Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Thank you for this opportunity. As we move into Part 2, I am mindful that time is against me on this one, but Part 2 of the bill outlines basic eligibility criteria and requirements. If we can classify them in two parts, they are main assistance and, of course, supplementary assistance, which won’t be anything new to the committee. It’s important, as we’ve moved on from Part 1 and we move into Part 2, that we set out what those eligibility criteria are and the requirements for the myriad of services and assistance that our general public and Kiwis are eligible to receive. Of course, those main assistance provisions are the job seeker support, the sole parent support, the supported living payment, and the list goes on.

But I do want to just pick up on one point that was made before we finished Part 1, and that was saying that just simply changing the name was willy-nilly and tinkering around the edges. I actually think that, as has been stated by the Minister from the beginning of this entire process, those reset buttons needed to be pushed so that we can have a clean slate to then build a system that is far more responsive to the needs of New Zealanders, wherever they might be and whatever assistance they might need.

So it’s important, then, that we get some of those terms right, in and around the services that our people are able to receive. You know, some of those might sound trivial or be of no consequence to the other side, but we believe on this side of the Chamber that these are the kinds of languages and the kind of nuance that we need to see in this particular legislation, and I take it back to my point around the systematic change to make sure that we give those who are actually delivering these services on the ground the ability to empower our people for true transformational change.

Part 2 of the bill also talks about the rates of payment for each assistance type. The bill also carries forward a provision from the Act that will enable the Minister to approve and establish welfare programmes for the purposes of granting special assistance, and we know that those come in various forms.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. Sadly, I was interrupted by the dinner break, but we have just not long entered into Part 2, and I was covering off some of the broader detail of this particular part.

Just to wind up my contribution, to allow the committee to enter into debate on the matter, I just wanted to touch on a few things that will be amended or are proposed to be amended in this particular bill in relation to Part 2. This part includes minor and technical changes outlining that parents who have lost the support of their partners due to imprisonment receive the sole parent rate of jobseeker support if their youngest dependent child is over 14 years. The 50 percent benefit protection for people with dependent children who are subject to a 13-week non-entitlement period applies when the benefit has not yet been granted. The Ministry of Social Development’s discretion not to pay disability allowance or to pay it at a reduced rate when a client is already receiving similar assistance only applies to an overseas pension, or a periodical allowance if it is made for the same purpose. The maximum rate of the emergency benefit is the rate of the equivalent working-age benefit under the Act. This part also repeals an unused and outdated provision which allowed an emergency benefit to be granted, on the condition that the applicant complied with the requirements to undergo medical or other treatment.

Tacked on to my contribution before the dinner break, I think that provides a general overview of Part 2 in categorising the benefits that are available and also the supplementary support that people in Aotearoa New Zealand can get. I’m looking forward to some robust debate as Part 2 progresses in the committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to start my contribution to the debate in this committee stage on Part 2, as Minister Henare, who has resumed his seat, has talked about the very wide range of areas of assistance that’s available under the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. For those that have just tuned into this debate, this is probably the chunkiest, most significant part of the bill. It really talks about all of the assistance that’s available, and what is not going to be debated today is ensuring that those who require support get support in their times of need. Actually, I just want to reflect on a comment that the Minister for Social Development mentioned prior to the dinner break in terms of the top caseworkers. The top caseworkers talked about—you know, one of the critical skills they have is ensuring that those who need support get what support they are entitled to, and so that’s going to be a theme that runs through this Part 2 debate.

I do have a couple of amendments in my name, but first of all I just would like to bring Minister Henare’s attention to the combining of the orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit, and ask for some clarification on a matter that came out of the departmental report when the bill was before the Social Services Committee. There’s been quite a lot of comment about how important it is that select committees scrutinise legislation, and last week we spent quite a lot of time in the House debating whether or not mistakes should be tolerated in legislation and the fact that a piece of legislation had to be referred back and a new piece of legislation actually written to correct a wrong. So it is important that we focus the committee’s time, given that the public don’t have the opportunity to scrutinise it. The public don’t have the opportunity through the significant Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25 that Minister Sepuloni has tabled, so the committee’s responsibility is to provide that scrutiny and to absolutely ensure that there are no mistakes. The Minister in charge of the bill, Minister Sepuloni, gave her undertaking last week that there would be no mistakes in this SOP, so this is the opportunity tonight in this committee to provide the scrutiny, because there will be no other opportunity.

I did ask for it to be referred back to the select committee so the select committee could provide scrutiny and the public could provide submissions, but on this particular one, which is the unsupported child’s benefit—the earlier intention, which is being unwound by the Minister’s SOP, was to merge two benefits, and that was merging the orphans and the unsupported child’s benefits into what would then be called the supported child’s benefit. We actually haven’t had a clear argument for why this change has been undone, and it’s quite interesting, because in the departmental report the officials’ comment on this particular section—so I do want the Minister to provide a fulsome answer on this particular one—was that there was a drafting error. So here we have a situation where we are putting a significant SOP through without scrutiny, and what we are finding, in a change that they are taking out of the legislation, was something that was already being changed because of a drafting error. So I really hope—and I really want the Minister to answer this in detail—to make sure that the drafting error that was identified by the officials is being corrected by this legislation, and they’re not reinforcing an already wrong issue in legislation.

I accept that a piece of legislation like this is complex; it’s only tackled every—well, we tackled it in our time: a significant rewrite of legislation that had become very clumsy and very unworkable. With this particular section, with Part 2, it is absolutely about making sure that it is clear, that it is concise, that it’s workable, so front-line staff understand the guiding legislation that drives their decisions and drives what they do at the front line to support the very people that need assistance. So it does need to be clear. I’m confused. I’m confused because in the departmental report it talks about the change that was being made that now the Labour Government are unmaking. So we do want to make sure that this particular issue is clarified, that we do have the correct drafting in the new SOP—well, we hope, but we’re not confident that it is—to make sure that it is right, because we have a number of SOPs on the Table. We’re happy to offer the Minister our assistance to ensure this legislation is fit and proper, and it’s fit and proper so that it’s easier for front-line staff to provide assistance to those who need it most.

And let me tell you who’s affected by these particular clauses in this part: step-parents. Step-parents should be entitled—if in the very unfortunate situation that a child’s natural parents have passed away, they should qualify for a supported child’s benefit. That child is not an orphan if they have a step-parent who is a responsible parent who has taken on their responsibility and their welfare, and I’d be shocked—I’d be absolutely shocked—if that side of the Chamber is suggesting that a child who is particularly vulnerable would not be supported through this legislation. Is that side of the Chamber seriously intending to make it harder for a child, or for the step-parent of a child who is responsible for that child’s well-being, or going to deny them support?

As I said, in the departmental report it clearly talks about the fact that the wording in the current Act is due to a drafting error, so in the rewrite legislation that was fixed, and yet the Minister who has presented this 500-page SOP has changed it without a clear explanation of why. So this committee deserves, as I said to those that have only just started listening to this debate or watching this live debate on the internet—this is the only opportunity to get this legislation right. When it affects decisions that front-line staff make every day in supporting those who need it most, they deserve to get it right. More importantly, though, the very children that are supported by this particular clause, which is inserted by Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25—clause 5(2)(ca), which is the orphans benefit, and the change to clause 5(2)(d).

So we do want to make sure that we get this right, because, as I said, the intention of this originally was to correct a drafting error, to make it simpler for front-line staff to support those people who have turned up seeking assistance, seeking financial assistance and support, which we absolutely want to make sure they receive. As the Minister said before, the top 20 caseworkers—one of the top things that they said made them successful was ensuring the people in front of them got what they were entitled to.

This side of the Chamber believes that a step-parent should be entitled to support their child in their care, and that child’s not, in our view, an orphan. So we want to ensure that it is a supported child’s payment, because they’re not an orphan and the child is not an unsupported child. This was a sensible change, and I’m asking very clearly for the Minister in the chair, Peeni Henare, to clarify the statement from the departmental report about the wording in the current Act being due to a drafting error. I do have proposed amendments on this.

I’ll come back to those amendments, but I want to focus this part of the debate—I know there’s other members on this side that do want to seek clarification, or who have SOPs that they want to put on the Table with the intention of assisting the Minister, and assisting the Government to have legislation that works for the most vulnerable children in New Zealand, and to have a social security system that serves them, that is straightforward and not complicated. We see this as a great opportunity—we’re here to help. We are more than happy to help the Government to ensure that the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill works, and this is the only opportunity for scrutiny.

Every so often in the House we get to debate some bills which remind me why I got into politics. I think this is one of those bills—but I’m not talking about the original bill; I’m talking about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25, because the original bill, under the masquerade of a policy-neutral rewrite, sought to entrench the previous Government’s social investment approach into legislation. But what the SOP has done is it’s removed those changes to the framing that would have impacted thousands of New Zealanders.

What I want to do is talk about Part 2, which is what we’re talking about today, but focus on Subpart 9A, inserted by the SOP, “Winter energy payment”. This is actually something that is new to the bill, because it only got passed into legislation just before Christmas last year. The first payments are going to be starting on 1 July this year, so that’s why it’s new—it’s putting the legislation all together in the one place.

Clause 65A just talks about what the purpose of the winter energy payment is: it’s to provide financial assistance to help people meet their household heating costs during winter. Clause 65B defines “winter period” as a 22-week period starting on 1 May. For me, living in the far South, that’s actually a bit of an underwhelming definition, but that’s what the bill says. Clause 65C talks about eligibility: those receiving the main benefit, New Zealand superannuation, or a veterans pension. These are the most low-income families and households in New Zealand that are going to benefit from this payment.

Where I live, in the far South, this is going to make a huge difference to people’s lives, because the winter energy costs are huge amounts of people’s everyday income. When I first moved to Dunedin over a decade ago, we moved into just a big old rental. Our first winter was absolutely freezing, so we shut ourselves in the bedrooms and had column oil heaters on. We were scared to move from room to room because the ambient temperature was about 2 to 3 degrees, outside the heated rooms. So the kids and I spent most of the evenings tucked up in bed, watching videos with a duvet on, and yet our first winter power bill that winter was $800. I mean, that’s real money even for us, who had a high income at the time.

