Annual Review Debate — In Committee

We come first to the Appropriation (2020/21 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. This is the debate on the financial position of the Government and the annual review of departments, Officers of Parliament, Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises as reported on by select committees.

There are seven hours and one minute remaining in this debate. New Zealand Labour has three hours 49 minutes remaining. New Zealand National has one hour 59 minutes remaining. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 38 minutes remaining. ACT New Zealand has 35 minutes remaining. Te Paati Māori has 10 minutes remaining.

Members will recall that Standing Orders 356(2) and (3) have been set aside, so there will be no sector-specific debates. All annual reviews are available for debate but only specific Ministers will be available each day to respond. The Government has indicated that the Minister for Social Development and Employment, Minister for ACC, and Minister for Disability Issues; the Minister for the Environment and Minister for Oceans and Fisheries; and the Minister of Transport and Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety will be available today. Each debate will be led off by the chairperson or another member of the committee that considered the annual reviews most closely related to the Ministers’ portfolios.

A motion to report progress on a bill must be moved on a call, not a point of order—Speaker’s ruling 80/1. At the conclusion of the debate, questions will be put noting the committee reports on annual reviews and on provisions of the Appropriation (2020/21 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. There is no amendment or debate on these questions.

I’ll remind members that they are able to participate remotely. If you’re on the Zoom and want to make a call, please type “call” in the chat. You should also use the chat if you want to raise a point of order.

Finally, it would be helpful for members to ask multiple questions if they have them of the available Minister during their call.

Members, we start with the Minister for Social Development and Employment, Minister for ACC, and Minister for Disability Issues, who is available for one hour to respond to members’ questions. When the committee was last considering the bill, the question was that the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the annual financial statements of the Government for the 2019/20 financial year be noted.

Social Development and Employment, ACC, and Disability Issues

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s my pleasure as the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee to commence the debate for the Annual Review 2021.The Social Services and Community Committee reviews 23 ministries and entities. Our consideration was grouped into sectors and reports we’ve written combining these sector subjects. I want to acknowledge the Office of the Auditor-General, officials from the many ministries, our Parliamentary Service clerks for organising the logistics and their report writing. I acknowledge and thank the participants of the review from our select committee, including those subbing in. Of note, we were able to conduct our review process despite the conditions of COVID with remote working, having a number of meetings which were either hybrid or purely by Zoom. Finally, I would like to thank the Ministers for appearing to summarise the sectors. This produces an additional layer of accountability and scrutiny.

I come now to the Social Development and Employment and Disability Review. We met with the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, in February to provide an all-of-sector overview. We heard that, due to COVID, people receiving benefits were expected to peak at 487,000 people, but this peak did not happen. In January 2022, 366,115 people were receiving a working-age benefit. We heard about the programmes Mana in Mahi, Flexi-wage, Apprenticeship Boost, and He Poutama Rangatahi. We learnt that the Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD’s) relationship had strengthened with the volunteer and community groups and the COVID-19 response had helped this.

We questioned the Minister on benefit sanctions, the 2019 Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommendations and progress, and excessive sanctions, warrant to arrest sanctions, and we heard the Minister is satisfied that the changes to sanctions since 2017 have reduced harm to children. The Minister told us that she has increased childcare assistance payments indexed to the Consumer Price Index, that low levels of unemployment have meant there may be employee shortages. Members also asked about job vacancies and matching beneficiaries to these. We heard about examples of this work, including the flexibility of work conditions to support single parents to work.

The Ministry of Social Development is responsible for paying New Zealanders’ superannuation benefits, rent subsidies, student financial support, and the COVID-19 wage subsidies. In 2021, MSD revenue was $1.585 billion, expenditure was $1.406 billion; $310 million less was required due to benefit numbers below 400,000. MSD is responsible for non-departmental expenditure of $32 billion made up of New Zealand Superannuation and three main benefits. The Auditor-General has assessed performance as good. We heard from the ministry about tenant safety in emergency housing and about MSD intensive case management. We learnt more about the implementation of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group. We heard there is a four- to five-year programme of interlocking system change, with 41 recommendations in progress or partially implemented currently. We also heard examples of additional funding for families, programmes to keep people off benefits such as Flexi-wage, and about the reinstatement of the Training Incentive Allowance. We discussed debt, inflation, and the culture of MSD.

