Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill

Thank you, Mr Chair, for this opportunity. Very quickly, I would to recap that I was talking to my amendment, which is to insert new subclause (3) in clause 120. This is about newborn enrolment with general practitioners. My amendment is seeking to improve health and social outcomes for infants and children by requiring that newborns are enrolled with a general practitioner of the family’s choice before they are six weeks old.

As the committee would have realised, this amendment is actually based on my member’s bill, which the Government is not supporting. So through this amendment, I’m giving another opportunity to this Government—which keeps talking big on doing more for children—to show that, actually, they want to match their words. So this is their second opportunity. This is because in clause 120, “Health care enrolment and compliance with core health checks”, we see that people who are on a benefit have to take reasonable steps to ensure that each dependent child is enrolled with a primary healthcare provider. Also, in that clause, we also see that “(2) A person to whom this section applies must take all reasonable steps to ensure that a dependent child under the age of 5 years is up to date with core checks under—(a) the programme that immediately before 15 July 2013 was known as Well Child; or (b) any similar established programme in its place.”

The issue here is that when people are on a benefit, they are provided with all the support and encouragement, and they are provided with help to get their newborns enrolled with a primary healthcare provider. But, when a person is not on a benefit, that kind of support is not available. So, to me, it’s a matter of consistency.

💬 Hon Member: So it’s compulsory?

It’s a matter of consistency—when people on a benefit get all that support, all that encouragement, then other people should also have that kind of encouragement and support available to them.

We know that all new mums don’t maintain an Outlook diary to remember when to take the newborn for their health check-up. So we want to see that there is a proactive system for everybody, not just for families that are on a benefit. I’m sure those new mums will really appreciate getting a call from their nominated general practitioners saying, “We have received a pre-enrolment request on behalf of your newborn, so could you come to the clinic to complete the enrolment process.” I’m sure new parents and new mums will definitely appreciate that, because it’s very easy to miss appointments in those early days when the family is settling in with a newborn. So it’s all about providing support, and, also, because it is in line with what’s already in this legislation, it makes sense that we see that not only people on a benefit but other people also have a similar kind of support available to them.

We also know that if people are on a benefit and they are not complying with this—that is, after all the encouragement, all the support, all the help that they are provided—then there can be consequences. These consequences can be in terms of sanctions. This could be their welfare payment—benefit payment. So that emphasises the importance of getting their children enrolled with a primary healthcare provider. Why can’t we have a similar kind of importance put on children that are born to parents that are not dependent on a benefit? So that is what my amendment highlights.

I would like to actually ask the Minister to address the committee and tell us if the Minister is deciding not to accept my amendment—this is their second opportunity to prove that they are really wanting to do more for newborns, they are really wanting to do more for children. If the reason given is, “Because this is just a rewrite bill, we are not going to make any policy changes.”, then I will say this has been such a waste of time. It has been a waste of time of this House, a waste of time of the select committee process, and a waste of time for all the submitters, because while we are rewriting this bill—and I fully understand the rewrite was required because it became so disjointed with so many amendments, in this bill and in this part as well—we want to make sure that we are efficiently using the House’s time. Something that is so crucial, so important—why can’t it be extended to all parents? It will be a very easy amendment. So that’s why I want to move my amendment, which is to see that all newborns are enrolled with general practitioners.

In my previous call, I have already described how this amendment, or this enrolment process, would work. It’s really important to see that the newborn’s family gets to choose the general practitioner. So that is part of this amendment as well. So they decide which general practitioner they want to see for their newborn. Then it’s about getting a call from that general practitioner to ensure that the newborn actually is enrolled and is connected to all the services that children of people that are on benefit can be connected to—and, as I said before, clause 120(2) is connecting them to Well Child or any similar programme established in its place.

So it’s a matter of equity. This service should be available to all parents, irrespective of their dependence or independence in terms of their income. I truly believe that all newborns deserve to be looked after and connected to these various services that are available free of charge. It’s not only for newborns, but new mums also get a lot of services through the Well Child programme which are—[Bell rung]

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s an honour to take a call on the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. It’s fair to say on this side the House that this legislation initially came out of the National-led Government, and so there is a lot here in this bill that we’re very supportive of. In this process of the committee of the whole House, it’s an opportunity to again—even if we were in Government—improve the bill, and that’s the intent of this. So as a way of sort of declaring that, we’re putting through our amendments. They may be small amendments, small changes, and we hope that the Minister will see these as an opportunity again just to improve maybe small anomalies that need a slight change, a slight amendment, and that’s the purpose of the committee of the whole House.