Surprisingly, when I moved to Invercargill, actually it was worse. We moved into an old wooden villa—because I like old villas—and ambient temperatures were about 2 to 3 degrees on most mornings. So I would go to bed with gloves on, double duvets, and two hotties. I’d have my iPad in bed and there’d be fog on the iPad screen and my fingers would go numb touching the screen. But the thing is, in both cases I had the money to sort that out. We ended up getting insulation and heat pumps, and now it’s a tolerable—I don’t know how many degrees, but it’s survivable.

But a number of people in my community have been talking to me about their winters. I remember a pensioner who was talking about the fact that she has to go to bed when the sun goes down, with a hot-water bottle and duvet, because she can’t afford to pay her heating bills. Another mum got me to have a look at her home, where it was a cold, uninsulated home, and the kids were getting repeatedly sick because, again, they couldn’t afford the heating and it was freezing.

I used to look after kids in the hospital system where they came in with lots and lots of respiratory infections. My colleagues, even now, are dealing with huge winter peaks. I think the thing is that this winter energy payment is going to make a huge difference to many people’s lives, because it will take that edge off that fear of turning on the heater. But some people are saying, “Well, OK, does everybody need this winter energy payment?”. There are some provisions so that if you’re on a pension and you feel like you don’t need it, you can actually opt out. There are some very wise clauses though that say if you’re actually a couple receiving it, the Ministry of Social Development needs to make sure that you check with your partner first before you actually forgo the money in the pocket.

The other people that may not be eligible are people living in residential rest homes, in hospital settings, where the Government’s already paying their subsidy for their care, because they actually have adequate heating. I mean, visiting my own parents in a rest home, I know that the temperatures are set really high, and they don’t need to actually afford it. But for everybody else, those on a low income, who are going to be in bed with the hot-water bottles this winter, this is going to make a huge difference.

So here’s to entrenching the winter energy payment in our social security legislation, and I commend SOP 25 to the committee. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. What a fantastic choice. I’m delighted that you’ve done so. I have great respect for the Minister who’s in the chair, the Hon Peeni Henare; I know he’s a very decent and intelligent man, but I was astonished when he prefaced his remarks at the start of this particular debate—after the dinner adjournment at least—by saying that Part 2 contains minor and technical changes. I think that’s what I heard him say. Well, I felt that that was the new slogan for a Tui beer ad, and as Ms Upston commented in her comments, this is a very substantial part of a huge bill.

For the benefit of people who may be watching at home, let me show Supplementary Order Paper 25 to them. These are not just minor and technical amendments, Mr Henare; these are very substantial changes, and, I have to say, some of them have been very poorly thought-out. But most importantly—and most outrageously—they’ve just been dumped on this committee with no opportunity for the usual scrutiny that you would expect to be able to take place. This is not just a minor technical bill; we are talking about one of the most important aspects of legislation that New Zealanders can enjoy and, in many, many cases, heavily depend upon.

So I will be most enthusiastically lending my support to the Hon Louise Upston’s amendments that she has indicated. I also look forward to the Minister’s replies to the comments that she has made, the concerns she’s outlined, and, in particular, the answers to the questions that she has raised which, I know, just looking around, from the many colleagues who are here with me, many of my colleagues are going to be raising tonight as well. It’s an important issue.

Given the diversity and the complexity of modern family arrangements—and they seem to become a little bit more diverse with every passing year in this day and age—it’s appalling that step-parents are being discriminated against in this part of the bill. With these latest proposals, whether it’s just unintended consequences—somebody has made a drafting error, as has been suggested—or whether it’s deliberate, either way, these things must be corrected. I implore the Government to step back from the entrenched position that you’ve taken so far and send this bill back to the select committee. In particular, send this part back to the select committee and give submitters; give concerned, interested New Zealanders; and give MPs the chance to do justice to it.

As Liz Craig, the previous speaker, noted, new Subpart 9A of Part 2 in SOP 25 deals with the winter energy payment. I remember being here, in the House, just before Christmas, when the winter energy payment was a major feature of the Government’s mini-Budget. I thought, well, in some respects that’s a nice idea because there are many people who struggle to pay the power bills, and if it’s possible to give them support, well, I’m certainly happy to see that happen.

But what an untargeted and unsatisfactory measure they introduced. So I want to point out to Ms Craig, who said how thrilled she was with it, that there are major blunders. One of the major blunders is the fact that it is so inflexible. Why couldn’t the Government have recognised that there are many people on low incomes and on benefits who are living in homes with very old, costly heating appliances? The best way they could spend the winter energy payment would be to take it in a lump sum and go and get a much more fuel-efficient, climatically efficient, emissions-reducing sort of thing that would, in the long term, save them a lot of money over time and also ensure that their emissions were reduced.

But, oh no. The Government wouldn’t consider that. And so instead we have this “we know best”, one-size-fits-all approach that seems typical of Labour Governments, and here you’ve got a ridiculous anomaly where there are many people who are still earning quite good incomes but are past retirement age who get the winter energy payment, whether they need it or not. I’ve had people say to me, “This is ludicrous that I’m getting this payment, while at the same time there are many people who are on the very lowest incomes in New Zealand who are not qualifying for the winter energy payment.”

About the only thing I can agree with Ms Craig on, in the particular comment she made there, was that the definition of winter is underwhelming. Well, I have to say that all aspects of this particular initiative are underwhelming because they’re so badly thought through.

But I want to make the point again: this is a very substantial part of a very important bill. It has not been given the proper consideration it needs. This is an outrage. It should go back to the select committee. I implore the Government to make that decision. Send it back.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am delighted to speak to this bill. There are a number of issues that have been raised by members on the Opposition seats that I would like to just get the Minister to comment on.

The first one is that in some ways this bill—and it is substantial. It’s been described as being of a minor and technical nature, and it does seem odd, in respect of 500 pages of a Supplementary Order Paper; that’s substantial. But, actually, something substantial can still be minor and technical, and I would like some discussion on this. The objective of this legislation was not to create new policy. It was not to create new categories of assistance. It was not to change relationships around.

So my understanding is that this particular bill was really designed to, as it were, simplify existing legislation, to tidy it up. Of course, doing that would lend a great deal of assistance to front-line staff. That was an issue that was raised by members on the opposite benches. There’s a couple of ways you can make things easier for front-line staff who are dealing with welfare payments—the entitlements that we all have. One is, of course, to tidy up the legislation, and that’s exactly what, I think, this particular piece of legislation is trying to do. It’s trying to make things tidier and easier.

But of course the other way that you can make things easier for front-line staff is to have leadership from the top that says that New Zealanders get their entitlements, that they don’t have to bow and grovel and scrape and somehow plead with a Work and Income (WINZ) officer. I think that the stories that we’ve had coming out of WINZ in the last few years, the way that people have been treated there, under the previous regime—it’s utterly shameful, and I am so glad that we have a Minister who will make sure that New Zealanders get their entitlements—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! The member will not bring me into the debate.

I apologise, Madam Chair. So let’s talk a little bit more about the attitudes we have to our fellow citizens in need. We actually want to make it possible for them to get the entitlements that we have given to them—not because it’s charity, not because we’re somehow compassionate or anything; it’s because we think that as New Zealanders we should look after all of us. This legislation is helping us to do that.

I want to go on a little bit further on that. You see, one of the things about the way that WINZ has operated—my apologies, Madam Chair. One of the things that has operated at WINZ in previous years, and that we are now having to combat, is the way that individuals have been made to feel small and mean. They can now go ahead and use this legislation to find their entitlements easily.

There’s another aspect of this. You see, one of the things we are interested in, in this country, is universalism. We have universal super, and we have introduced in here another aspect of universalism, and that’s to do with the winter energy payment. I heard one of the members on the opposite side of the Chamber talking about people who had approached him, saying they found it ludicrous that they were going to get the winter energy payment. Well, I’d just like to point out to that member of the committee that there is a rescue for these people, and I would urge you, Mr Macindoe, to point it out to them: it’s new clause 65D(1), in Supplementary Order Paper 25: “A person entitled to a winter energy payment may make an election not to receive the payment.”

I would like the Minister to comment on this, because I actually see it’s a really important aspect of this. You are not required to take money from the State, but we do want to give people their entitlements. It’s an entitlement for our elderly people—some of the most vulnerable people we have. They can no longer go out to work. They can often no longer earn an income. There are so many of our elderly who survive on superannuation alone. This winter energy payment will make a huge difference to them.

I would like to understand from the members on the opposite side of the Chamber why they do not want to help our senior citizens. Why are you so hard-hearted? Why are the members on the opposite side so keen to take every little scrap away from people? I would like to hear a little bit more from the Minister about that, if you could elucidate exactly why we believe in universalism and that lot don’t.

I’m back, people. You always notice in debates that the louder someone—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Can I just calm the chorus every time there’s a speaker, for or against.

You always notice, when someone’s yelling loud, that they’re compensating for a lack of argument. But I do agree with the last member’s—I’m sort of sympathetic to the last member’s suggestion of universalism, because I’m sure, when you listen to the left, they talk about universalism and they talk about non-discrimination and not wanting to have any stigma. So to that member who’s resumed her seat, Deborah Russell, I look forward to her putting in a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) here, on Part 2, to allow me to access all the benefits that I choose, because that would be universal. It would respect my right, because you wouldn’t want to offend me at this point.

I’d also like to say that if you refused to give me the winter energy payment even though I’m 42 or you refused to give me the sole parent benefit simply because I’m married, that’s discrimination and it’s an offence against universalism. So I just find that, you know, words are really important, but that’s typical of the left.

💬 Brett Hudson: Selective universalism.

Selective universalism, that’s right. There’s another word for that, Mr Hudson. So, look, Part 2 is rather comprehensive. There are 16 subparts, which instantly puts into—well, it’s hard to have various subparts if you’re universal. Surely, it should have been just, basically, a one-page SOP from the Government that just said, basically, “We’ll give money to anyone who wants it.” But Subpart 1 is around what the whole section does. The first is around the residential requirements, and there’s two questions that the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, needs to address here. The first is why someone who’s a New Zealand citizen or holds a residence class must be here for a period of two years. I understand this is what often happens. It’s fairly standard in the legislation, but I’ve been hearing from the Opposition and from Ministers in the chair that, again, stigma, universalism, and non-discrimination are vitally important. So why we’re discriminating against New Zealanders on the basis of their length of time here is a concern and it’s a contradiction that I think the Minister needs to address either on their part or on behalf of their governing parties.

