lot of our personality, our characteristics, and our traits are formed. Working in the mental health field for a number of years—we do know, when we talk about early intervention, that it very much is as early as possible that we can make sure all young people have the resources they need to do well in life. Just for the many listeners and viewers at home—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! You have got to address the Chamber, not anyone out there.

Oh, OK.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): It is against the Standing Orders.

I just want to talk a bit about the technical aspects of this bill. Under the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, Work and Income weekly benefits are paid for the unsupported child and orphan, the same as for a foster child. However, unsupported children or orphans are not eligible for a clothing allowance. This is very much the nub of the argument for this bill. Although children under 13 years do get a quarterly allowance, which covers some secondary school uniforms, this very much aims to increase that support.

The bill proposes that unsupported children and orphans get this clothing allowance in parity with foster children. It amends the Social Security Act of 1964, and I must say I am very proud to be part of a country that has a social security Act, has strong social welfare provision, and has a strong economy that pays for that welfare provision, and we must always remind ourselves of that. We can have all the best intentions in the world for social policy, but at the end of the day, if you do not have the money to pay for it, it is all just talk. So it is great that we are able to support this bill and back it financially.

The amendments made by the select committee were around amending clause 2 to delay the commencement of this new legislation—which Tracey Martin has talked about tonight and is supporting—until 1 July 2018. The amendments are also about amending clause 4 to clarify that an orphan or unsupported child will be entitled to a clothing allowance only if the chief executive under their discretion has set a rate of payment for a clothing allowance for foster children under section 363 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act.

I must say, I am very, very happy to say that this is really only the start of this type of work. We can do more, and the Government is committed to doing more. As part of the White Paper for Vulnerable Children, we committed an extra $10 million to provide further support to kin carers. We believe as a Government that we can provide further assistance to kin carers in a better and more targeted way, and we have agreed with Tracey Martin to look at further options as to how that $10 million can be capped. We have also agreed to explore further financial assistance options in supporting this bill at its first and second readings and in thinking about how we are going to spend that $10 million.

The Government does recognise the incredible work done by family members raising children who have lost their parents or who are unable to live with them. We know that there are more than 12,000 New Zealand children who are being cared for by their wider family members because of a death of a parent or a family breakdown. I am very happy to report that a ministerial reference group has been formed, which includes a representative from Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust, and is currently working through options for how this extra funding will be applied, and Ms Martin will be part of that. I am very happy to report that I support this bill and commend it to the House.

Just before I call Jan Logie, the Speakers’ rulings that I was looking for before were Speakers’ rulings 47/3 and 47/4.

I am very pleased to rise and offer the Green Party’s support for the second reading of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. I commend the member Tracey Martin for bringing this to the House and for her excellent advocacy and communication of the issue as we went through the select committee process. I will come back to your submission in the process of my speech. I would also like to acknowledge and thank the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust for its advocacy on this. Even more I would like to thank these people for their wonderful, precious work that they do, which is making such a difference to their grandchildren and to our society as a whole.

This bill as it was introduced and as it is now is fundamentally about fairness. It is about addressing a very small but important inequity in the funding that goes to support some of the most vulnerable children in Aotearoa New Zealand—those who have gone through death or family breakdown, lost the support of their parents, and are in the care of a family member.

Although the quantum of the funding discrepancy may appear small to us sitting here in this House of Representatives, it is very significant for many of the carers and children who receive it. It makes a tangible, real difference that is visible in the lives of those families. There has been no logical reason for the inconsistency between funding for foster children and funding for unsupported children and orphans. It seems to be just one of those many anomalies, actually, that have developed over the years from the highly complex and much amended legislative and regulatory provisions Governments have put in place in their attempts to fix a system when issues have come to their attention, with the goal, I suppose, of supporting our most vulnerable, but which have left so many gaps because they have lost sight of our contemporary world and that vision of what we are hoping to achieve with our legislation.

During the select committee process we heard really moving submissions from a range of kin caregivers, and particularly grandparents caring for grandchildren, who spoke about their desire to do the best that they could for their grandchildren after so many of them had already been through such terribly traumatic experiences. As I think Ms Martin described in her speech, those children have experienced things that we would never ever want children to have to experience, have seen things that children should never ever have to see, and have ended up, many times, traumatised and with psychological disorders as a result of those experiences, as well as physical disabilities in some cases.

