Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill

I’m going to get in trouble with my colleague now; I’ve been too fast. Hey, thanks very much. Effectively, Part 2, as it indicates—well, it’s only one actual clause, but, fortunately, it refers to a schedule. I just love schedules. This one’s a new Part 4, mainly to do with repealing.

Look, my fundamental question to the Minister is around whether or not this will continue—whether there is actually an intention to repeal. Why that’s important is that we’ve been told repeatedly that this is a very specific, temporary measure, but the language—and I just love the English language—in both Part 1 and now in Part 2 through the new Schedule implies that, actually, a change could be coming. So when we look at what will be new clause 80 under Part 4 in the Schedule, it says, “This clause takes effect when … [let’s say the] Programme is revoked and not replaced.” The way that that is phrased, Minister, implies that there is actually an intention to replace, to bring about change. And it also echoes out of Part 1, when we’re looking at clause 4. It says, “if that programme is revoked, a programme”—and it goes on to describe another one that’s possible. So the bill is giving a lot of leeway, for want of a better word, by the use of language, that another programme could be developed.

Yourself, Minister, your colleagues, have been quite clear this is a temporary programme. It’s particularly designed to manage the management of the outbreak and the lockdown. But, as I say, is there some intention, or at least even an openness from Government, to continue some sort of income relief payment programme into the future, be it this one or something with a different name? Because, again, when you look at the Schedule and what will be clause 80 if this bill passes, it talks about the programme being—“and not replaced,” so even just saying “not replaced” is an immediate implication that there is a chance that something will be in play. So really, I’m just looking to see whether the Minister intends to bring something in, or, as I suspect she can’t or won’t answer that, is there at least an openness from Government to continue some sort of programme moving into the future?

I might give a bit of a kind of broad explanation of this Part, and then hopefully it responds to the member’s questions in some way—and if not, then we can try again. But I think, just to outline what the Part does, Part 2 does ensure that it is temporary. Clause 6, I think, inserts new Part 4 into Schedule 1 of the Social Security Act 2018, which outlines transitional, savings, and related provisions.

By adding clause 80 to Schedule 1 of the principal Act, this bill ensures that the legislative amendments made through the above clauses 4 and 5 are temporary, as they will be repealed when the COVID-19 income relief payment programme is revoked and not replaced. This will happen automatically when it is scheduled to end and thus be revoked in February 2021. The reasoning for this is that the amendments will become redundant once there is no longer a COVID-19 income relief payment programme.

Adding clause 81 to Schedule 1 ensures that the Ministry of Social Development, having treated the COVID-19 income relief payment as income for benefit purposes, will not be made unlawful by the repeal. This ensures that this can be only COVID-related.

An ultra-quick follow-up, and thank you to the Minister for Social Development for outlining absolutely this new Schedule is about how it is repealed. But in clause 80, subclause 1, the addition of those two words “not replace” implies that it could be replaced. In other words, had officials or the drafters said “This clause takes effect”—as in, the repeal—“when the COVID-19 Income Relief Payment Programme is revoked.”—if it was written that way, Minister, it’s very clear that this will end, period. The fact that drafters have chosen to put in two more words, “not replaced”, instantly implies that it could be replaced. So I suppose my question is: is there an openness for Government to replace this programme, under what I might point out is enormous powers granted to Government to define what is and isn’t COVID related?

I think, really, the point that I need to make—and this is relevant, Madam Chair, I promise you. In the Canterbury earthquake situation, when the Ministry of Social Development has reported to me on what happened there, there was also the extension of that programme. So it was a monitor as you go situation - type thing. This does give leeway for an extension. That’s not our intention, but advice from the officials, based on their experience with the previous Government and the job loss cover that was put in place—they thought that that was a measure that should be put here, given that their previous experience showed that it was necessary to extend. So our intention is not to extend; however, the leeway is there if that decision was to be made.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to start coming back to the comment around the revocation date being February. And, obviously, as the programme has outlined, eligibility is 31 October, and applications till 12 November. So if there is no plan to extend, why is the revocation February? And that’s just a follow-up to my colleague Simon O’Connor’s question.