The other is around clause 16, part (2), subpart (a), subpart (ii) of that—I still haven’t worked out how to quite phrase it—just to make sure that those seeking protection or seeking refugee status are also covered. The current piece of legislation says, “is recognised as a refugee or a protected person in New Zealand under the Immigration Act [of] 2009”—absolutely prudent. I’d just like to make sure that those seeking protection—because it’s my understanding that someone doesn’t become a refugee necessarily or immediately.

Jumping then to clause 17 around rates, we’ve obviously got, in clause 17(2), some changes of nomenclature there—

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: Nomenclature?

Nomenclature. In 17(1), there’s a reference to schedule 4, which is around the rates themselves. I have a general question in this regard—it’s probably just my lack of understanding; happy to admit that—are the schedules able to be updated regularly? Of course, all the amounts of money to be charged—say, in Part 1, clause 1(a) specifies that someone will receive $143.55 a week. I assume things change and are constantly changing in this space, so I think it would be useful if the Minister could confirm to the House that the schedules are easily amended. I’d be fairly confident we’re not going to have to return to the House to move legislation every time we want to change a rate.

Linking into schedule 4 through clause 17, why is Part 9 still there? I know there’s nothing underneath it—

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

—but this is meant to be—I know some colleagues laugh and it might seem frivolous, and it’s not the intention. This is a tidy-up bill, and I’m just curious about why we’ve got a part with no substance, and we’re also referring to the DPB—obviously, something that, in terms of what we’ve discussed in this House over many a year, has well passed and gone. So just in the context of while we’re tidying up, why that’s there.

In Part 1 of schedule 4, as referred to in Subpart 1 of Part 2, clause 17, why has the Minister chosen to remove clause 1(ca)? This is around a single beneficiary with one or more dependent children—I won’t read the whole thing for the use of time, but I’d be interested in why that has been removed. Similarly, again, in schedule 4, Part 1, clause 1, we’ve also seen removals of paragraphs (h) and (i). I assume—look, there’s probably very good reason for this, but as I’ve heard from my colleagues, too, this was a bill initially put forward by this side of the House when in Government; I just would like to understand the reasons for the change there.

And I suppose, similarly, too, as you go through—and, again, this is still just only Part 1 of Schedule 4—why are we seeing the changes in the rates? Again, using clause 1 for an example, it’s gone from $140.08 to $143.55. I’d be interested to know: is that reflecting some governmental changes and announcements of late, or is this a follow-through of some of the National Government’s changes; and, if it is the latter, particularly around the family tax credits and so forth, that these are right and accurate. I would not want to see that the changes that National had been proposing have entered accidentally into this legislation, into this schedule 4, and then we have to go back.

Look, the last one that I’ll speak on here, if I might, is still linking to schedule 4 as it applies to rates in clause 17 of the main bill, in Part 2. I think it’s probably going to be of interest to the other side of the House because it’s to do with unions. It could be my misreading of things, but it’s, again, schedule 4, Part 1—I assume that we call it clause 3. One of these days, I’m going to sit down with the clerks and get how I phrase this correct, but it’s around a special rate of benefit. It’s been struck out, and it’s been struck out including in circumstances, as I read it, and I quote, where “a strike, either by the spouse or partner, or by fellow members of the same union at the same place of employment.” So, on my first reading, sort of a “prima farsay” approach—

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: Prima facie.

Prima facie—that’s always the problem of having a Latinist in here. Why is that special rate of benefit being removed? I feel a bit funny, as a centre-right National Party politician attempting to stand up for—

💬 Jamie Strange: Centre-right?

—the unions, but it appears to me—you know, I thought gentle terms would help tonight. Why is it that a special rate of benefit is being removed in the case of a strike? [Interruption] Isn’t it funny that the Government jump up and down about one self-description when we’re actually talking about how we help other people. It’s funny what they get excited about. They don’t seem to be getting excited about the removal, as I see it here—and I’d love the Minister to respond. As I see it here—again, just for clarity, because I know the officials will have to be working on this—schedule 4, Part 1, clause 3 removes a special rate of benefit to New Zealanders on the basis that they may be on strike, or that their partner or spouse may be on strike, or fellow members of the same union at the same place of employment. I’d be fascinated to know, from that centre-left Government—some might suggest something else, but that centre-left Government—

💬 Brett Hudson: Hard-left.

—that centre-left Government; I’d better be generous in return—why they appear to be removing rights to some of their union friends. It’s a little bit confusing to me.

So, really, the fundamental questions I have here are around the structure of schedule 4: why Part 9 is there in its entirety; why, Minister, in Part 1, under “Jobseeker support”, the dollar amounts are being changed; and then a little bit of clarity around Part 1, clause (1)(ca) and those following—why have those particular sections been removed—with a particular highlight, if one can have a particular in a particular, of why the special rates of benefits to spouses, partners, and fellow members of a union are being removed.

And then, just because I have bounced around in Subpart 1, it really is that discriminatory element, potentially, of the two years’ residence in New Zealand. I’m personally supportive of it; I just remain a little bit confused by this universalistic talk from the other side of why there is a condition. And, finally, that recognition of a refugee—are we going to be able to protect those who are seeking protection under the Immigration Act 2009?

So I’ll leave it there. I do have an SOP to discuss, but that’s under Subpart 5. I’m sure it’s a relief to the House that with these 16 subparts, I’m only given four speaking slots, so you’ll have to see which other four will come.

Thank you, Madam Chair, once again. It gives me great pleasure to speak on Part 2 of this bill. The rewrite bill was intended to be a policy-neutral clean-up of the legislation underpinning New Zealand’s welfare system. There’ll be people here listening in New Zealand, so if I can use an analogy of what’s happened here. This is an old classic—imagine an automobile classic. This is an old Ford Model T: a great classic, looked after, it’s still going today—1938. So what’s actually happened, in 1964 it went in for its last rewrite, just to make sure that it was still going, was still relevant, and was still strong. No real need—again, it’s a classic; something you didn’t really mess with.

Last year, this piece of legislation once again went in for a rewrite, which would be a classic case of let’s just go in and get it serviced, but no. Now we come to the garage, really, and the garage really is the philosophy under which the Opposition have been operating: the social investment philosophy, the Better Public Services philosophy. Can I just stand here and admire the members of the Opposition, because the way they have gathered around—the absolute blind faith, the blind loyalty—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I hate to interrupt the member, but we’re actually on Part 2, which is the engine of your car—which is actually the assistance. So if you could keep to that, it would be great.

Madam Chair, if I can just say, you’ve stolen the words right out of my mouth, because that is exactly where I was going to go—to Part 2. It just shows, again: the wisdom you showed as my police Minister—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Ha, ha!

—you are continuing to show as a Speaker here, so I can only sit in admiration of your ability to anticipate.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Flattery gets you everywhere.

So if I can go back to the engine of the car, as the Hon Louise Upston pointed out, in all the things that they will be filibustering tonight, this is the one that is the most important.

This is the engine, the thing that shouldn’t be changed. But, once again, under that blind faith I’m reminded, I suppose, of Stalin. He induced so much fear into the Russian people, into the whole of the Russian Government that after he died the next two Premiers didn’t have to do a thing because everyone was so fearful that he would come back and would take them back. And that goes back to this engine, the man working on the engine. They are sitting there fearful that the author of this will come in here and pluck the engine away from them.

So this is the opportunity we have to rewrite a bill, to make sure this classic engine that we’re working on, Part 2 of which is the heart of it—no vehicle works without a heart. As we look at the pieces of legislation here, those of you at home will know somebody that is disabled. We need legislation. Everything that happens here, you need some good legislation underlying it. What you don’t want to do is when you send it in, and go back to the analogy of when the engine’s been worked on, you don’t want someone to pimp it up, you don’t want a pair of fluffy dice; you don’t want these things. What you want is it to come out better, and that’s the real fear—as this is an opportunity that’s been taken under a philosophically driven Opposition. An Opposition, again, as I say, fearful that the author of this will come in and pick them up by the ears and take them out the back and do—or worse still, the metaphorical Siberia they’ll end up in if they don’t do. But I look forward to—perhaps it’ll take two changes in the Opposition benches before we actually get someone who can come in here with some fresh ideas that aren’t actually hamstrung by the mechanic, by the man who runs the garage, who ran the garage probably two ago.

So I look forward, as the eyes open, as they see that you can actually—in this bill we’ve got a classic here, the classic that in 1936 was built, the classic that in 1964 was again sent in for servicing. That’s what we’re doing now, go through here, even—back on the bill. I’m sorry, I’m all right on this bill, but even if we look at, particularly, the part we’re talking about, the bill where all financial services—previously in the Act the various main benefits were separated all through the Act, particularly in section 2 of the Act, Part 2. But what this does is it brings them all together. How many people actually are not back in the workforce because of the complications that they have when they go in to the office? This will remove an excuse. This will actually help us get people back to work, which is ultimately what we all want.

So, the Opposition—you’ve done good work. However, the good work that you have done is done under philosophy. An engine—you’ve got to remember, now, that this thing is a good classic.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair, and thank you for this opportunity to address some of the questions that have been put to the committee this evening on Part 2.

Can I start with the orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit—in particular, the question raised around the step-parent and their eligibility. The orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit provide financial support towards the cost of caring for a child whose parents cannot provide care or support due to family breakdown or due to a parental illness, incapacity, death, or the parents cannot be found. The Act requires the benefit to be applied towards the maintenance or education of the child or otherwise for the child’s benefit.

The bill, as introduced, included the following changes to the orphans benefit and unsupported child’s benefit: it merged the orphans benefit and unsupported child’s benefit into one benefit called the “supported child’s payment”. It’s not a term that is rare in the debate on this particular matter this evening, and it is about being policy-neutral. It also removed eligibility for step-parents to receive the supported child’s payment—and I’ll talk a little bit about that a little bit more shortly. It also created a single rate of sole parent support for single caregivers receiving a supported child’s payment. The Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25 removes the provisions related to the supported child’s payment and replaces them with provisions for the orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit.

Now, the member raised an issue about the eligibility of a step-parent, and there are already mechanisms for assistance for step-parents. Step-parents caring for a step-child can receive the benefit assistance that is available to any parent. If they qualify, they can receive a benefit, with the child included in that benefit. They can also receive a higher rate of accommodation supplement and hardship assistance if they qualify. They can also receive a family tax credit. The mechanisms are already there. In the SOP, it will be removing the original position, which was to merge them, and maintain the orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit, acknowledging that step-parents can still qualify.