We looked at issues that are affecting those with disabilities and we heard from the Minister that the current disability system requires improvement. The Minister spoke about the future intentions to set up the Ministry for Disabled Peoples, or whatever it will be called, which will be established on 1 July this year, and we look forward to hearing about this more in the future. We understand that accessibility and transformation of services for disability people, their family, whānau, and communities is pending.

Overall, the review was thorough and in-depth. We asked and had answered more than 1,000 written and oral questions across the sector. I thank the Minister for making herself available for this committee of the whole House today.

Thank you, Mr Chair. And I listened to your comment earlier about grouping questions together. I have five themes that I’d like to explore with the Minister for Social Development and Employment, which, of course, as we heard from the member who has resumed her seat, has a budget of $32 billion.

So my first question is around benefit dependency and the numbers that are long term on benefit. Long term, according to the OECD, is more than a year. So my first question is why did fewer people on benefit for longer than three years—I’m emphasising very deliberately “longer than three years”—exit into work in 2021 compared to 2017? How can the Minister blame COVID for fewer long-term benefit recipients moving into work when 2018, 2019, and 2021 had fewer exits? And doesn’t this decline in work exits show that Labour’s employment initiatives are not targeted to those who have been on benefit for longer, with an increase in 50,000 New Zealanders now on benefit long term under Labour’s watch, and will the Minister finally accept that New Zealand does have a significant benefit-dependency crisis?

Mr Chair, before I begin, I don’t want to do a big spiel, but acknowledging the different portfolios that we’ll be covering off today in the committee, it is good if we continue to cluster in one particular area, so encouraging members who have questions to be able to do that. And I’m thankful to that member for giving the opportunity for a theme, and for me to speak to that. This has been raised a number of times, not only during the Estimates review in select committee, but also in the House during debate and during question time, and I know that that particular member who asked the question is keenly watching benefit numbers—as we all have been over the course of the last two and a bit years.

What we have seen, as was pointed out by the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee earlier, was not the dire forecast numbers that had been anticipated at the beginning of COVID, and I do put that down to overall good general management of our economy during this pandemic. Also, when we were first hit with the pandemic, we were very clear that it would not only be social supports that needed to be invested in and put into place but also support for New Zealanders who may find themselves out of work because of the pandemic.

The research tells us that we need to work quickly with people who fall out of employment, to get them back into employment as quickly as possible, and there certainly was a focus on that. The member who asked the question has asserted in the House a number of times over the course of the last few weeks that we have an increasing problem with benefit dependency. I certainly and very genuinely do not think that is the case. When we look at the proportions of people who are on benefit for any given time frame—even though they may have gone up in places a little bit—they’re not significant increases, so it doesn’t give me reason for concern. I’m also, alongside that, very cognisant and aware of the many programmes that we have invested in, as a Government, that are targeted—whether it is Apprenticeship Boost, Flexi-wage, Mana in Mahi, He Poutama Rangitahi—a range of different programmes that are targeted, and we continue to monitor who is taking up those particular programmes.

The reality is that we do have a number of people, as did the previous Government and every Government prior to us being in Government, who are on benefit for a more extended period of time—many of them, for the reasons of health conditions, disabilities, or for the fact that they are caring for people with health conditions or disabilities, and so we do need to take that into consideration. But also the other factor that I wanted to mention is that, quite often, when we have an economic event like we have done recently, it is harder to place those who have been out of employment for longer. So there is this thing where people who come into benefit, it’s easier to place them into employment. For those that have been in for longer, it’s harder. There’s also been additional challenges with regards to, I know, for instance, with sole parents, where school has been out in places like Auckland—inconsistency and reduced hours when kids could return to school—that made it difficult, I think, for a number of people on benefit to be able to take up permanent or full-time or certain employment opportunities because of the general uncertainty that COVID has created in people’s lives, and the flow-on impacts to that. We don’t talk much about that, but I think that there are some other elements like that that we do need to take into consideration as well.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I didn’t get a specific answer in terms of the long-term component of those going on to benefit, while I accept that Treasury completely got it wrong in terms of the forecast of those who would go on to unemployment benefit—and it’s just as well they have. The question, then, is: given the numbers were so much lower than anticipated, why are there still so many people on jobseeker benefit, with nearly 180,000? While the number, I accept, comes down in March, we are talking about the year to June 2021.