We’ve got a number of amendments that are coming through, and there is one on clause 93, in Part 3, and it’s in the name of the Hon Louise Upston. It’s an amendment to clause 93 and it’s inserting a new clause 93B. This is in relation to the provision headed up: “Steps to explain overseas absence rules”. The amendment wants to insert new clause 93B, which reads, “A person may apply to the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development for an exemption to 203A on the grounds of, for example: (a) Caring for children who may be located overseas (b) Health conditions which require time in warmer conditions (c) Serious illness to immediate family overseas”.

This, as I’m sure the Minister would appreciate, often relates to some of our constituents, some of our superannuitants, here that have come from the Pacific nations and from the Pacific Islands. In fact, in the Chamber presently—and in the select committee—we are talking about an extension to the portability of the pension fund to nations of the Realm, and this amendment, I think, is quite relevant. What it does is it seeks to clarify what are some of the steps and it gives an explanation for the absence in the four-week absence rules that apply in this regard.

So I’m hoping that the Minister will see that this is, again, a contribution that’s practical, that’s simple, and it seeks to give clarity to those who are beneficiaries, who are superannuitants, who are seeking then to, for these three reasons—one is caring for children located overseas. Often it is the case that some of the family members will go back to those places. It could be Australia and other places, but in this regard I want to give examples of going back to the Pacific Islands. There are many situations where there have been health conditions—again, family members, for very good reason, need to return back and go to those islands, and, again, it is frequently the case that they return to those islands. And then the third reason is where there is serious illness to immediate family members overseas and there is genuine cause for concern. We often call it tangihanga, as you’ll know, Mr Chair, and it’s where there isn’t a chance to go back when superannuitants have lost a loved one, and it’s a very genuine and authentic reason for them to be away from New Zealand as well. So I seek that this amendment would be able to be inserted there.

The amendment has an explanatory note saying that with the winter energy payment available for superannuitants in all cases, they do need to explain the four-week rule so that people don’t miss out on their entitlement. And in the committee we’ve had a number of speeches, and even in the general debate, talking about the power of the winter energy payment. I won’t go into that, but if it’s going to be something that’s consistent with what this current Government has put through into this bill, which is the winter energy payment, then I think this consistency will reflect itself in this amendment, which I think is very pragmatic and practical, and, again, I think it would be very useful in this regard.

As I said, we don’t want other people to miss out on that opportunity to be able to get the winter energy payment. So I want to submit this amendment in the name of my colleague and friend the Hon Louise Upston as a pragmatic solution—and, again, the explanatory note, for those reasons, as well. I hope that the Minister may be able to see that she gets advice from her advisers and is maybe able to stand up and actually agree—that would be wonderful—and say that new clause 93B would be a very valid clause that we could include in this bill. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Fantastic. I was worried—not because of Parmjeet Parmar; I thought she might get three calls before I even had a chance.

Look, I’m really pleased to return here to Part 3. I know we’ve spent a bit of time on it, but there’s quite a lot of substance in this part. So I just want to address two particular issues in Subpart 1 of Part 3 and then at least attempt to talk to two of my tabled amendments.

The first two points are to do with clause 91 in Subpart 1 of Part 3. It’s just, once again—well, I’ll raise an issue which I’d like the Minister to provide an answer to, because in clause 91 it talks about the failure to comply without a good or sufficient reason. I’ve raised the question before: the difference between good in the moral sense or good in the ethical sense. In other words, is the reason that’s been given something that the case manager deems as good or bad or deems as right or wrong? So I wouldn’t mind an answer to that.

Then in clause 92 I’d also raised the issue around Map. That’s the acronym—Map. The Minister will know that’s manual and processes, or rather the acronym which stands for the manual and processes—how available that is to the public. The long and the short in terms of the Ministry for Social Development’s (MSD’s) obligations is noted in clause 92, “MSD must make people affected aware of their obligations, consequences of non-compliance, and their review and appeal rights”. I completely understand that that’s done in voice and there’s various fliers and documentations, but having worked in MSD in a variety of roles, I know that Map is a fantastic resource, certainly for those on the front line or those of us in management too. I’m just really keen to know how accessible Map is going to be, because while I know how to find it on the MSD or the Work and Income website, it takes quite a bit of effort. So it would be great if the Minister can address those two points.