Can I address two amendments that have been brought on to the floor this evening. The first one is in the name of the Hon Louise Upston, and it refers to Part 2, Subpart 9A, the winter energy payment. This particular amendment seeks to amend the requirements of the Ministry of Social Development to ensure they explain the four-week absence rule to superannuitant recipients of the winter energy payment in all cases. Once again—it’s not going to be a new phrase in the debate this evening—that is not policy-neutral. General information on the website and letters and communications with those affected about overseas absence will affect eligibility. What, sadly too, this particular amendment does—and it’s, shall we say, the unintended consequences—is two things. It perpetuates the belief from the other side of the Chamber that—actually, it treats people with suspicion. It casts aspersions on them, on those who seek support and benefits, and that they are treated with suspicion whether they go overseas or they receive assistance, and it’s a shame that that approach is taken. The other one, of course, is it undermines the good work that many of the good people in Work and Income are already doing to engage with their clients to make sure that they do receive a full and comprehensive entitlement, what they’re already eligible to receive.

The other amendment is in the name of Simon O’Connor. “The purpose of this amendment is to remove both clauses to allow those receiving long-term residential care in a hospital or a rest home, which is funded, in whole or in part, under the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000, and those receiving residential care services funded, in whole or in part under the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 to be eligible to receive a Winter Energy Payment.” We, sadly, will not be supporting that amendment. The tabled amendment is, once again, in our belief, not policy-neutral, and also has significant financial implications, which I’m sure the member hasn’t calculated just yet.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The two previous speeches from Greg O’Connor and also Deborah Russell too were the worst speeches of chardonnay socialism. They were both incoherent and inconsistent. One was full of arrogance, the other was full of ignorance, and obviously both of them did not read the bill, because if they did they would’ve actually known what the bill is all about.

This reminds me, when I look at this bill and the changes that have been made in Part 2 of this bill, and the whole part of the bill in amendments, there was an academic theologian by the name of Marcian. He was in Rome in 160 AD. What he did was that he took the Bible, the writing of the Bible, and the Word, and what he did was that he decided he only wanted to make it sound good so that he was pleasing to the people. This reminds me of him. So he took out all the bits that revealed the truth, and he had all the bits that made people feel good about themselves. The big problem with him was that when he talked about a God of love and a God of hate and a God of war he was unsure about how to make it consistent because what he was afraid of was the truth. This bill that is before us today is similar to that: it’s afraid of the truth. So they’ve got the razor blades out like Marcian, they’ve cut out all the bits, the bits that made them feel uncomfortable. They want to play populist politics, and, in particular, in Part 2.

I want to refer to the part of the bill in Part 2, in clause 59(5), and here’s what it says, it says, “MSD may, on a case by case basis, do either or both of the following: (a) make the grant of an exceptional circumstances benefit subject to any conditions imposed by MSD: (b) impose on [the beneficiary] the work-test or work-preparation obligations…”. Now, what is so hard about that? What’s so bad about that? Well, here, again, are a Government and a Minister and members on the other side who have not read this bill, because you need to go all the way back to the purpose of the bill. What does the purpose of the bill state? Yes, it’s in Part 1 but it relates to Part 2, and it simply says this in clause 3(a)(ii): “to help people to find or retain paid employment;”. Let’s look at the principle of the bill, and here it is, clause 4(a), “work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve”—let’s wait for it—“social and economic well-being:”—social and economic well-being.

So here’s what I want to say to the Minister in the chair, Peeni Henare, and to those opposite: give us the rationale and the reasons why you would take that out altogether. It’s not mean-spirited; it’s consistent and congruent with the intent of the bill. But where does this come from? The previous Minister in the chair, Minister Sepuloni, said to us in the Chamber, just before the dinner break, that this is old stuff that we were bringing in—this Opposition was trying to introduce old ways. We’re talking about the new ways.

Well, I just so happened to go out, into the back there, into the lobby, and what do I have to pull out? The Hansard of 12 September 1938. Let’s look at the speech that was made by the Hon Mr Fagan, who, by the way, was a Labour Minister and a Labour MP. When he introduced the bill—and I know Mr Greg O’Connor talked about it being a car. It was actually not 1936; he’s got to get his models right—it was 1938 when the bill was introduced into Parliament. I love what he says here. Now, you may call it old school, but nothing has changed either in the purpose or in the principles of the Act. But I love this, and here’s what he says to us: “We all know [that] the old saying, ‘Cut your coat according to your cloth.’”—that’s a little bit of the old school; in other words: live within your means—“An idealist and a visionary [must] use all the cloth in making a coat, and find himself minus [his] trousers.”—minus his trousers.

Madam Chair, I hope I haven’t breached any protocols here, but it just seems really simple to me—in 1938, live within your means. So while you’re up there and you want to have the lolly scramble, you want to be nice, and you want to be caring and kind, what’s wrong—sorry, Madam Chair—what is wrong with ensuring the fact that people have the great opportunity which work affords to them? It’s clear that since 1938, amended in 1964, nothing has changed. Those key purposes, those key principles, are consistent today, and here we are in 2018 debating this bill. This is like the Bible of social policy that exists here in Parliament and for us as legislators. Are we going to be like Marcian to cut out all the good bits—

💬 Marja Lubeck: Marcion! Marcion not Marcian.

—all the bits that we don’t like? That’s what we’ll do. Well, Marcion—that’s right. You may like to call him there. I don’t think he was Dutch; I think he was Italian. But that’s OK. But the fact remains this: what this bill is actually all about and what’s being removed by this Government today is they’re taking out the bits they think are nasty. They’re taking out the bits that they think are unkind. There is nothing wrong with giving people an opportunity—for those that are on a benefit—for work, because why? What does it say here? And I’ll read it again for the members on the other side, to the chardonnay socialists: “work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being:”. Isn’t that the intent of the House? Isn’t that the intent of this bill? If it is, then why would you take out work-test obligations? Why would you remove that? So I move that we accept Supplementary Order Paper 31 in my name, which happens to be written so well, which talks about in clause 59 replacing that which has been amended.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s an absolute pleasure to follow on from my colleague Mr Ngaro. A few minutes ago, I was listening to the longest five minutes of my life when Mr Greg O’Connor was speaking. I thought to myself, I really want to describe that as a triumph of form over substance, but, quite frankly, that form is so derelict not even a panel beater could knock it into shape. It was followed on then by the Minister in the chair, Peeni Henare, who made a comment. He’s talking about new Subpart 9A, where I will spend most of my contribution on—Subpart 9A of Part 2, in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25. My colleagues suggested a Supplementary Order Paper about making it a bit more universal; he said, “It’s not policy-neutral. We can’t support that.” Well, how, Minister, is the inclusion of new Subpart 9A anything but policy-not-neutral? How can you describe the inclusion of that subpart as policy-neutral in the first place? It appears that it’s a very selective policy neutrality that you’re looking for.

I also wanted to talk about Dr Russell’s contribution of, now, some time ago. She introduced in her contribution this idea of universality and how the former National Government didn’t care about all older New Zealanders. And, because she introduced it, I just want to take couple of moments to address how wrong she is on this. The National Government had introduced a tax package that would have seen every superannuitant better off each week, and they’re better off through the linkage of superannuation to after-tax average wage. So the superannuitants would have been off in year one pretty much the same as the winter energy payment. But here’s the real difference and the real kicker: because superannuation is linked to the net after-tax average wage, as average wages increase so too would that superannuation increase have further increased—so it would have gone up. And a good Government, such as the National Government, with its focus on economic prosperity and well-being for all, would have ensured that incomes continued to rise faster than inflation so superannuitants would have been better off.

Well, this change that this new Government has put in place, from what I can see, they say it’s universal. It’s universally poorer, because it doesn’t even appear to be linked to inflation, so it won’t go up over time; it will go back over time. And with the spending and borrowing plans of this Government, inflation is going to be rising much faster than it would have done under National, so the erosion of the value of the winter energy payment will be so much faster. There is simply no way a claim can be made that the universality of this new Subpart 9A makes elderly New Zealanders better off than they would have been if this Government had kept the tax package that we had legislated when we were in Government. It simply is not the case.

Let’s talk a little bit more on new Subpart 9A. An earlier speaker regaled us with her tale of living in a colder part of New Zealand, in an old villa that wasn’t insulated, and having to freeze. Eventually, she was able to afford to insulate the home and it got a little bit better. That actually helps to crystallise another fundamental flaw in new Subpart 9A. It actually reflects the two very different philosophies of the left and the right when it comes to helping people who are less advantaged or more vulnerable. While they will give a little bit of money—that will erode with inflation over time—to help people pay some bills, they don’t actually help them solve the problem. The problem is the home is cold. Therefore, to solve the problem you’d help them insulate it. If you helped them insulate the home, then the energy bills are going to come down naturally, but there’s nothing in new Subpart 9A that really helps that. They get a fortnightly payment that’ll let them pay a little bit towards the bill today but does nothing to help them actually afford the works that would help to make the home cheaper to heat and, in fact, need less heat. So where—where—if this is a Government that supposedly is made up of parties that truly care for the less advantaged in New Zealand, is the actual means here to give them long-term help? It doesn’t exist. But it does exist in the amendment that I’ve tabled under my name this evening, which I’d now like to move on to.

This amendment would give New Zealanders receiving the winter energy payment the ability to, in effect, take a payment as an annual payment rather than a fortnightly payment, and they could then use that lump sum to improve the insulation in that home. It is focused on giving them the ability, the financial means, to lift themselves out of the current state of that insulation. It gives them the opportunity and the means to actually make improvements to the home, to add some insulation that will then help to decrease their winter energy bills—therefore, actually making them less reliant on any form of financial assistance.

So why—why—does a Government that claims to care for all New Zealanders, and particularly the disadvantaged, not offer them the means to get themselves out of the situation they find themselves in? No, it takes a party, a former Government, that actually cares about the underlying problems and the drivers of disadvantage—the causes and the real problems—being prepared to actually make change to address and fix those. It takes a party that is prepared to take that view to come up with an idea that says, “OK, you may need some help. So let’s help you get out of the situation you’re in.”, instead of just a little bit of money that’ll keep you where you are and, quite frankly, perpetuate the misery that one is in.