For the employment initiatives, I specifically ask again, as I have done for the last couple of years: which three employment initiatives have been the most successful at supporting those who are long-term benefit recipients into work? That is one of the questions. I’m anticipating one of the answers will be around Mana in Mahi, so I’m going to ask some questions about that. Why do 30 percent of Mana in Mahi participants exit early? Why, when there are more people on benefit long term, are only 5 percent of the Mana in Mahi participants those who’ve been on benefit for two years or more? And, with the employment initiatives that are clearly not effective, why are they still continuing, as outlined in this report received recently?

And, with the large number of job seekers that we now have, whether they are work-ready or whether they are health and disability, why has the employee assistance declined every year in spending for the last four years?

A number of things are covered off there, and I’ll attempt to respond to each of them. With reference to the employment programmes that we have in place, I refute what that member said about Mana in Mahi. With regards to Mana in Mahi, what we need to look at are the actual facts that we have in front of us. So just under 5,000 people have gone through Mana in Mahi; of those, only 10 percent have left Mana in Mahi and ended up back on benefit. The rest—90 percent—have either completed, are still engaged, or have left and gone on to do something else, but not ended up back on benefit. That happens sometimes: people take up opportunities, it doesn’t work for them, and they go elsewhere. But, overall, with this particular targeted group of people, the fact that only 10 percent out of the nearly 5,000 people that have participated in this programme have ended up back on benefit is actually a success story. So I think that’s important to keep in mind.

With regards to the longer-term beneficiaries, I mentioned a couple of the reasons for why it’s harder to place them in work before, but I’ll extend my answer. One of the things that we found when we came into Government five years ago was that there had been a declining investment into front-facing case management with regards to work focus, and that was actually having an impact on, kind of, those constructive conversations and the support for people to be able to get into work. There’d also been an under-investment in upskilling and training opportunities, and the results of that were that we may have had jobs available—which is still the case now—in our labour market, but there was a mismatch with regards to the skills and qualifications and the training that people may have undertook that were in the benefit system with the jobs that were available. So we have been investing heavily in this area.

It’s not just about the actual employment programmes, though. I do want to mention the importance of doing things like reinstating the Training Incentive Allowance. We’ve seen, over the course of the last year, those numbers double, reminding everyone in the Chamber that we’re talking about sole parents and carers that are eligible for the Training Incentive Allowance. The fact that they may stay on benefit a little bit longer but they’re getting a higher-level tertiary education, to me, is not a bad thing. We know that the research backs that up, because it means that they will be able to go on, get better paid and more sustainable employment for themselves, and the fact that they attain that qualification will have a direct impact on the level of educational achievement that their children will experience.

So we think much longer term than what the previous Government did. We don’t see a successful outcome as just being the reduction in the numbers of people on benefit. We want to know that we are providing them with every opportunity to reach their potential and we want to know that their longer-term trajectory is positive. We want to do everything we can to support them with regards to when they actually exit benefit, they are exiting into something better, rather than just exiting because the system kicked them off or the system didn’t work for them or the system was too hard to navigate.

Thank you, Mr Chair. And I want to acknowledge how difficult the period that we’re examining has been for many communities who have been affected by the pandemic.

Picking up on the members to my right’s line of questioning on jobs, I’d be keen to, less than explore the number of people on a benefit—I’d be keen to understand the information the Minister has had on whether people exiting the benefit and going to employment, what kind of wages they’re in—is that information collected?—and whether people in the Mana in Mahi scheme are guaranteed a living wage. Particularly interested in the, sort of, types of working conditions that are guaranteed through those employment schemes.

I’d also be keen to unpack a bit some of the stuff we discussed around benefit sanctions. I know we went through that during the annual review hearings, but one of the things I was really concerned about was to hear that—and some of these benefits sanctions that were applied by the previous Government and have been vocally opposed by this Government since they were implemented, shocked to find that there was no proactive checking on those families with children that were being sanctioned.

I was interested in knowing whether the Minister had evidence on whether their warrant to arrest sanction is working. Because I know when I’ve asked this question, she’s pointed me out to the Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG) report evidence review paper, but the warrant to arrest sanction is not mentioned once in that paper. So does the Minister hold any evidence that the sanction is working, because the previous Government didn’t have evidence on Section 70A of the Social Security Act 1964, on sanctions for sole mothers. So I’m concerned that we are continuing down a path of putting a sanction on families where there is no evidence that it works.

With respect to the first issue that was raised and the outcomes for families or people who leave benefit, the last report that we received was about a year ago. We are monitoring that. The next one is due in the next couple of months, and that will be made available. So the member will be able to see. I think this particular period, over the course of last year, given everything that we’ve been faced with, will be of interest to many in the Chamber.

