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

It is my pleasure to speak on the Committee stage of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. It is a bill that Labour has supported all the way through, and I continue to commend the member Tracey Martin for bringing this important bill before the Committee.

I want to raise a couple of issues in this Committee stage that relate to the technical details, but first of all I just want to again, for the benefit of the Committee, briefly traverse the difference—which is captured in the title—between those who are in receipt of an unsupported child’s benefit or an orphans benefit versus those who receive support for caring for a child who is in their care as a foster child. Obviously, this bill is very specific to those who receive an unsupported child’s benefit. In New Zealand, unfortunately, circumstances mean that many of those individuals are grandparents raising grandchildren, or those who are often described as kinship carers. They are in the devastating situation of their children not being in a position to care for their grandchildren, and often reluctantly, at great expense, have to acknowledge that the grandchildren would be better off in their own care. Many of these individuals are living on pensions. Some scrape together meagre incomes through part-time work. All, however, have made the decision to put their grandchildren first, and we should applaud them for that. I want particularly to applaud the group that has been organised since roughly 1999 under Diane Vivian—Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust—which has been an excellent advocate for change in this area.

Qualifying for an unsupported child’s benefit is quite a test: you have to demonstrate family breakdown. That in itself is quite a difficult thing to demonstrate. You may have a biological parent who is very unwilling to accept their inability to care appropriately for the grandchild in question. That, in itself, can be a hard test to demonstrate to Work and Income, which often requires family members to openly agree that there has been family breakdown and an inability to support that child. It is a difficult test. Work and Income also requires there to be a long period of time where a grandparent has actually been caring for that grandchild unsupported before they qualify. I know a lot of members in this House would probably have been advocates. Therefore, I do think there is room to look at the threshold test for those families. But the distinction within the legislation that exists that the member is trying to remedy is that, in qualifying for that unsupported child’s benefit, you do not automatically qualify for the same support that a foster carer would receive. That is what this bill seeks to remedy.

The Social Services Committee found, however, that in clause 4, inserting new section 29B, which is the most substantive part of the bill—basically, it sets out how, administratively, it would apply the extension of receiving a clothing allowance, which is the one bit of foster care support that we are now trying to transfer to someone receiving an unsupported child’s benefit. The select committee has changed the way the original form of this bill would do that. The select committee has changed it, basically, by making a reference in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services Act around rates of payments to persons or organisations that are in charge of a child. Why has the committee made a general cross-reference, rather than just simply stating in law that you would receive a clothing allowance? Well, the select committee points out that the reason is: “the clause as drafted may give the impression that the chief executive is required to determine such an allowance. However, section 363 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act relates to the chief executive’s discretion to determine the rates of allowances payable to caregivers of foster children … We believe the amendment would clarify that, although a clothing allowance is currently provided for foster children, the provision, as well as the amount provided, is at the chief executive’s discretion,”.

It is somewhat concerning that such an important allowance is at the chief executive’s discretion. I would have thought that that would be the kind of support that should actually be entrenched in the legislation. Granted, it is obviously currently available, it is provided for—I would really challenge any Minister who would allow a chief executive to remove that support—but stranger things have happened in policy in this area. So I think it would be good if the Minister could consider entrenching such support and allowances into legislation, so that we are not just cross-referencing the discretion of a chief executive in a bill like this.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): If the member would take her seat, she will get the call back in a second, but I think we have got something procedural to sort out.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: I seek leave for all clauses in this bill to be debated as one question.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I think, also, “and amendments”.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: And amendments.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): So if we have the understanding that all questions on this bill are going to be debated as one question—is there any objection to that process? There is none.

Clause 1 (continued) and clauses 2 to 4 and amendments

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. That is actually quite helpful, because I have some Supplementary Order Papers I would like to speak to.

So not only should it be entrenched in law—one of our other concerns is that we should, actually, be ensuring equity between foster carers and kinship carers across the board. I think it is fair to say that, actually, the member has plucked out an incredibly important allowance in the clothing allowance. It is very hard to argue that that should not be shared across that wider range of carers. But there are other allowances that a foster carer currently receives, and it is our view that those, too, should be given to kinship carers, because the fundamental question we should be asking ourselves is: if not a grandparent or a kinship carer, then who? Who is caring for that child? We know the State is an incredibly poor parent, and the State very rarely has any intention of being the long-term carer for a child in a residential facility. That is no home for a child. So if it is not a grandparent, ultimately, it would probably be a foster carer, who would then be entitled to that extra support. So why should a kinship carer not be entitled to that support?

We have Supplementary Order Paper 72, which would extend the provisions of this bill so that there is equity between foster carers and those kinship carers. I accept that that may be a bridge too far for the Government, so to speak—but we thought it was worth a punt, because we think the argument is right. But, again, that is not to diminish what Tracey Martin has done with this bill.

Another point that I wish to raise is the commencement date. I know this will be raised by others. I want to put on record Labour’s support for Jan Logie’s Supplementary Order Paper 70, which would mean that the commencement of this bill—essentially, when families would receive the support—would be much closer to when it is passed in the House than it currently is in this bill. In this bill we are looking at waiting until 2018. Many members of this Committee may, like me, have received letters from grandparents and children—photos, messages, handwritten messages, pictures; they have been heartbreaking to receive—saying: “Please bring this in now, we need that support.” The argument that has been made by the select committee that looked at this bill was that the Government has brought in start-up payments at the beginning of each year for these families, between $250 and $400, and that, really, that will suffice until we hit 2018—and that is when this extra support can phase in.

I have to say that, if we are going to demonstrate any generosity—and I use that word in inverted commas—then it should be for this group. Really, to say that it would be too generous to double up on a $250 yearly payment with a clothing allowance feels sadly mean-spirited to me. I think it is great that there is that start-up support, but when you are looking at school fees, books, and uniforms, then, actually, that amount at the beginning of the year is barely going to touch the sides. So I do not think it is too much to ask to have the continuity of having this kick off straight away, being in place for those families, and making sure we show that support that I think they rightly deserve.

To conclude, we would like to see an early commencement, we would like to see it extended a bit further, but, failing that, we will, of course, wholeheartedly support the bill as it stands. We think it is the right thing to do, and we again thank the member for bringing it before the House.