So this amendment, very simply, would change the purpose of new Subpart 9A to mean that it would also provide financial assistance to help certain people meet their heating needs during the winter period by providing for an additional home insulation or new heating sources, and it effects that in two clauses. Into new clause 65E, in SOP 25, “Winter energy payment: instalments, rates, and payment”, it would insert new clause 65E(1)(c), “if the person has nominated, in a form and manner approved by the chief executive, to use their winter energy payment for additional home insulation or heating sources, in 1 annual instalment.”, giving all of the benefit of the payment they would otherwise receive to use to improve the insulation of that home. And then, in a subsequent clause, it just ensures that they don’t lose any of that through the calculations.

It is a simple but effective way of actually looking to help New Zealanders who might be in some financial difficulty, who today might find they have challenges in paying for the heating of their home but under the Government’s plan would find themselves in the same situation every week and absolutely reliant on the small amount of money that they want to give them—the amount of money which, as I have pointed out, inflation will erode away over time; in a very short period of time, quite frankly, with the lack of economic plan that that Government actually has—which none the less would erode over time, and, therefore, be in less of a position to be able to help them meet those continuing energy heating costs.

But instead, in effect, if I think of a former party in this House, United Future, they called the idea capitalising family subsidies—well, in a sense, it’s a little bit like that, where you can get the annual amount in one advanced payment and then use it in a substantial and meaningful way to make improvements to the home that will make one warmer now and with lower heating costs into the future. It is a simple amendment that actually seeks to solve a problem instead of merely placing an insufficient band-aid and claiming that one somehow cares deeply about a group, but the actions of which show they care more about what they say rather than the effects of what they do. If this Government has—in my personal opinion—a soul, they will agree to support this amendment, because they will acknowledge that it actually provides a better long-term solution for those people with winter energy payment issues today.

So I call upon the Minister in the chair to explain to us, if they won’t support it, why they want to perpetuate people’s misery instead of actually solving it; why they want the value of their subsidy, their benefit, to erode in their winter energy payment because it’s not inflation indexed. Why would they do that, when they could simply support this? It doesn’t involve spending any extra money, just paying it in a way that allows people to make the best possible use of the State assistance that they’ve already agreed to offer, and, in doing so, they help people to lift themselves out of the positions they’re in today so they are better off tomorrow.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have to just address this real sense of irony that I’ve got from listening to that last speech—the party that I kind of believe bought the Band-Aid company is accusing us of putting a band-aid over the real need of New Zealanders. It’s actually a little funny. This is the party who had as their primary public service target a reduction of 25 percent in the number of people receiving income support, who didn’t bother measuring what happened to people after they were no longer on a benefit, and who didn’t care if they even had an income or were living in a shed because they were too traumatised to go into the Work and Income that they set up.

So I’ll just move past that irony and get into the content of Part 2 of the bill. It is difficult, though. So the issue that has been coming up continually is about challenging the idea that this isn’t policy-neutral because it’s including the winter energy payment. I’d just like to, again, point out to the Opposition: catch up. Wasn’t it, like, six months ago that we passed that legislation? This is just making sure that that this piece of legislation is actually tidy. So we had the debate, we won—move on.

The other thing is they’re saying that they want to include their items in it and that, really, the Government initially did introduce policy-neutral legislation, despite the fact that there were very clear policy points that were addressed in the regulatory impact statement that clearly indicated that it was not policy-neutral, and that what we have done is introduce a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that is genuinely policy-neutral, except, I would say, for one point within this section, which is the health practitioners update that came through from the submitters in the Social Services Committee, and that is just to reflect a standard that goes across our legislation. So it’s not a substantive policy point, but it is different from what was there before, and we are reflecting the change that was recommended by the committee.

So we are removing, in this SOP, by virtue of wanting it to be policy-neutral, the provision to allow parents in split-care arrangements to both receive benefits. I understand that that will be a frustration for some people, but I will say that the intent of doing that is that we are trying to tidy up this legislation without getting into the policy debate. There does need to be a really thorough consideration about how we support our families in the environment where there are very different parenting arrangements from what there were in 1964. Our legislation hasn’t caught up to that. We need to consider split care. We need to consider shared care. We also need to consider the interrelationship between the Social Security Act and the Child Support Act, and Working for Families.

On this side of the House, we don’t want to do that in a piecemeal way. We don’t want to just pass one little part of that without thinking about how it interacts with the whole. When we—in the Greens, at least—committed to an overhaul of the welfare system, it was for a comprehensive consideration about how this legislation can deliver for all of our families in this modern world. We believe that that needs proper, comprehensive consideration, which doesn’t mean passing one tiny little thing out of context.

We also have removed the change that renames the emergency benefit as the exceptional circumstances benefit. We’ve heard from the Opposition side that they’re questioning—saying we’re kind of just being a little bit too picky by saying that we don’t like those words “exceptional circumstances”. Then I question: why did they change it to “exceptional circumstances”? That was National Party policy—for them it was such a big deal they needed to change it. Now they’re saying it’s picky for us to say that we didn’t want that language, despite the fact that of those submitters who commented on it, almost all of them opposed the change to “exceptional circumstances”. They wanted it to remain as an emergency benefit, because that was a clear expression of the purpose of the provision. [Bell rung] Thank you, Madam Chair.

They also were very clear in their opposition to including the discretion to apply work-test and work-preparation obligations to those receiving what would then become the exceptional circumstances benefit. They didn’t think that it actually reflected the reasons that people typically apply for that benefit and was more erosion of the concept of social security by increasing the precariousness of the benefit for people who are already not entitled to any other benefit and who are in such a dire position that they don’t have a financial situation to be able to support themselves. They’re not entitled to any other benefit; this is it for them to be able to have any income whatsoever—an incredibly vulnerable place, and it is not really appropriate to be putting on work-test obligations for people in a transitory, incredibly vulnerable place. So I, speaking for myself, am very pleased to see that removed.

I would also like to speak to the fact that this SOP, in Part 2, moves some provisions from regulation back into primary legislation. That’s part of why this looks so big in terms of the changes. That is something that the Green Party was really committed to doing, because we heard from people that while we need to make the legislation easy to use—that’s true—we also need to make sure that we have parliamentary scrutiny of core provisions. For the Greens the definitions of accommodation costs and cash assets for the purpose of being able to receive and be entitled to an accommodation supplement are critical social security supports that should have parliamentary oversight. When we move them into regulation we lose that ability for a select committee to scrutinise the decisions and the directions of Government that apply to really significant supports for people in our community.

The other provision that has moved back into primary legislation is around eligibility criteria for funeral grants. If anybody in this Chamber has spoken to people who have needed to access those funeral grants and who have struggled to pay for the cost of a funeral for a family member because, actually, those funeral payments at the moment aren’t adequate enough, I really think that those experiences should call us to have parliamentary oversight of those regulations and take responsibility for those decisions to ensure that when people are in times of grief and extreme need, we are responsible enough to ensure that they are able to provide for their family in that time. So I am pleased, from the Greens’ perspective, to see that back in the primary legislation. So on that note, I will sit down.

I rise to speak on Part 2 of the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. I’d like to begin by reminding this committee that it is actually a part of the bill which sets out more than 16 categories of assistance that—we have in general agreement—should be available to New Zealanders. It is to the credit of this House and indeed the credit of New Zealand that there is generally broad agreement on the important role welfare assistance plays in New Zealand society, of the important role that having a safety net for those falling into hardship provides. So what this debate actually comes to in this committee today is the way in which we approach that assistance in terms of targeting it at those who need it most.

Here on this side of the Chamber we philosophically believe that it is kinder to someone to help them into the dignity of work and the dignity of independence wherever possible, whereas on the other side of the Chamber there seems to be some question about that. So we see that philosophy in play as we look to the various subparts of this bill, because we see that again and again, where the previous bill that National had put forward proposed to have a targeted approach, a tailored approach, an approach that provided discretion to ensure that those receiving assistance received the right kind of assistance that would allow them to get back on their own two feet—that approach is rejected by this Labour-led Government.

I want to take you through a few examples of that. Let’s look at Subpart 3, because I think it is extraordinary that here we had in the original bill the provision for a supported child’s payment, and the purpose of that was to ensure that where children were in homes where parents had died or where there was a breakdown in the family, that grandparents, step-parents, or other eligible caregivers could be eligible for a supported child’s payment. But no, that’s removed from the legislation here because that tailored approach is rejected on the other side of the Chamber. We would say, “Well, actually that approach is a much more sensible way of ensuring that assistance goes where it’s needed.” That is why we are presenting a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) on those clauses, SOP 29 and SOP 30. I commend those SOPs to members of this committee, because actually we can work together on this and we can ensure that this legislation does help those most in need.

We then turn to Subpart 8 on the emergency benefit, which was just mentioned by the previous speaker. What the National bill did—and what this SOP seeks to remove—is provide an exceptional circumstances benefit that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) on a case by case basis could make, subject to grant conditions. That is to acknowledge that there are circumstances that will arise that this House has not foreseen and to acknowledge that MSD may want to put in work obligations to make that relevant. Again, on this side of the Chamber, we offer an SOP to allow the other side of the Chamber to take sensible action on that.

Then we come to the matter of the winter energy payment, that my colleague Brett Hudson has spoken about at some length and has offered some useful suggestions on. Here, I think, we come to the nub of the difference between the two sides, because here what the Labour-led Government has said is, “We absolutely reject targeting support at those who need it most. No, no, no, no. We’re not interested in families who might be cold but aren’t receiving benefits; we’re more interested in giving grants, giving energy grants, to superannuitants living in million-dollar houses, taking holidays on the Gold Coast. That’s our idea of universalism. Because we think that those people need it more for our little sound bites than actually the working families who could benefit from targeted assistance.”

So we on this side of the Chamber proudly talk about social investment because what it’s about, ladies and gentlemen, is targeting assistance where it’s needed most, where it can make the biggest difference, where it will actually transform lives. We reject the simplistic notions on the other side of the Chamber that say, “Oh, well, if we say it’s universal, we’re going to sound like we’re a benevolent people of deep care.” Well, it is not benevolent and it is not deeply caring to target other people’s taxpayer dollars at people who do not need help with their electricity bills, ladies and gentlemen, instead of helping people in specific circumstances such as those unsupported children, which I discussed in this area.