But I’d like, if I might now, to turn to my tabled amendment. Granted, it was tabled almost a month ago at the very end of the last discussion. It’s a suggestion to the Minister—and I would really welcome her feedback—to insert new clause 91A. This is to go, of course, just above clause 92, and inserts the heading, “Obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child”. The importance of this—again, Subpart 1 is about the obligations that people have. I think, quite rightly, the Minister and those who have worked on this document have put in a goodly number of obligations, and I think one is missing and that’s particularly to do with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

It’s frequently told to us here that the child must be at the centre of all that we do. In fact, that’s an excellent notion. In fact, it’s a notion shared by all cultures. I say that because often it’s just sort of put out there that one or two cultures in the world have that notion; it’s shared by all cultures in the world. We always want our children to be at the centre. One the great expressions of that is the UN convention and charter around the rights of the child.

In particular, I’m asking that the Ministry of Social Development takes appropriate steps to ensure—well, that the convention is understood but in particular, on top of that, I want to be really clear to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, that I’m not suggesting that we incorporate the entire Convention on the Rights of the Child. That would be absurd. So being the minimalist that I am, except in words, I’m suggesting that we indicate Article 8, which says, “States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations, as recognized by law without unlawful interference”.

I think the particular context here is that it is very clear in UN law and in this convention—one that this country has signed up to—that a child needs to understand who they are. It is very clear that they have a nationality; in this case they’re New Zealanders. And what’s really fundamental to me is those family relations and the context—and we have had some discussions in this Chamber around this bill—but wider than that; actually acknowledging who one’s mother or father is somewhat under challenge and, in particular, there is the suggestion that a father doesn’t need to be named. I’m not going to go into a full biology lesson, but fathers are relative—I know there are some people who could be quite excited by these things. The key is that I think it is an important right that a child does know who their mother and father are, and particularly the latter because obviously they don’t always have to be involved at the last. What’s important is that efforts should be made.

I think I really want to stress that in suggesting this tabled amendment, it’s not suggesting that it must—[Time expired]

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to be taking my first ever call in the Chamber after giving my maiden speech yesterday. I do hope I do you justice, and I hope that you pull me up if I’m not obeying the rules of the Chamber.

It’s a fantastic pleasure to be here taking a call on this bill. My colleagues have already spoken to a number of Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs).

I’d like to jump straight into Part 3 of the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. In particular, what struck me was clause 131, “Meaning of suitable employment”. Of course we all want people to be back on their feet as quickly as possible and gainfully employed, but this struck me as a little bit—let me just explain clause 131. It’s saying that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) is satisfied that the employment is suitable for the person to undertake for the specific number of hours per week. That’s part of what’s called the work test, which goes a back a few clauses to clause 125, where beneficiaries must satisfy a work test. So which type of beneficiaries? We’re talking about job seekers: people who get the jobseeker support, and people who get the jobseeker support for health conditions, including the spouse and partner as well.

So what are some of the questions that I’ve thought about in this? The first is that there’s no guidance around what is suitable employment for this person. So suitable employment might depend, in fact, on what their skill set is, and also the external factors surrounding where this person lives, what part of New Zealand they live in. I think that there’s a bit of hesitation or a lack of guidance for the ministry on what suitable employment is, so I definitely want to ask the Minister to explain what the role of suitable employment is.

This brings me to my colleague the Hon Louise Upston, and I’m very happy to see a tabled amendment in her name here, which is an amendment to clause 131. It’s great to be here to speak on behalf of her amendment, to talk to this clause. So what is her tabled amendment about? Essentially, she is calling for subclause (1) to be added to clause 131, so that “(1) MSD must have regard to regional skills shortages, seasonal work and the rate of unemployment when determining if employment is suitable.” This is important because, of course, the reason employment is suitable is required for the work test.