These children in the care of their grandparents, who desperately want to do the best for them, were missing out on the same opportunities, the same support, from the State that children who went into the care of strangers were getting. There were examples given to us of family members—I think it was grandparents—who were caring for a grandchild but also had a child in foster care. Quite often the generosity of spirit of these grandparents extends to foster children. There was bizarreness in that fact that they were getting money from the State, a clothing allowance, for that foster child and not for their own kin. They did not have the financial resource to be able to provide their grandchild with the same clothing support—imagine that. Imagine if that were you and you had your own grandchild in your care, in the same house, and you were not able to offer them the same clothing support that you could offer a child who was not a family member. That is a very bizarre situation and one that is rightly being fixed by this bill. I am thankful that there seems to be unanimous support in the House for fixing it. For them the clothing allowance is meaningful.

I think I said in my first reading speech that as a greenie I am quite into second-hand clothing. I get the whole concept of making do and reusing and recycling. It is a thing I like. But I get that when you are in high school or at primary school, actually there are only a certain number of kids who are into that, and it is really important to fit in when you are at school and you have been through hard times. To be in a position where your family does not have a choice for you to have new clothes is unfair, and we do not want that for our most vulnerable children. It is good to be fixing that. So this allowance is meaningful but is also symbolic. It is really important that those children and their caregivers know that this House, this society, supports them and wants as much for them as for every other child in this society.

I do want to come back to Tracey Martin’s submission to the select committee. It was a thing of beauty, I have to say. I seem to be commending other members in the House tonight, and I am just going to go with that goodwill. But it really was. She came to the committee with two cut-outs, one of Henry and one of Audrey, and demonstrated to the committee what this bill was about by using Post-it notes. So we had Henry, who was in the care of foster parents, and Audrey, who was in the care of a kin caregiver. Those families were both entitled to the same amount of basic allowance, but Henry, who was in the care of foster parents, was also entitled to pocket money of $6.30 a week—he was a 6-year-old—which was $327.60 a year. Audrey, who was in the care of a kin caregiver, was not. So there are two children with the same needs and the same likely background, but one is entitled to $327.60 a year and the other is not. Again, Henry was entitled to an allowance of $82.60 for birthdays and Christmas. Audrey, with kin caregivers, got nothing. There was a really tangible feeling in response to it.

Then we got to the clothing allowance. Henry was entitled to $1,129.64, at that time, a year. Audrey, who was in the care of family, got nothing. They could be in the same household. They could be being cared for by the same people with a really fixed income and an inability to match that $1,129.64. That is unjust, and I thank the member for making it so clear for the committee. She has done negotiations and accommodations in getting us to this point.

This bill does not introduce absolute parity yet. It recognises that the Government, through some initiatives, has put in up to $550 a year for school and start-up fees by 2015 alongside a one-off establishment grant of $350. That comes to about $900 a year. It does not actually reach full parity, so we are still not going to get there, but you have made that allowance because that is a whole lot better than nothing. Although that money is there and guaranteed until 2018, this bill will ensure that money is available after that guaranteed funding stops.

It is a really, really important initiative, but it does, I have to say, still seem a little bit mean-spirited of the Government not to just simplify the system, make sure nobody misses out, and just create the parity. To me, it does not seem too much to ask, particularly when really we acknowledge that this is a band-aid on the sore of poverty that is killing our children.

I would like to speak to the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. It is nice to be able to speak on such a positive bill and to be able to talk around an area where we have got broad agreement. Certainly, over the last few hours we have had examples of where, perhaps, members on both sides of the House do not agree. It got pretty heated there and, perhaps unfortunately, a little bit personal in my view. It is nice to be able to have a conversation here around a piece of legislation that by all accounts we have significant alignment on.

I do want to acknowledge Tracey Martin, as has everybody else who has got up to speak on this bill this evening. Mrs Martin is clearly someone who has a huge passion for those people in our society who are vulnerable, and I suspect it has been quite a journey for her in terms of designing this proposed bill initially and ensuring that it reflects values that are important to her. Then, of course, once it gets pulled out of the ballot, it goes through the journey of negotiation and compromise, working with both sides of the House through its introduction. Then it goes to a select committee and it is now back here for its second reading. That takes tenacity. I think it also shows judgment around when to call an agreement, so I do want to acknowledge that. Perhaps I might even say I am slightly surprised, Mrs Martin, that such a good idea could come from your side of the House and potentially even you, because in my experience to date, which I acknowledge in this esteemed Chamber—with so much experience both surrounding me here and also on the other side of the Chamber—you could perhaps somewhat generously be described as a typical Opposition contributor, with your sharp and frequent barbs, although it would be fair to say that your voice never fails to reach this side.

💬 Chris Bishop: We hear it up the back.

We certainly do—right up there we hear it every day. So, at least audibly, it reaches its target, if nothing else.