I did see recent information that gave me hope with regards to off-benefit outcomes, and that we were seeing a reasonably significant number of people actually stay in employment after the six month period. Those are the types of shifts that we want to see. But keeping in mind, I think, it’s important for us to acknowledge in the Chamber that a number of people on benefit do take up casual work, are often filling spaces with regards to temporary work, including the seasonal work opportunities that are available. So there are a number of people that will naturally, due to the nature of the work, end up back on benefit.

I know that the member has a particular interest in the warrant to arrest sanction and all of the other sanctions. To date, there are only two of the sanctions that we have managed to get rid of. They were a really important starting point for me, because I think out of all of the sanctions that exist, they had the most detrimental impact on children, and that was the subsequent child policy and also the fact that we repealed Section 192 of the Social Security Act 2018.

With regards to the warrant to arrest sanction, the member knows my views on that particular sanction, and I’ve being very clear on that in the House. You know, it is something that we will look at, moving forward. I’m not in a position to say that we’ve done the work on that to date or that there are any changes in the near future. However, certainly, it’s something that we would like to look at as part of our overhaul. We did commit to looking at ineffective or excessive sanctions. So the question raised by the member about whether or not it is effective is a valid one. But it’s just not one that I can answer right here right now.

Thank you, Mr Chair. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) overspent on personnel costs by $154 million to support “improved employment and social outcomes.” Why, then, do we still have 106,000 work-ready jobseeker beneficiaries not in work? And did the Minister intend to help these people into work or are we just referring to improved employment opportunities for MSD servants?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to follow on from my colleague Karen Chhour’s questions and ask specifically: does the Minister see it is a success if somebody is on a jobseeker benefit, then gets into work in the short term—or actually doesn’t that count? In terms of sanctions—and for most people listening, a simpler way to look at it is the consequence. Given the consequences or the sanctions for work have rapidly declined in the time that Labour has been in office, does the Minister believe it is important that if a job is available and where employers are crying out for workers, a person on the jobseeker benefit accepts a job? If she doesn’t, and for example, when there are supermarkets around the electorates that we all represent looking for workers, what is the consequence of a person who is receiving the jobseeker benefit not accepting a job that is available? I give the example of a job in a supermarket but that’s one of many.

Then I also want to know, given that the Minister wants a series of questions, about the wait times for clients who are ringing MSD at the moment—when there has been a doubling of the number of staff answering the phones in MSD, why there has been an increase of 425 percent in the wait time for some of New Zealand’s most challenged people in hardship? Surely—surely—the basic thing to do is pick up the phone.

There has certainly been an increase in demand on the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), and I think that they’ve worked incredibly hard to respond to the demand that they’ve seen. Again, harking back to the fact that we have been going through a pandemic and that’s put some pressure on a number of Government agencies, but I think, by and large, MSD have done very well in their response.

No one likes to see long wait times. I ask for regular updates on those. Often, the average wait time doesn’t look nearly as bad as what some people experience. It does come down to when people call at times—what time of day, what is happening—and so there are a range of factors that need to be taken into consideration, but no one likes to see long wait times.

The member the Hon Louise Upston asked whether or not I value temporary or short-term work—

💬 Hon Louise Upston: No, not short-term. Just a job.

Yes, I do, and I said that earlier. We have to recognise that some people will go on and off benefit because they take up those horticulture opportunities; they work those seasonal jobs. So our job is to try and make that transition between that type of work and benefit as seamless as possible, because sometimes that can cause a lot of stress for families.

What I’m also aware of, with my Minister for employment hat on, is that we do need to work with people to get into the work that they are capable of doing and ensure that we are not encouraging any wage scarring situations, where people perhaps are able to earn more but being forced to take up something immediately which then takes them out of the running for looking for the work that actually is well suited to their capabilities, as well.

With respect to supermarkets and the demand or the workforce issues that they’ve experienced due to people going down with COVID, my understanding is MSD has been working hard with supermarkets across the country to be able to support with the workforce shortages that they’ve been experiencing. I would not be able to say that in every instance they have been able to provide them with the worker, but I know that on a lot of occasions, in a lot of instances, they have been working very actively with the supermarket sector to be able to fill some of the gaps that have been created due to people being off work because of COVID or needing to self-isolate.