So what we stand proudly on this side of Chamber to say is that if you’re going to reform welfare, you’d better do it in a way that actually helps people into lives of dignity and independence. This legislation does not achieve that.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair, I really appreciate that. Can I just pay a compliment to the former speaker, Nicola Willis. What a great asset she is in the House and, in particular, the passion with which she articulated such an important approach to welfare. I get thoroughly sick and tired on this side of the House of being subjected to lectures about the fact that, supposedly, members of the National Party don’t care. I want to tell you that I’m in this House because I care passionately about New Zealanders, and I believe very, very firmly in a generous, compassionate welfare State that is able to assist the many New Zealanders who need our help. I will fight for that principle every moment that I am a serving member of this Parliament.

But you can only do that if you are also determined to ensure that the system works appropriately and, as Nicola Willis has just pointed out, does not throw money around inappropriately in an untargeted, unfocused fashion, because every dollar that we spend as parliamentarians is coming out of the pockets of our fellow citizens. We have an absolute responsibility to them to spend that money wisely, fairly, and appropriately. So I really hope that in dealing with Part 2 of this bill, members opposite will answer some of the questions that have been put to them.

In particular, I want to commend and strongly support the amendment put forward by Brett Hudson. The winter energy payment, which is covered in Subpart 9A of Part 2 in Supplementary Order Paper 25, is a very important part of this legislation, and I commend Brett Hudson for articulating the view that it should be available in a lump sum for those who would find that the best way of deriving the benefit. Because if their homes are poorly insulated—and I hadn’t thought of this when I spoke earlier about my ideas of replacing antiquated, fuel-inefficient, and costly heating appliances—they too would benefit from lump-sum assistance to improve the insulation, which would lower the fuel costs that they have to spend. Surely, that is a sensible way of spending the winter energy payment, if it works for them.

So I say to the new Minister now—when I say “new Minister”, the Minister Carmel Sepuloni, who has just taken over in the chair—I hope that she will answer the question about whether the Government will think again and give the people for whom this payment has been set up the opportunity to take it in the form that will work best for them. Because what works best for my elderly neighbour won’t be the same for my great-aunt down the road or for somebody in a different part of the country where conditions might be colder, wetter, damper, or whatever.

We’ve heard tonight some extraordinary contributions from members of the Government, and yet they seem to keep coming back to this idea that if they talk very quietly and say, “Oh, well, of course, this is a policy-neutral provision”, all will be well. Well, Mr O’Connor, the MP for Ōhāriu—another man I respect—tried to argue that point of view, but, I have to say, that was an extraordinary performance; a contortionist couldn’t have done better. We were treated to some Uriah Heep - like thing, and yet he kept on wanting to talk about how in some way it was Stalinist. I have to say, he lost me, but it was definitely more Dickensian than Solzhenitsyn, the bit that I could follow. Then he gave us a little bit of time on his fluffy dice, and by this point I was wondering what we were talking about. He was going on, on the engine, and clearly, he was revisiting his misspent youth, although I’m sure it was much closer to the misspent youth of the young Labour list MP who is sitting beside him at the moment, because I know how he hoons around Hamilton with his fluffy dice.

This is an important bill, and, as the Hon Alfred Ngaro lamented, Government members who have spoken thus far in the debate seem not to have read the amendments that they are supporting. This is one of the reasons why we are so concerned and, frankly, horrified that the Government has just dumped this huge number of amendments on the committee without going back to the select committee, when they themselves appear not to understand some of the practical consequences of the amendments that they are supporting.

I hope that they’re going to answer some of the questions that have been put to them. I hope that they are going to focus on some of the suggestions. I really hope that they’re going to support some of the Supplementary Order Papers that my colleagues are putting forward, because we want to improve this bill. We want to recover that degree of unanimity that previously existed, so that we can all have a really substantial piece of legislation that we all support.

I’ve got a number of amendments in front of me with respect to the winter energy payment. Some have been touched on by the Opposition tonight and some haven’t, but I thought I’d speak to all of them.

I’m really concerned, though, that the quality of some of them and what is being proposed really does indicate that there’s a little bit of trifling going on with the committee. This is a good example of why: we’ve got an amendment from Andrew Bayly, who wants to move that we amend the winter energy payment to put it into line with the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) definition of winter. He says NIWA defines winter as the months of June, July, and August, which is 92 days. The advice I’ve got is that the NIWA definition would change the period every year, so it would mean that people would not know how much they were going to receive or when they would get it, and that would cause chaos not only for the people receiving the payment but also for the system that’s set up to deliver the payment. So, actually, no; we want to be able to provide some certainty to New Zealanders that are eligible for the winter energy payment, and what we’ve proposed, in terms of the set period of time, makes absolute sense, so we will not be supporting Andrew Bayly’s amendment.

There’s another amendment that is from the honourable member Alfred Ngaro, wanting us to restrict the election and revocation of receiving a winter energy payment to once every year, saying that it would reduce compliance and unnecessary burden. Actually, if people had to nominate every year that they did not want to receive it, then that would actually increase compliance. In fact, when they opt out, they can, at any time, opt back in, and so that makes much more sense than asking them to opt out on an annual basis. So, we will not be supporting that one.

Maureen Pugh has one amendment, the purpose being that this amendment is to allow the winter energy payment to be taken in monthly instalments, rather than either fortnightly or weekly, saying that that aligns with someone’s monthly power bill payments. For those that have been in Government before—and I know there are members on the other side of the Chamber that have been members before—the administration and compliance issues that come with trying to have differential payments like that are huge. And, actually, I don’t think there’s going to be any major complaints from people if they are receiving it fortnightly as opposed to monthly, considering it could cost millions of dollars to tinker with the system to enable us to do that. So, we won’t be doing that.

We’ve got one amendment from Brett Hudson—

💬 Chris Bishop: That’s a good one. That’s a keeper.

It’s the same quality as the others, and is asking that the winter energy payment be paid as a one-off lump sum. You know, maybe there’s some good intention there; he’s saying that’s so it could support insulation or new heating sources. The issue with that is you don’t know how long someone is going to be eligible for the winter energy payment, because if they go off the benefit or they go overseas for a period of time, then during that time they would no longer be eligible. Therefore, if you gave them the lump sum at the beginning of winter, you would potentially be creating an overpayment, which is not good for the client and is not good for the State. So, we will not be supporting that one.

I think that’s all the winter energy payment - related amendments, and I, hopefully, have explained really clearly why they would not work and why what we’ve currently proposed in our bill is actually the more sensible and practical way to go.

I’m really pleased to take a further call. I’m very concerned, actually, that the Minister for Social Development is pre-empting the discussion in this Chamber around a number of amendments that rightly focus on the winter energy payment. I will touch very briefly on a tabled amendment. Subpart 9A deals with the winter energy payment—but again, I think it is a concern, as I read it, that the attempt to quickly address amendments before members have even raised the reasons for them is most unfortunate, but I think it’s also indicative of the Government’s approach to this bill, which is to push it through.

What, of course, is happening—and it will be no surprise to many in this Chamber—is that as this debate goes on, more and more tabled amendments are appearing here, as members on this side of the Chamber continue to find, with growing concern and alarm, the variety of changes that have been made. Look, I’m conscious a lot of discussions happened on Subpart 1, a little bit on Subpart 3, and certainly on Subpart 9, so I want to turn my mind to Subpart 2 “Jobseeker support” and to clause 21, referencing what is known as the work gap. So clause 21(1)(b) states that it is if someone “is in employment but is losing earnings through a health condition or injury”. It makes perfect sense.

The question, really, for the Minister in the chair, Carmen Sepuloni, is: over what time frame? That doesn’t appear to be specified. So Minister, I think, it is very prudent that we look at a work gap. Obviously, it is if someone, as you’ve got in the legislation in clause 21(1)(a), “is not in full time employment;”, and—quite prudent too—if they are losing earnings due to a health condition or injury. I don’t see the time frame specified. It’d be good to understand that and to assure the committee too that “health condition or injury” is broad enough, because those of us who have worked in the health sector know that that’s actually not necessarily a health—well, these are not health terms per se, so just clarity of what is covered in there.

In clause 22 we may have a logical fallacy at play, and I’d probably need someone like Christopher Penk to help me out. Clause 22 is about availability for work, here in Part 2. It says a person is available for work if the person, “(a) is available for and seeking full-time employment and—(ii) is willing and able to undertake it; and (iii) has taken reasonable steps to find it;”. It’s the “is willing” in clause 22(a)(ii) which is the critical and somewhat confusing part to me. Obviously, from my sort of leanings politically, one’s simple willingness to find employment is not necessarily sufficient in itself, although I would admit it’s necessary. However, to go on and then say “(iii) has taken reasonable steps” does seem to be sort of around the wrong way.

The long and the short is, Minister, that if someone is willing to take up work, then one would assume that they will take reasonable steps. However, if someone is, according to clause 22(a)(ii), not willing, then it’s rather hard for them to take reasonable steps to be unwilling. I hope that makes sense. So it basically is questioning why we have clause 22(a)(iii) if clause 22(a)(ii) is being contradicted. In other words, if someone is unwilling or not able to undertake work, then how is it they can prove that they’ve taken reasonable steps? It seems a little odd to me.

Part 2, clause 23—there is a question here around age requirements. I know from experience in the field that it’s normal that it’s at least 18 years—as it’s put here—for someone seeking a job seeker application, but I’m conscious there are a lot of legalities from age 16 these days, including those with children, so I’m just wondering why they’re not specifically covered. I suspect that’s in other subparts to follow. So just a couple of questions there.

Moving now to clause 27 in Part 2, this is around how the jobseeker support is affected by one’s health conditions. It’s really good to see that in clause 27(2), it says, “The certificate must be given by a prescribed health practitioner.” As a former chair of the Health Committee, I’m very aware that we put through a piece of legislation with, I believe, the full support of the House to change the term “medical practitioner”, meaning only a doctor, to “health practitioner”. It’s excellent to see that this has been taken up, but I think we need a little bit more clarity or assurance that that’s not too wide.

I don’t want to contradict the intention of the Health Committee to ensure there’s a broad range of practitioners, and it was something that we discussed in the committee at the time. In the case of clause 27, one would expect that a doctor or a nurse would be a prescribed health practitioner, but health practitioners also include podiatrists and the like. So I suppose, to illustrate the point, could a podiatrist on a non-foot related injury write out a certificate for someone seeking jobseeker support? So I suppose it’s just that sort of common-sense filter and assurance to be given to the committee. It’s prudent that the bill has been updated to say “health practitioner” rather than “medical practitioner”, but, as I say, many people would think that all health practitioners are doctors or nurses, and it actually goes much, much wider than that—chiropractors, podiatrists, and so forth. I can see where certain health practitioners would fit, but if I’m going in with—I don’t know—a viral chest infection, will my friendly podiatrist down the road writing a certificate be sufficient? I hope the answer is no.