Let me just give you a couple of examples. I’m from Auckland, which is a big urban city, and some of the skills shortages there are more around manufacturing, high-end IT skills, but they may not be the same sort of skills that are required in some regional areas. For example, my colleague the Hon Louise Upston is from Taupō, and it’s likely that there’s not a big IT sector in Taupō, so there’s not going to be a massive skills shortage of IT skills in Taupō. So I just think that this bill requires some regional specifications, and so that’s why I commend my colleague the Hon Louise Upston for submitting this amendment to make sure that this bill takes account of localised factors, such as urban versus rural. I just commend that for clause 131.

I’ve got about 30 seconds left. [Interruption] I’m trying to do my best. Otherwise, look—

💬 Hon Member: Don’t weaken now. Don’t weaken now.

As I said, this is my first ever call, and it’s just such a pleasure. I didn’t know SOPs were this big. This is over 500 pages—and I only just learnt what an SOP is the other day.

I thought I’d take a call following the four speakers that have spoken on this bill, just to address some of the issues that they’ve raised, and also to speak to some of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that have been referred to.

I will start by just saying to the member that just spoke, Dan Bidois, that the entire 500 pages is the entire bill with the amendments in it. It keeps getting referred to as if it’s an entire amendment, but it is actually the whole bill with amendments inside it. If we had tried to separate it out, it would have been incredibly confusing, so that’s why it’s 500 pages long; it’s not 500 pages of changes.

There were four tabled amendments that were referenced by the previous four speakers: two that have been put up by the Hon Louise Upston, one that’s been put forward by Simon O’Connor, and one that’s been put up by Parmjeet Parmar. The thing that they all have in common, before I go into detail about why we won’t be supporting them or why I don’t support them, is that all of them are not policy-neutral. We’ve been quite clear from the start that we are making this a truly policy-neutral rewrite. That wording was actually the wording of the previous Government in respect to this bill, but the reality was that there were policy changes in it, and so this Government has made an honest attempt to make this policy-neutral. Basically, the SOPs that I’ve seen that have been put forward don’t tick that box immediately, therefore can’t be supported, because they are policy changes and we are not supporting policy changes in a policy-neutral rewrite of the Social Security Act.

I will speak to some of the specific ones that have been raised. Simon O’Connor has a tabled amendment up that he, himself, referred to, which was to insert new clause 91A. What he’s asked for, as I said, is not only not policy-neutral but it’s not actually within the scope of the bill or the purpose of the Social Security Act. We would need to rewrite the purpose of the Social Security Act and make major changes to the actual piece of legislation to make his tabled amendment relevant to what we’re discussing here in the Chamber today, and I think there is no desire across the committee for that to happen. So without going any further, that’s really all that can be said for that particular tabled amendment.

We’ve got the Hon Louise Upston, who has a tabled amendment up which wants to insert new clause 93(b), which would create exemptions to the winter energy payment. Firstly, as I said, that’s not policy-neutral. The serious concern I have about it, apart from the fact it’s not policy-neutral, is that it would be completely out of line with other supplementary assistance—so the accommodation supplement and disability allowance, which, like the winter energy payment, can only continue for a 28-day absence. So this is about consistency. If we were to do what the honourable member Louise Upston was asking, then we would be continuing to make a mess of the social security legislation, when this whole exercise is about cleaning it up. So we don’t want those inconsistencies. There are other reasons why we couldn’t support it, but the two reasons I’ve given are very clear, so I will leave it at that.

Moving to Louise Upston’s other tabled amendment that has been put forward, which would require the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to “have regard to regional skills shortages, seasonal work and rate of unemployment when determining if employment is suitable.” Actually, this is some of the work that this Government is quite serious about, particularly with the work that we’re doing around our regional growth fund and with respect to skills shortages that are taking place, not only through MSD but also in portfolios like immigration. So there’s a lot of work already happening in this space, but, as I said, it actually wouldn’t be policy-neutral, so we’re not going to insert that here, and there are a number of other reasons which I won’t go into.

Then there’s one other that was discussed. I think it was the member Parmjeet Parmar’s tabled amendment. This was in regards to her wanting to require a newborn’s responsible practitioner—I’m assuming midwife or other medical professional—to consult with the newborn’s mother about which general practice to nominate as the newborn’s primary healthcare provider. There are a few other elements to it. It’s not only not policy-neutral; it’s not within scope of this bill. That is a health matter, not something that sits with the social security legislation. There is also—can I just state that clause 120 does already set out what was introduced by the previous Government, which was a social obligation for beneficiaries with children to take all reasonable steps to ensure their children are enrolled with a primary healthcare provider. So I think that really covers off the concern that the member Parmjeet Parmar had.