I’m trying to think—the member from ACT Karen Chhour raised, I think, an issue around a $150 million overspend. There wasn’t a $150 million overspend; I think the member is referring to $144 underspend. Part of that is due to the fact that when we got the funding for the employment focus and employment initiatives, it had been anticipated that we would be experiencing a much greater level of job loss and people coming on benefit than what we ended up actually experiencing. Some of that is money for employment initiatives that is being carried forward to the next financial year, including—I think one of the bigger areas is Flexi-wage.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to continue on with the conversation around supporting people into employment, because National, of course, believes that employment is the best way out of poverty, and we back New Zealanders to overcome the range of challenges that they face in life, and the Ministry of Social Development absolutely must be there in their time of need—which is why it is distressing when people have been waiting on the phone for three hours or more, and, actually, despite the doubling of the number of staff in the call centres, the actual number of calls hasn’t increased over the four-year period.

So I’ve got a couple of other questions. How many working-age beneficiaries are being work tested? And if someone isn’t looking for work, are they classified as unemployed, and, if not, why not?

Thank you. Just following on from my previous questions, I just wanted confirmation that people going into jobs through the Mana in Mahi scheme are being paid a living wage, and, if not, why not, during the period we reviewed?

Also, following up on the benefit sanctions conversation, I’m really pleased to hear that the Minister shares my concerns and that we seem to be on the same page. But considering that she agrees the sanction isn’t great and that it’s harming people, and that, during the period we reviewed, over 75 percent of the people sanctioned were Māori, I just wondered if she could elaborate why no work has been done to remove that specific sanction, despite her party being in opposition to it since 2013, and the Welfare Expert Advisory Group being very clear that it needed to go since 2018.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I would just like to point out that the $154 million I was speaking about is on page 9 of the annual review, Ministry of Social Development. It states “personnel costs were $154 million higher than expected due to needing more staff to support improved employment and social outcomes.”

We look forward to some answers from the Minister. I thought this was meant to be sort of a quick-fire round, so I’m going to move on to another part of my questions, and that is whether or not she is concerned that now one in five New Zealand children are being raised in a benefit-dependent home? And is she aware of the evidence that shows that the life outcomes of a child raised in a benefit-dependent home are worse in terms of health, education, as well, of course, as their income? And at the very same time that there are 36,000 more children living in benefit-dependent homes, I’m interested in her decision as to why she would pick this time to gut the Children’s Commissioner?

Firstly, I want to acknowledge this Government’s efforts to address child poverty in this country. I want to acknowledge that every other party in this House, except for ACT, but including National, supported our move to put in place legislation so that we can monitor and make sure we are making progress with regards to child poverty reduction. And I acknowledge that, because of this Government’s suite of measures that we have been implementing since day dot, when we got in at the end of 2017, we now see 66,000 fewer children living in poverty, when we are looking at the after-housing cost measure. That is significant, but there is much more to do.

If we want to talk about child poverty reduction, which we are more than happy to on this side of the House, the benefit increases that we passed through the Budget in 2021, and we are now seeing the full realisation of since 1 April, will see up to another 33,000 children lifted out of poverty. To us, those are the figures that we want to be looking at. That member the Hon Louise Upston said that their party thinks employment is the best way out of poverty; our side, this Government, is the Government that not only invested in income support and increasing income adequacy for the poorest New Zealanders but, at the same time, has put an emphasis and focus, finally, on investing in employment, front-line, work-focused case management, upskilling and training opportunities for people who are on benefits. That was something that was neglected by the previous Government, and we need to make that point very clearly.

The member asked whether or not every person who is on jobseeker benefit will be work tested. Well, the member knows that if the person is exempted for health and disability reasons, then, no, they won’t be work tested. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) will work with clients on a case by case basis to support them into employment. Blanket statements about everyone on benefit go no way towards helping individuals and their whānau and actually supporting them in the circumstances that they are faced with.

An example of that, I will just add, is that one time I was talking to a case manager. She was really proud of the fact that she’d supported a woman into full-time employment, who was a solo parent and had never been in work before, and she was in her late 20s. Unfortunately, though, it wasn’t a successful outcome, because that person was not well supported in her own life environment, with regards to her access to transport and childcare to be able to sustain that full-time employment opportunity. In some instances, where you push that hard that fast, you can do more damage than good, because when that woman falls out again, her confidence is down, she feels like a failure, and what have you really achieved? There is a whole lot that has to go around every individual that’s on benefit, to ensure the futureproofing of wellbeing for them and their whānau. It’s so oversimplified by the other side of the House, and it’s to the detriment of people who are in the welfare system.

