Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill

We come first to the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill. This is the debate on Part 1—clauses 4 to 6F—and Schedule 3, the substantive and consequential amendments. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to start this call in this debate at the committee of the whole House by, first of all, thanking the Social Services and Community Committee for the work they’ve done to bring the bill back to the House.

We know that many caregivers are under financial pressure and that caregivers need more support to care for tamariki. We also know that financial assistance is inequitable for caregivers caring for children outside of the State care system. We know that some caregivers outside of State care are not able to access financial assistance simply because their care arrangement is short term or they don’t know how long it’ll be for. That’s why this bill in clauses 4 and 5 will extend eligibility for the orphans benefit and unsupported child’s benefit to caregivers in these kinds of situations. This’ll ensure that caregivers who have stepped up to take on the care of a child whose parents are unable to care for them will be financially supported to do so, despite the care arrangement being short term or for an unknown or uncertain period of time.

To help address equity issues in the payments that caregivers receive, the bill establishes, in clause 6, a holiday and a birthday allowance for caregivers receiving the orphans benefit or the unsupported child’s benefit. These allowances will support tamariki to celebrate and enjoy the significant events in their lives. They’ll also help caregivers to provide the tamariki in their care with the same experiences as other tamariki throughout Aotearoa.

So to summarise, the key changes in the bill are in clauses 4 and 5, extending eligibility for the orphans benefit and unsupported child’s benefit to caregivers who expect to provide care for less than 12 months or an unknown or uncertain period of time by removing the requirement for a caregiver to be likely to be the principal caregiver of the child for at least 12 months, and, in clause 6, establishing holiday and birthday allowances for the orphans benefit and unsupported child’s benefit. I believe that there’s pretty much support across the House for this bill. It is an excellent bill that goes to making sure that caregivers who are looking after children who aren’t their own have the best financial support possible. Kia ora.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I thank Minister Davis for his acknowledgment of the select committee’s work on this bill. As he’s alluded to, it’s been something that everyone has supported.

There was one issue though, Minister, that came up that the committee was not able resolve or find a solution to, and that was in relation to the name of the orphans benefit. Now, normally when you think about the word “orphan”, it relates to a child whose parents have died, and so they are parentless, but in the case of this bill, the term “orphans benefit” or “orphan” refers to children whose parents have died, but also captures children whose parents are missing, or perhaps have a long-term serious disability. So even though the committee did turn its mind to finding an alternate name for the orphans benefit, we were unable to resolve that.

I just wonder, Minister, if you and your team would consider putting some time or some consideration into finding an alternate name, or an alternate descriptor, that would capture that group of children, because it was felt that the terminology around “orphan” was inappropriate, given the breadth of the audience that it was hoping to capture. So just wondering if the Minister could give some consideration to that as we progress through the bill, because it will have an impact, of course, on the terminology that is used in this particular piece of legislation. Thank you.

The advice I’ve received is that that is out of scope. I understand the descriptor does just seem not quite right, because you would anticipate that both the child’s parents were deceased and that’s not necessarily the case here. But the proposal would pre-empt advice that we prepared as part of the long-term work programme agreed by Cabinet to reform the system of financial assistance and support for caregivers. The work programme includes considering a modernised name for the orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit.

[Ricardo Menéndez March stands]

Are you seeking a call?

Ricardo Menéndez March: Yes, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Ricardo Menéndez March.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. In relation to Part 1 of the bill, I wanted to also tautoko the points around the unsuitability of the current naming of the benefits. I know we touched on the orphans benefit, but I also want to talk about the unsupported child’s benefit and how that name in itself doesn’t reflect the realities that whānau experience, particularly when we think about clause 4 and talk about the fact that we need a breakdown in the family and that, you know, we inherently talk about the child being unsupported as a result, and that speaks to a welfare system that strips away people’s ability to be with their community and their whānau.

So I commend the Social Services and Community Committee for addressing some of the gaps in these benefits, and some of these are already being addressed in the bill, such as the ability for caregivers to look after a child for less than 12 months when that is required. And I think this is exactly why the idea of calling a benefit an “unsupported child’s benefit” and requiring a breakdown in the family in some ways contravenes the intent that this bill is trying to create, which is to ensure that, whenever possible, a child can remain with their communities, and this is why we’ve put forward two Supplementary Order Papers, one which does aim to insert new clause 4A around the need for a breakdown in the family, and to support families with whāngai arrangements to look after the children.

So I do hope that we take the opportunity throughout the last stages of this bill to ensure that children have an opportunity to thrive and that they can remain within the communities. I’d be interested to hear from the Minister whether he thinks that the current settings around eligibility criteria beyond the time required to look after children are fit for purpose.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment to insert new clause 4A, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 42, be agreed to.

Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43 is ruled out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Transitional, savings, and related provisions