So those are the reasons that I am not supportive of the SOPs that have been mentioned so far during this debate.

Thank you, Mr Chair. My amendment, which has been submitted in my name, to the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill proposes an amendment to clause 166, which is found at the very end of Part 3 of the bill. It amends clause 166(2) so that it states, “The Health and Safety at Work Act 2015; the Human Rights Act 1993; and the Health and Disability Act 2000 apply to P,”. The reason for that is because it talks in that part of the bill, in clause 166, about the application of the health and safety legislation, and I just wanted to highlight that the need to apply the consideration to people with disabilities is an extremely important part of their rehabilitation, their opportunity to enter the workforce.

I know that New Zealand has made huge strides over the last few years in how our communities, and our country, in fact, think about disabilities, people with disabilities, and how disabled people live. We’re a country that’s been at the forefront of some of these issues internationally. For example, we were instrumental in passing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. There are 1.1 million people in New Zealand who experience some form of disability, so it’s a far from insignificant number. And we are also one of the few countries in the world to recognise New Zealand Sign Language as an official language of our country.

I draw our attention to New Zealander Robert Martin. He’s a living example of what can happen when a disabled person is supported by their community and given a chance to enter the workforce, and he has become a member of—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but she seems to be talking about an amendment that we don’t have yet. Has she recently—can you tell us which amendment that is?

Do you want me to bring it out?

💬 Hon Member: Read it.

I did read it when I started. It was to amend clause 166(2).

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We don’t have a copy of that. Has it not yet been submitted to the office?

Yes, I believe so. I’ll sign it.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): OK, I’ll take another call right now.

Thank you, Mr Chair. This time I want to talk to my amendment—this is a different amendment—to clause 146, in Part 3. This amendment to clause 146 inserts new subclause (1)(a). This is in line with what is already there in clause 146, because clause 146 is headed, “Person who fails to comply with the requirement to attend interview is subject to sanction”. In that, there are two subclauses and these two subclauses don’t cover the policy that I want to see introduced here, because this is about providing cover for all aspects when someone is subject to sanction. So we want to make sure that the sanctions are not applied without having a full review of that person that goes for an interview. It’s really unfair for that person if any kind of sanction is applied without providing the full support that a person might need when that person turns up for an interview.

So in clause 146 what we see in the first subclause is that, “A person (P) is subject to a sanction … if MSD is satisfied that [the person] has failed, without a good and sufficient reason, to comply with a requirement under section 144(4) to attend an interview.” There is a provision for young people not to have this sanction. So my amendment is to see that a person not only attends the interview but is also actively involved in the process; the person is prepared and is ready to work. It’s important that person doesn’t only attend the interview but they are also open to accepting the role and undertake the interview in good faith.

In this call, I want to commend the work that the Ministry of Social Development staff do and the work that Work and Income do, because they work really hard to help people get into employment. We know that one of the roles of our welfare system is to be a safety net. People can fall back on the welfare system if they don’t have any source of income—it could be for several circumstances. But when a person is fit and is capable of getting back into employment, then Work and Income plays a very important role in helping people get into employment. I have heard that businesses get calls from Work and Income case managers asking if there are any vacancies. Then what happens is that if they find a suitable match in their database—someone who is on a benefit who can get to work—they send that person for an interview.

I think it becomes really important to know what happened in an interview if the role is declined—if that interviewee is declined for the opening that was available. It is really unfair for the interviewee to not know what went wrong during the interview process and why the job was not offered to that interviewee. So what my amendment is saying is that the case manager should be actually requesting an assessment report from the potential employer to see that the person was willing to take up the role and was prepared for the interview. With that, what will then happen is that before the sanction is applied on that person for some reason, the case manager can see if that individual needs any help to be prepared for an interview.

We know that people can be on a benefit for a long time for several reasons. It could be intergenerational or it could be because they have gone on a benefit and they have somehow lacked motivation to get back into employment and they are not sure how to be prepared for an interview. So this assessment report will help the interviewee when they turn up again for an interview. It will help them to be fully ready to take up that job, and show the willingness to take up a job, because if the potential employer is declining that interviewee because the interviewee expressed unwillingness to take up the role, or because some other indication was given in the interview, then the intention of that person to be in employment is not fully proven.