Moving now to Ricardo Menéndez March, the member from the Green Party, with regards to why we haven’t yet been able to address the particular sanction that he raised around warrant to arrest. It really is because we have such a rigorous work programme at MSD and we haven’t been able to address all of the areas that have been identified in the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s report, but we continue to do that work. I’m actually really proud of the fact that, despite having quite a significant role to play in the response to COVID, whether it be through wage subsidy or the welfare support or support for social services, we have still been able to get on with business as usual and get on to those Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommendations, but not all of them. It’s one that we still need to look at.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I didn’t get an answer to the question about whether or not—if someone isn’t looking for work—they are classified as unemployed and whether or not the Minister believed the research that talks about the outcomes for children being worse for those who are raised in long-term benefit-dependent homes. I’m going to add another question to that: does she believe or understand that people financially have higher incomes if they are in work as opposed to a benefit? And I want to move on to my final theme, which is about superannuitants and why the Government was quite happy to cut off the entitlements to superannuation for seniors who were stranded overseas through no fault of their own.

I want to know what she would say to Nanette—who travelled to Melbourne to look after her daughter, who had undergone major surgery—who said, “I feel we’ve actually been totally forgotten and ignored. Having our pension cut is not acceptable. There should be some sort of amnesty for people like us.” There are hundreds of people like Nanette, and this side of the House proposed a law change that would have supported those people. There are now some superannuitants—their only source of income—who not only had their pension cut but have been sent a bill for $16,000 to pay the Ministry of Social Development back for money they are entitled to because they couldn’t get back into New Zealand because of managed isolation and quarantine. No fault of their own—heartless, cruel, unkind. And I ask the Minister again: when shall she fix this issue for the thousands of New Zealanders affected?

Pot calling the kettle black! I’ll start with that last issue. It has been an issue that’s been in the media and certainly brought to my attention when people who have been on benefit or getting superannuation have been stranded overseas due to restrictions that have had to go in place because of COVID and the need to protect our borders. In all—if not most, but all, I’m sure—instances, there has been notice given to New Zealanders who are overseas that they needed to return because the restrictions were going to be put in place. That doesn’t mean that it was always easy to get back; that doesn’t mean that it was easy to always get back.

The fortunate thing is that, in the legislation, the chief executive has discretion to apply on a case by case basis where someone has a relevant, valid case, and then they won’t get their superannuation cut. What I would encourage that member to do is, rather than cast aspersions in the House over our handling of these, be much more constructive and actually bring any cases where she thinks that the decision made was incorrect—where there needs to be a review of decision—because the review of decision policy is in place for a reason. Then, certainly, we would be willing to—we’re not doing an amnesty, because the law is in place for a reason and the discretion allows us to deal on a case by case basis. But if the member doesn’t bring the cases to us that she’s concerned about, we will not be able to resolve the ones that she seems to have come across.

The member raised before—and I want to go back to this—that she believes we are gutting the Children’s Commission. We are certainly not doing that, and I’m really glad and thankful to the select committee for the robust process that they have taken with regards to that legislation. That is what the select committee process is about: it is about getting insights from stakeholders and people who wish to submit because they feel passionately about the issue—to get their insights, to take it away, and then to see how we can then make that initial piece of legislation better. What that legislation is actually about is making sure we have got the mechanisms in place to be able to protect the children in State care. There are some things I don’t resile from: one is that I do believe that having an advocacy arm, having an independent monitoring mechanism, and making more clear that it’s the Ombudsmen that holds the responsibility for investigations and inquiry will strengthen the system. And, fundamentally, it’s about those children.

I think the member might have been raising the issue in regards to the possibility of having a board as opposed to a sole commissioner. There are some things I think that we can work on in that space, but I will point out that one of the reasons why we thought having a board would be a good idea is to ensure that we do have Māori actively informed and part of that process with regards to the Children’s Commission, because, to be honest, that hasn’t always occurred across the course of the years. And that’s not saying that everyone that was non-Māori was not a good Children’s Commissioner—I certainly wouldn’t say that, and they certainly have been—but it is important that we have Māori advocating for children through the Children’s Commission, and we haven’t had it at the level that we needed to, and we want to make sure that we have that, moving forward.