Turning to my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 30 now, this is around the supported child’s payment in Subpart 5, but I haven’t had the chance—I’m not sure who has, actually—to address my SOP. Fundamentally, it’s really asking the Minister why we’re not allowing people who are not the biological parents, in effect, or those acting as caregivers in the first instance to receive the support. In effect, my SOP is really just reintroducing this into Subpart 5—and I understand from an earlier speaker that it’s because the Government wants to take its time and consider this. I suppose that’s a valid—well, it’s not “suppose”; it is actually a very valid position. However, we often hear from the other side sort of a “Who will think of the children?” cry, so here’s an instant ability to provide some clarity, and if in this comprehensive working of the Government they decide it’s not prudent, well then, they can remove it. But in the meantime, non-family members who are supporting a child will miss out, and I just think that’s a little unusual.

So I’m not going to go into depth with this SOP other than to say that it’s seeking to reintroduce into Subpart 5 in this Part 2 all those elements which allow the—well, a child who has no parent but has someone who’s prepared to look after that child. So we’re talking guardians and so forth, or, to get really technical, there’s several degrees of affinity there, and I just think it’s prudent. I would hope to think that it’s a concept supported by all in the committee. I mean, if this is a child-centred approach, then really the degree of affinity of the caregiver is not all that relevant.

Again, I do understand—I think it was from the Green Party—that they want more time to think about it, I suppose. Well, we’d all like more time to think about things, but where there is an immediate issue here for some family members—and I think one of the contributions earlier was also talking about funeral grants and death. Well, this applies in the case where a child’s parent is dead or missing, so I think it just fits into all of that.

The last bit—because I’m conscious that this is possibly my fourth call and that’s sort of the end of it, which is possibly of great relief to the other side. I do want to just briefly touch on a tabled amendment in my name. This is to Subpart 9A, and seeks, in clause 65C, to actually delete two paragraphs in subclause (2). I am conscious that around the winter energy payment, as I’ve said, we’ve touched on this quite a bit, though we have not touched on this particular tabled amendment.

Currently, clause 65C(2)(c) and (d) are around long-term residential care in a hospital and people who are receiving residential care services. So the long and short of this is that, as currently proposed, someone will not be qualified to receive these payments if they’re in long-term residential care or they are receiving residential care services. There are a few other words around this, but I am conscious of time. I am suggesting via this tabled amendment that we actually delete those. I don’t think someone should be discriminated against on those bases, and I think, again, it’s just coming back to the fundamental issue. I’ve heard a lot about universalism and I’ve heard a lot about discrimination and stigma from the other side, and yet here is a prime example of that in practice, and I’m suggesting, hey, let’s get on the same page.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There’s been a lot of discussion tonight about the detail within this bill. I think it demonstrates really clearly the value of the select committee process and why when a bill of this magnitude has not been to the select committee it creates this detailed debate at the committee stage of the bill.

But it would be remiss of me to not take this opportunity to comment on the analogy given by Greg O’Connor in the committee tonight when he talked about his classic car—about getting under the bonnet and removing his engine. It was, I think, demonstrated quite clearly, Mr O’Connor, that a vintage car can still achieve uncontrolled loss of traction, as you did—spinning the wheels, going nowhere, but still the smell of burning rubber and petrol fumes.

This bill describes in detail the benefits that are available, and when you look at the list of the benefits that are available within this bill—particularly in Part 2, that we’re talking about—it goes to show what an absolutely generous country we live in in support of our least able people to support themselves. Our welfare system is a very healthy one.

But I did hear last week in the House, as there was question time happening, one member across the House who talked about how we procrastinate in getting people back into work by giving them not one, not two, and not even three, but four chances—he called them—not to go back to work. Well, this bill, in the form that it was delivered to the House last year, is about the social investment approach to these people that have found themselves in a situation where they are in the benefit-dependency cycle, and the social investment approach seeks to remove them from that.

But there is one part of the bill, in the amendments in Supplementary Order Paper 25 to Part 2—and it’s indexed at HA—which talks about the winter energy payment. I was a bit surprised to hear the Minister decline my amendment before I’d even had a chance to discuss it. That was an amendment to Part 2, proposed Subpart 9A and clause 65E on Supplementary Order Paper 25, and my suggestion was to insert a new clause 65E(2)(c). That would allow for the winter energy payment to be paid in five monthly payments and two fortnightly payments, and the rationale given by the Minister was that it would cost millions of dollars to implement a monthly payment. The rationale was that it coincides with monthly power accounts, and so it makes perfect sense to align the payments to a monthly power account.

And so my argument is that we load those payments up for people who are receiving benefits. We load them once into a computer. How hard can it be, then, to load one payment to go in monthly, or perhaps fortnightly? It’s not as though we have to do it every single month twice for every beneficiary. But, of course, if you did live on the West Coast an annual payment would be quite acceptable. You could buy two tonnes of coal on the West Coast for $700—

💬 Simon O’Connor: Not if you’re a greenie.

If you’re a greenie—there’s not many of them on the West Coast, Mr O’Connor.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Don’t bring me into the debate.

Oh, excuse me, Madam Chair. Mr O’Connor highlighted tonight some minor tidying-up that the bill required.

💬 Simon O’Connor: Which one?

Some—there was quite some, and I guess that is actually demonstrating once again the value of the select committee process, because that small tidying-up gets done at that point, when everyone has had an opportunity to scrutinise the wording within the bill and provide the input at that stage. But I also heard, earlier in the year, when I was watching from home, a speech given by the Rt Hon David Carter, when he talked about schedule 4 and the winter energy payment. I asked the question why they are not targeted or means-tested, when someone who is on an MP’s salary, receiving super, getting fees-free for his—[Time expired]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister Sepuloni made some interesting comments, and I thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing us to speak to our amendments. I know that the Minister answered, in her response to what she read in the amendments, but it’s great for those of us who have put through an amendment to be able to speak to them in the Chamber in this committee of the whole House stage as well.

I want to speak in regard to the winter energy payment, in particular because the Minister made the comment that, you know, it’s quite simple—we’ve actually passed the legislation, we’re just getting on with it and doing it. But when you look at the bill itself, I mean, the whole of Subpart 9A—clauses 65A, 65B, 65C, 65D, 65E, and 65F on the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25—it’s quite a substantive part of the bill, and, again, this is absolutely not policy-neutral. This is something that’s come out of the current Government’s perspective on the way that they want to provide this sort of support. So it sort of defies the sense of the words that the Minister has said—that they wanted to provide a policy-neutral platform for this bill.

The other part, in regard to my amendment to Part 2, Subpart 9A, clause 65D on the Minister’s SOP 25, is to replace clause 65D(3) with “The election must be made, and may be revoked, in a form and manner approved by MSD once every calendar year.”, and that’s the pragmatism of the amendment that I’m willing to put forward. What we often see is that there’s just an open-ended response. Things need to be tidied up, and I’d like to hear from the Minister in regard to this, because her response to my amendment was “What if they get off the benefit?” Well, from our side of here, the way that things are structured it’ll be very unlikely that any of them will get off the benefit, because everything will be provided for them.

💬 Jan Logie: Ha, ha!

And, again, as I said earlier on, the welfare system was meant to be a safety net. That’s right—members may shake their head on the other side there, and Jan Logie can do that, but if she reads, it’s consistent, and if she didn’t like it, then why didn’t she appeal? Why didn’t she appeal the purpose and the principle of the Act, which clearly states the greatest purpose is allow people to have work. That’s the greatest thing for social and economic well-being. But the member doesn’t like that. Instead, she’s picked on little bits, and what we’re trying to say is we want this to be pragmatic and practical, so I think that my amendment is wanting to do that.

I also want to support the amendment from my colleague Brett Hudson. Having been previously an electrician, and worked in, actually, a number of State houses, one of the issues that was constant in the work around repairs and maintenance was often around heating of homes, and what we found was the inefficient use of a heater. And so while this winter heat payment is simply about paying the bill, if we want to be wise, if we want to be considered, and if we want to truly help that family, the best thing that we could do is to be able to help them to insulate the home. Now, I think, actually, the amendment that’s been submitted by my colleague Brett Hudson is a pragmatic and practical approach that would allow for those families to be able to have a subsidy that would allow them insulation at home. It has been proven that when a home is insulated, when it becomes warmer and drier, the savings are three times that of a normal power bill. So it reduces the power bill by at least three times what it would normally cost. So why isn’t that considered? I think that actually that should be considered. It’s practical, it’s pragmatic, it’s the ability to help people heat and warm up their homes as well, and I think that’s important.

When we think about the winter energy payment, I suppose one of the things—and, again, in clause 65A—is where the purpose of the winter energy payment is to provide a “targeted financial assistance”. There’s been so much debate in this committee, and the reality is even from the Government side, in the backbenches—Deborah Russell in her speech spoke about universalism. So then why are we not removing the words? If we want to be true to the truth about what this bill is trying to do, it is not targeted. It is not means-tested. Actually, it’s an open, universal aspect where even members in this House who are eligible to have SuperGold cards can receive the winter energy payment.

So I’d like to ask of the Minister that she would ask of her officials why it is that they wouldn’t remove those words. If it’s not targeted, then actually say so; just simply declare the fact that this is a universal approach, which means that everyone and anyone who is eligible can apply for this. We know they’ve got a voluntary clause in there that allows other people to opt out. Well, the reality is that many of them probably won’t. We hope they would, but many of them won’t. So we hope that these amendments—and I want to thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to speak to my amendment in particular, and I hope that that adds to the debate in the committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity. I would like to start by talking about the winter energy payment, because that is something we saw as a big change in the way we were debating this bill. In Part 1 what we heard was that they were defending the fact that this is a policy-neutral bill—so, yes, we want to keep it policy-neutral, but when we came to Part 2, here we find that there are winter energy payments.