Before I finish, I want to quickly respond to the call that the Minister in the chair took on my amendment to clause 120. Clause 120 applies to people that are on a benefit, and my amendment, which inserts subclause (3) would mean that the provision about newborn enrolment with general practitioners would apply for all parents. That should not be only for people that are on a benefit. Why can’t it be extended to everybody? I did hear the Minister say that they want to keep it policy-neutral—[Time expired]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I speak on a proposed amendment to clause 167 in Part 3, I just want to address some of the comments that were made by the Minister in the chair in regards to the amendment to insert clause 93(b) that I spoke to in the name of the Hon Louise Upston. Her comments were that—the fact that this amendment was not in line with the intent of being policy-neutral. I would have to say that this amendment, all it does is actually extend the aspect of what are some of the grounds in which there can be an exemption. So it wasn’t changing the intent of the policy; actually, it was in line with it. It was actually giving clarity in regards to steps to explain the reasons why a beneficiary may have been absent. So I still don’t understand, as the Minister has said, where that amendment is a change in the direction of the policy, when it was just a simple amendment to the current intent of the policy. I just wanted to make a brief remark on that.

My contribution at this time is in regard to Part 3 and the amendment to clause 167. It’s amending clause 167, on page 113. Currently, under that, the amendment says, “ ‘Obligations suspended where MSD has exercised discretion to pay benefit while beneficiary overseas’, under subclause (2) insert new subclause (3) …” The new subclause that I would like to insert—and before I do that, I’ll just read the other two clauses that are there. Clause 167(1): “This section applies if MSD has exercised its discretion under any regulations made under section 415 …”; clause 167(2): “During the period of absence for which the benefit is paid, [a person] is not required to comply with his or her work test or work-preparation obligations or young person or young parent obligations.” So subclause (3), proposed by this amendment, would then include: “Any person is exempt from the obligations in Sections 163, 164 and the regulations under section 415 should they be overseas for the purpose of attempting to gain access to an overseas pension or equivalent scheme”.

And I put this forward for a number of reasons. One of them is that I’ve had a number of constituents that have come to see me in my office who have talked about the fact that, although they may have worked overseas—and one of the examples of the countries that they worked in was Canada—and while there are social security agreements with that country, they’ve often had difficulties in working with officials to try to work out the rough calculation in regard to the proportion of the social security agreement from Canada to that in New Zealand and to try to see how they can work out those jurisdictions. And so one of the challenges they’ve often talked about is the time and residency in that country and trying to work that through.

So it’s a genuine concern that has been raised—and not just one; I’ve had three of them that have come over the period of time through my office who have talked about some of these challenges. And so I feel that this amendment is genuine in the sense of being able to give a provision so that it allows for discretion. And the discretion that the clause is talking about is where a person can be exempt from those obligations in clauses 163 and 164 and for the purpose of attempting to gain access to an overseas pension or equivalent scheme. Even in the Social Services and Community Committee, we’ve been talking about the sense that social security agreements that are currently with ten countries—and in those ten countries, they then have to work out what the equivalent ratio is.

So I hope that the Minister and officials will look into this amendment. I think it’s a genuine attempt to try and meet what is sometimes an anomaly inside the system, where people who have genuinely lived in New Zealand for a period of time then go on to work overseas and then, because of that, when they’ve tried to come back and tried to work out their entitlements, they’ve often had to return back to those countries to try and do that. And we hope that they won’t be penalised because of that and that they’ll have the opportunity to be able to do that.

So I put forward this amendment. I hope the Minister will take a call, when she does, to respond to that. And, again, as I said before, this is not a change in the direction of the policy; this is an addition to it to meet the concerns about this that have genuinely been raised with constituents in our community, and so I hope that the Minister will take a call on this at some stage, respond to this amendment, and more than just saying that it’s not in line with the policy, I’d like to hear as to what in particular the Minister sees—advice from her officials—that means that this is not in line with a policy-neutral approach.