But the substantive part of my question around Part 2, in the committee stage, is just wanting absolute clarity, because the Minister’s talked a lot about the welfare overhaul, and the Greens have also talked about the fact that, you know, a significant part of their commitment and their agreement with the Labour Party in Government is around the overhaul of the welfare system. So does the Minister believe that this initiative is part of the welfare overhaul or not?

Just, I guess, going back to the question around it being scheduled to end and thus be revoked in February 2021. I think I responded to that query when Simon O’Connor was asking. It came as part of advice from the Ministry of Social Development, based on their experience with the Canterbury earthquakes and the job loss cover that was put in place at that time. At that time, the job loss cover was put in place for six weeks and then extended for two weeks. So the ministry thought that it was appropriate to advise that a revocation date should be put out to a later stage—a few months later—just to ensure there is that leeway if the decision was to be made to extend it. Now, I need to, again, articulate the fact that there is no intention at this point; however, that was thought to be the responsible thing to do based on the experience of the Ministry of Social Development with the previous job loss cover that was put in place under the previous Government.

The member, Louise Upston, has asked whether or not I feel that this temporary income relief payment is part of our overhaul programme: no. This is a temporary measure. However, I have acknowledged and I do acknowledge the fact that recommendation 37 in the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s report does recommend that we look at putting a policy in place that responds to those who are displaced from work and made redundant—not just financial support but also much more active support with respect to support for getting into employment or upskilling and training. So that is something that was asked of us, and so we have signalled that we will look at a social insurance scheme of some sort moving forward. This is not the one. It is not part of the overhaul. It is a temporary measure we have to put in place to respond to the job losses that will come about, unfortunately, because of COVID-19.

So, just following on from that point, though, because there’s been a lot of comment and we heard in earlier readings from the Green Party around those that are not eligible for this, that are already on a benefit. And—it’s not my intention to misrepresent the Greens—some of the commentary around this bill implies that this is a part of the welfare overhaul, a step towards permanently lifting incomes, and this is stage one. So the Minister for Social Development has, obviously, refuted that and said there is no intention to lift benefits permanently using this mechanism, and I just want to check in, in terms of this Schedule, that my understanding’s correct.

As I said earlier, we have lifted benefits. We did that on 1 April. That is separate from this. This is a temporary measure that has been put in place. I think that the member is referring to an article written by Max Rashbrooke that laid out that this could be taken as a kind of road map for some of the changes that he thinks need to be made in the welfare system overall, and I think that’s a very interesting point of view. But this is not part of the overhaul. This is a measure put in place temporarily to respond to the situation. Will there potentially be some learnings from this, or something that we want to take forward? Potentially, yes, and, as I said, the Government is exploring social insurance schemes which in some instances look like this, the difference being, though, this is temporary—can I say it is temporary. It is 12 weeks. And, yes, I don’t know how I can respond to that any more fulsomely than I already have.

Just a brief question, if I may. It’s just picking up on the comments from the Minister in regards to the learnings in regards to Part 2, “Transitional, savings, and related provisions”. I seek clarification: in the learnings, will those that then access this income relief package be counted in the benefit numbers or will they be counted differently? So just to get clarification on how that fits, because if it’s income, then it’s tax related and therefore there could be a different place of measuring and monitoring that. So if I could just seek clarification as to how the Minister is seeking to identify—as you know, the Ministry of Social Development does have these stats and we record benefit numbers that come through in the different categories. So I just want to seek some clarification from the Minister.

Can I just say that that’s quite wide of the mark of Part 2, but, in the spirit of conversation that the House has agreed to, I’d welcome the Minister’s response.

Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the honourable member Alfred Ngaro for the question. It’s quite broad but I will answer it anyway. We will continue to be transparent about numbers—we have been with the wage subsidy; we have been with benefit numbers throughout the lockdown period. I asked the ministry to move towards weekly reporting during this time, because I thought it would be in the public interest. We will make sure that the numbers that are accessing the job loss cover will be released publicly as well, because it is in the public interest.

Now, they’re not counted as benefit but clearly they are job losses, and so they will give us a clear indication of how many people are actually losing jobs, and that is what we do need to continue to monitor as a country. So I can guarantee to the member that as soon as we are able to start publicly releasing information on the numbers of New Zealanders who are accessing the job loss cover relief payment, then we will certainly be doing that.