But what I want to comment on, on winter energy payments, is that when it says that it is available for people that are on the main benefit, I don’t understand why it’s available for people only on the main benefit. There are so many types of benefits that people can receive from the Ministry of Social Development, and those people receive those benefits because they are in real need. So they are going through some financial constraint. If they are going through some financial constraint, they all should be eligible for the winter energy payment. So it will be really good to see the Minister answer this question: why will only the people on the main benefit be receiving the winter energy payment and not people receiving other benefits? That is really unfair for people, those who receive other benefits, that they will not be eligible for the winter energy payment. When we talk about people on superannuation, there is no such criterion. Everybody that is receiving superannuation is going to receive a winter energy payment. So it is really unfair, when it comes to looking after people on really low incomes, that the support is not going to be available.

Along with that I would also like to talk about my colleague’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), Andrew Bayly’s SOP, that is to define winter according to the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research’s (NIWA’s) definition. So if it is actually to help people that are feeling cold in their houses, then why not adopt this definition—and the Minister has already dismissed that definition. I want to know what the basis is. So if the basis is that the Minister wants to provide some certainty, that certainty can be provided through definitions that are provided through these scientific institutions. It’s about helping people, helping people that feel cold in their houses, so the definition of winter from NIWA should be adopted because according to scientific evidence that is when the cold weather starts, that is when the temperatures drop, and then the temperatures actually pick up. So there are a few issues there on the winter energy payment that need to be answered.

Very quickly, I also want to touch on an SOP by Simon O’Connor. This is to amend the Minister’s SOP. This is replacing inserted Subparts 5 and 5A of Part 2 with a new Subpart 5 to restore a wide range of circumstances under which a supported child’s payment is eligible. The Minister touched on this issue before when he took a call, but it’s not very clear how this payment will work, because we’re talking about children that are not orphaned; we’re talking about children that are not unsupported—we’re talking about children that are supported. So we want some clarification around it, because now in clause 31 the Government has decided not to combine the orphans benefit and unsupported child’s benefit.

So we want some clarity around what’s going to happen to the supported child’s payment, as was proposed in this legislation. It’s very clear that this SOP that has been put forward—this is based on what was in the legislation before—will be available to people that are looking after a child that, for some reason, doesn’t have his or her biological parents available. They could be no more, maybe they are missing, or maybe there is a breakdown in the family, so there could be reasons why a child needs someone else to take care of him or her. It could be a grandparent, it could be a relative, and there could be financial constraints on them, so we cannot assume that they do not have any financial constraints—or maybe they have their own budget and now, all of a sudden, if they have to look after another child, it could become really difficult for them. So it is the Government’s responsibility to look after those children.

This change actually will make New Zealand children poorer. We hear this Government talking repeatedly about doing more for children, making New Zealand the best country to raise a child in, but when it comes to legislation that actually delivers, when it comes to action, that action is completely missing.

So I’m really disheartened. I’m really sad to see that this Government doesn’t care about this special support child’s payment, and thinks that we don’t need it. So I really want to hear from the Minister why the Minister is actually making this change, and how the support child’s payment will work for these children in special circumstances. We are talking about people who will be providing assistance to children or looking after these children in the long term.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to take a call on clause 59, Subpart 8 of Part 2 of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25, “Emergency benefit: discretionary grant on ground of hardship”. On reading through—that’s clause 59(5), amended by the SOP—I’ve noticed that the Minister for Social Development has deleted quite a few of the options in this particular part of the bill. I just want to talk a little bit about that because I think that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) finds it difficult enough for declining clients. Emergency benefits are there for that reason. But I think that amended subclause (5)—“MSD may, on a case by case basis, make the grant of an emergency benefit subject to any conditions imposed by MSD.”—does put MSD at risk. There is no other option for them to be able to go back to use for granting an emergency benefit. As I can see, through this SOP there are only clauses 59 and 60 that deal with emergency benefits. I don’t believe it is wide enough for MSD to be able to make a decision.

I think the whole area around “subject to any conditions imposed by MSD” is the issue, so therefore, I’m supporting Alfred Ngaro’s SOP 31. SOP 31 says, “MSD may, on a case by case basis, do either or both of the following:”. So that’s either to “make the grant of an exceptional circumstances benefit subject to any conditions”—similar to subclause 5 in the bill—or option (b), “impose on P the work-test or work-preparation obligations (and associated sanctions) attached to the equivalent benefit (if MSD is satisfied that P has the capacity to comply with those obligations).” By looking at this SOP, I can see that it does actually give MSD an option—an option to be able to make a decision, and also to be able to be accountable for the granting of the emergency benefit.

We have to understand that some people are pretty expert at being able to get emergency benefits—that’s not all people; that’s just some people. As I’ve said before, in my past contributions, benefits are there to help people during a rough time; however, we need to make sure we have various things in place to ensure that the people that really need these emergency benefits are going to get them, and that there is a test in place that will actually support MSD staff to ensure that the granting of this emergency benefit is going for the right reasons to the right applicant, who is not being seen to be taking advantage, let’s say. So that’s why I stand here and support Alfred Ngaro’s SOP 31. I think it has good wording in there. I think that it does give some protection and another option for MSD staff to be able to make a decision around the granting of an emergency benefit.

The second point that I also want to make, around supporting proposed amendments, is around Brett Hudson’s winter energy payments. I think that we need to have some additional options there on the table for those that are eligible over the winter period for the winter energy payments. I think that an option for providing for additional home insulation or heating sources is great. I think that if the person is under this particular clause that Brett has put forward—I think that there needs to be some flexibility around those winter energy payments.

I hope that a lot of the applications, etc., are fairly straightforward for superannuants. I discussed this with my mother on Sunday, on Mother’s Day—a great discussion at Mother’s Day lunch—[Bell rung]

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member for our timing—we got the clocks wrong.

Sorry?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. We got the clock wrong, so I’ve just indicated the end of the call. Does the member want to continue?

Yes, Madam Chair, thank you. Thank you very much. Sorry, I was looking at it and thinking it was going a bit slow.

As I said, I was discussing this with my mother, over the winter energy payments. She’s 86 years old—she’ll be 87 this year—and she seemed all confused about it. Therefore, I just hope that the process for winter energy payments, should they come into being, is going to be fairly straightforward for our kaumātua. It’s quite confusing.

But I think that in clause 65E, inserted by SOP 25, “Winter energy payment: instalments, rates, and payment”, Brett Hudson’s amendment to insert new clause 65E(2)(c) “for recipients who have nominated to use their winter energy payment for additional home insulation or heating sources,” is a good option. I think that if you add winter insulation into there, it will actually—if you look at it, it should actually reduce heating expenses for those who have the insulation put in. I think that that’s really good. I know that many people do watch their power bills. I know that my mother watches her power bill over the winter time. I’m still not sure whether or not her house is fully insulated. She’s renting a flat, but I’ve been talking to the landlord about that to make sure. I know that if he was given this option to, under the winter energy payments, get some sort of payment there for insulation, that would go a long way towards reducing the amount of times my mother has to use the heat pump in her home.

Based on all of the other winter energy payment amendments that this side of the Chamber has put in, there are some very sound arguments about where to from here for winter energy payments. I think it would be very good for the Government to actually accept some of these options in this bill, especially around, as I say, winter insulation and options around Alfred Ngaro’s SOP to do with the emergency benefit. I think that, as I said, benefits are there to give people a hand up not a handout, and I think that we need to be able to empower MSD to make sure that they can get their protections in place and their kind of lists of things to be able to grant an emergency benefit, wholly knowing that they have done all their checks and balances. So, as I said, my contribution now comes to an end. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be now put. Those of that opinion will say Aye—

💬 Barbara Kuriger: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): We are in the middle of a vote—[Interruption] No, we are in the middle of a vote. Those of that opinion will say Aye; to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it. [Interruption] A party vote is called for. The Clerk will conduct a party vote.

The amendment tabled in the name of Joanne Hayes has been ruled out of order as it is the same as the previous amendment.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Simon O’Connor to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to insert new clause 65(2) be agreed to:

delete paragraphs (c) and (d).

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I’m just interested in the procedures of the House. The normal understanding has been is if a member has a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in their name, that they are permitted to speak in the committee stage, and there were a number of members who weren’t given the opportunity to speak on their SOPs in that stage of the committee stage. I’m interested, in terms of—is this a new procedure of the House, that even if an SOP is in a member’s name, they won’t be given the opportunity to contribute?

Thank you very much. I thank the member for her intervention. I’m just quickly looking through my list. I understand that there was one member who had an SOP that didn’t have an opportunity to speak. I’m not sure whether that member sought the call. I’m not sure that I saw the member seek the call, and I apologise to that member for doing so. However, the debate had been running for more than two hours—probably closer to two hours and 15. I do apologise to the member—I see that you are there. However, we have now closed that debate and we are now moving on to Part 3. But I do take your point. I do acknowledge that that was an error on my part; however, I didn’t see the member seek the call.

Just speaking further to the point of order, Madam Chair. As you would appreciate, this is a significant piece of legislation, a large piece of legislation with multiple subparts in that part that we were debating. So we’ve had a situation where, yes, I’d taken an earlier call in the part and had said that I wished to speak later on my Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). I didn’t speak at all on either of the two SOPs, so the committee has now voted on something, the public don’t have scrutiny on it, and I wasn’t afforded the opportunity to speak on the SOP that’s now been voted on. Madam Chair, I’m deeply concerned about that as a process of this Chamber. [Interruption]

Just a moment. I can deal with this. We will take it one at a time, thank you. We’re just checking our notes. Hon Louise Upston, you did have an opportunity to have a couple of calls; I’ve indicated at least two. The Clerk’s just checking whether there may have been a third. Had you—

💬 Hon Louise Upston: I didn’t speak on the SOPs.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That is a matter entirely for the content of your call when you take the call at the time. That is entirely over to you. Look, I apologise. We have voted on it, and I have indicated to the member the debate had been running for well over two hours. There had been plenty of calls taken. We are now moving on to Part 3, which are “Obligations”.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. So, first of all I’d just like to thank you for acknowledging me. I do confirm that I did seek the call, and I was very loud, I thought, in calling for my amendment. So I just do want that noted, if I may, Madam Chair.

It has been noted. Now we are moving Part 3, which is the—

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Sorry, Madam Chair. Just speaking to the point of order—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I have ruled on the point of order.

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: I apologise. It’s just that it happened in the last Parliament as well, so it’s not really a new situation for these current members.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I’ve spoken on the point of order. Can we now turn to Part 3, the debate on clauses 90 through to 167.

Part 3 Obligations