Just speaking to the Hon Alfred Ngaro’s tabled amendment, again, there’s no point going any further if the amendments that are going up are not proposals that are policy-neutral, because we’re not looking to change policy in this rewrite. So I need to make that really clear, and from what I can see of the amendment that he’s discussing, it would create the same inconsistencies that I mentioned earlier with respect to the winter energy payment tabled amendment that’s been put up by the honourable member Louise Upston. So it really stops there.

The member Parmjeet Parmar has also discussed an amendment that she’s put forward under her name, which would amend clause 146 to insert a new clause 146(1)(a). Again, it’s not policy-neutral. But I also want to speak to this one, because it’s probably one of the strangest amendments that I’ve seen put forward, asking that there be an expectation that, when someone goes for a job interview, a report back be given to the case manager on how well they did and whether they were prepared for the interview and whether they were engaged during the interview process. Well, I’d really like—no, actually, I don’t want to know. A number of issues arise for me, from hearing that, but, clearly, an interview is subjective, and the assumption that that member is making by putting this amendment forward is that people would not prepare or would not be committed to the interview. We know, though, that not everybody does well during interviews; it’s a very difficult process to engage in, and, actually, many politicians in this House, including myself, have failed in interviews at certain points in time—so, very subjective, very unnecessary. Not only is it not policy-neutral, as I said; it’s a strange proposal, and it’s been put forward with no thought of what you would do if the person actually was deemed to have failed the interview process, which would be very hard to measure in the first place.

So I think if we’re going to continue with the committee stage of this bill, some serious amendments would be welcome, because, actually, that is not one that I would consider a serious contender, in terms of something that anyone in this committee could consider.

I move, That the question be now put.

I’ll have another go at speaking to my amendment, and hopefully I’ve got the process right this time. My amendment refers to Part 3—right towards the end, in the “Miscellaneous” section—clause 166. It’s the “Application of health and safety legislation, etc”. And my amendment to clause 166 amends subclause (2), on page 113: “The Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 and the Human Rights Act 1993 apply …”. I request that the Minister gives consideration to also including the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act of 2000, and the reason for that is to give credibility to and acknowledgment of the role that the disability sector plays in the workplace and the care that is needed when employing people with disabilities in the workplace.

Over the last few years, New Zealand has made huge and very important progress internationally in how we think about our disabled people and how our disabled people live in this country. And, as I said before, we are a country that has been at the forefront of some of the changes in relating to disabled people. For example, we were instrumental in passing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. There are 1.1 million people in this country who experience some form of disability. And we’re also one of the few countries in the world to recognise sign language as an official language of our country. And that’s demonstrated to us even in this House.

I draw our attention too to New Zealander Robert Martin. Now, Robert Martin is a living example of what can happen when a disabled person is given the opportunity to fully participate in his community and in a workplace. And he’s begun work now as a member of the United Nations advisory committee on the rights of disabled people. Robert Martin was a baby who was put into an institution because he was handicapped. He was hidden away from the public. He was out of sight and out of mind. Robert has an intellectual disability, but as an adult he has become a very strong advocate for the disabled community here in New Zealand and now throughout the world. And, of course, he’s got the distinction of being the very first person with an intellectual disability to become a member of the United Nations committee. He’s representing New Zealand in Geneva and advocating for disabled people around the world, and I know there’s a very proud member of Parliament here who has Robert in her electorate in Whanganui.

Disabled people simply want the opportunity to participate and have a life like anyone else with their families and be part of a community and be part of a workplace, and they also want choices. They want choices in how they live their lives and how they participate in a workforce.

I’d just like to quote some stats here from the labour force participation rate. Disabled people participating in the labour force—25.2 percent; whereas non-disabled—72.6 percent. And I just want to acknowledge the work of the former Minister, the Hon Nicky Wagner, who did a huge amount of work in advocating for people with disabilities. I know the work that happened in Christchurch in getting 300 people into work, in connecting them with businesses in Christchurch, was a huge step forward, and, in fact, it was so successful down there in Christchurch that it was oversubscribed—it actually got more people into work.

So my amendment, simply, draws attention and asks for recognition of people with disabilities so that they can be fully integrated into the workforce. We know there’s a lot of support and advocacy that is done for people with disabilities, but we also want to make sure that they’re well-supported as job seekers here in New Zealand. I thank you, Madam Chair.

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be now put.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I have started the question. I will finish it.