Because we are getting very close to 10 o’clock—and if Mr Assistant Speaker can just bear with a novice—I will say that I was out in the Ayes lobby before, talking to my son, when we were two members’ bills back. The passions were high and Mrs Martin was in full flight, if I could describe her like that, and I am sure that we can all understand what that was like. I was talking to my little boy on the phone. I was trying to talk to him about how his day was as it had been swimming sports, and he said: “Daddy, who is that lady in the background?”, and I said: “Oh, that’s one of the MPs.” He said: “She sounds nice. Is she one of us?”, and I said: “Well, yes, she is nice in a sort of broad, generic sense, and who knows if she is one of us.”, but—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to encourage the member to come back to the bill, I think.

Yes, OK, right. I will return to the bill, and thank you for your generosity, Mr Assistant Speaker.

This is a fantastic bill and, as I said, it is great to be able to stand here and support it and support Mrs Martin who has promoted it. It is good to identify the inconsistency between funding for foster children and funding for unsupported children and orphans. Clearly, it made no sense to have funding for a clothing allowance for one group—in this case, foster parents—and not for the other group. National supports this sensible solution, as our speakers have already said. It is aligned with our philosophy in terms of our ongoing improvement in social delivery. It is aligned to part of our additional $10 million investment, which has been touched on before, and that, of course, came out of our White Paper for Vulnerable Children and the Children’s Action Plan, which I may get on to shortly.

In the context of this bill I do actually want to acknowledge grandparents, in particular, who spend time looking after their grandkids. There are some big numbers here in terms of this kin carer space in New Zealand. There are 12,000 New Zealand children being cared for by wider family members because of the death of a parent or a family breakdown, and half of the 8,600 who are caring for these children are grandparents who are, by and large, of limited income. When we think of grandparents, and we have all had them—I had two very special ones—there is this sense of them being part of your lives. For those of us lucky enough to have good relationships with grandparents, they step into your life. You have a great period of time with them, for a day or two, or a night or two, and then you step back and you get handed back. You go back to your parents and that is probably a relief in some cases for the grandparents; certainly it has been a relief for the parents to have a little bit of a break. But what an extraordinary effort it is from the grandparents.

As we have heard in the scenarios expressed this evening and also, I understand, in the very moving scenarios that were spoken of at the Social Services Committee, there are grandparents who find themselves in a situation of needing to step forward and, I think, make pretty much an ultimate sacrifice—it is right up there in terms of an ultimate sacrifice. Now that their own children are not in a position to care for their own children, the grandparents step in to provide support. In many respects they have already done that, right? They have reached the quieter stage of their lives and, no doubt, have other priorities, but they give up their twilight years to help out, for the family’s sake and for the children’s sake. That is a huge personal sacrifice. I have never met a grandparent who would not put up their hand for some babysitting, but, as I said, they are pretty pleased to be able to flop back into a chair when that is finished. But what an extraordinary commitment, to be in the twilight of your life and to say: “I’m going to stand here and provide unconditional love, day in, day out. Even though my energy reserves might be low, even though, to be honest, in my heart I wouldn’t mind playing bowls instead, I’m going to be here, and I’m going to be here for my children’s children.” It is really hard work, and I do want to acknowledge those who do that.

💬 Chris Bishop: Bowls?

I have not played it. Have you, Mr Bishop? I could imagine it is very popular in the Hutt.

💬 Hon Member: You will be.

I suspect I will. But it is hard work, and I think we do need to acknowledge it. I would like to acknowledge tonight not only grandparents but kin carers generally, who are giving up an extraordinary part of their lives to be able to provide that love and support.

We have introduced a lot of initiatives to be able to support this general theme, particularly around greater parenting support. My colleague Alfred Ngaro mentioned it earlier, but it think it is worth repeating further that, in partnership with the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust and The Parenting Place, we have developed a tailored tool box specifically for kin carers, at a cost of $600,000 a year. I think that should be acknowledged. In my earlier context in respect of grandparents putting up their hands at a time in life when perhaps they are not attuned to being parents in the modern world, I think the refresher course that is being provided to provide insight into how children’s early experiences might be affecting them, now and into the future, and giving them tools to be able to be as good parents as they possibly can be is a practical example of actually standing beside families who are needing support when this challenge arises. This takes the form of videos, manuals, informal discussions, and tool boxes, often delivered in someone else’s home, over six sessions. Clearly, the feedback we have had—and I understand we got this back through the select committee—is that this example of our support is working very well.

Another example, and I may not be able to get to expand on it tonight, is the work we are doing in our Children’s Teams. Obviously, Rotorua and Whangarei are now well established.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.