And the other issue—now I understand what the member was raising about the employment rate. So the member wants me to explain how we ascertain whether people are unemployed or not. The same formula that is used now was used under the previous Government; it was used under the Government before that and the Government before that, I do believe. And it is about people actively seeking work, and when they identify as actively seeking work and they’re not in work, then they are considered to be unemployed. There are a number of people who are not actively seeking work—particularly those that have health conditions or disabilities. Some may have care responsibilities that go beyond the average person’s. So lots to respond to that member’s question.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d just like to turn the conversation to the disability sector, please, and ask the Minister: what has she done to improve the situation for access to respite care, given how difficult it’s been to find caregivers that are prepared to provide care for 24 hours for $80?

This is actually not something that comes under the purview of the Office for Disability Issues. It certainly is something that is the responsibility of the Minister of Health, and so I wouldn’t want to overstep the mark by responding to something that is in his delegation. Although, I will say that respite is something that is raised often. It has also been an issue that I think has been exacerbated through COVID, because of the options with regards to respite with COVID restrictions and other things in place. So as the Minister for Disability Issues, I am cognisant of the issue that the member raises, but I don’t have responsibility or levers with regards to the actual respite system that is in place.

So the question, Minister, was what have you as the Minister done to provide that support. Have you in any way lobbied or approached the appropriate Minister to improve that access to respite care?

I would need to go away and check when was the last time that I’d had a meeting that specifically discussed that issue, and I wouldn’t want to say when that might have been because I can’t remember off the top of my head, but I’m happy to do that.

I’ve got a few questions relating to ACC for Minister Sepuloni, and the first one was just wanting to look at issues in terms of barriers to access to justice and around review processes, recognising that this was recognised as a real problem by Acclaim Otago back in 2015, at a time where the review process—it was taking a hundred days to get through that process. The concerns that they raised were validated by Miriam Dean QC not long after that, including issues around representation, medical evidence, and people being able to be heard. I’m wondering whether the Minister has any concerns around the fact that, actually, those resolution times are currently, we’re told, 122.9 days through the formal resolution process in ACC, just compared to 58 days in the alternative disputes resolution process—and that, through the discussion in committee, we had mixed data coming from ACC, where they’d changed their definitions along the way without telling anybody.

I now understand, through a submission to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) review, that, in fact, those numbers of 122 days actually exclude the fact of an additional 70 days within ACC internal processes on top of that 122 days. So it’s taking, through that process, almost 200 days, twice as long as it was taking at the time that this concern was recognised by Acclaim Otago and Miriam Dean QC. The time frame of 58 days through the alternative process actually includes 30 calendar days of ACC’s internal process, where they’re taking a month to send cases to the alternative disputes process. So that alternative dispute part’s only taking 28 days, compared to the 200 through ACC process, and they’re only sending, like, 10 percent of cases to alternative dispute. So is this satisfactory to the Minister, in terms of the confusing data and the outcomes and access to justice?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a couple of questions on ACC too, so I’ll slip them in and maybe Minister Sepuloni can reply to Ms Logie’s question as well.

The first one relates to net trust scores. We have seen, particularly, the provided trust score significantly drop over the last year, so an update on whether or not that has been sort of righted in recent quarterly reports—the business net trust score didn’t really change, but it was already quite low. In terms of providers, I think ACC had a—what do they call it? There was a health strategy, I think, to improve provider net trust, and I’m just interested in what that means and how things are going on that.

The second question is in relation to the independent review of the use of client information. The terms of reference and task was set off, I think, about six months ago. Linda Clark is leading that. It would be quite good to hear how that’s going, whether the Minister has received an interim or final report on that, and whether the report will be released to the public.

Just related on that point, in terms of privacy, it would be great if Minister Sepuloni could also speak to the fact that we’ve heard from previous, in the last year, questions to ACC where they told us, previously, their privacy protections included files being divided into compartments, limiting people’s access to different parts of sensitive claim files, that there was a regular review of sensitive claims access, access controls, and audit logs. And now we hear, just in the last couple of weeks, that work is under way to further restrict and control access to the core claims management system and monitor what part of the client’s file staff access. Can you tell us the difference between what they told us they were doing already and what they’re now saying they’re going to do?

And, finally, when the Minister was saying in the House on 27 October that 14,000 people had access, and we now hear that in October, ACC—and there were only two working days after that—limited access to 800 people, had they informed the Minister that they had done that? Or did they do it in the two days after?

I’m going to try and traverse the questions as quickly as I can. I’ll start with the privacy issue and the review that’s under way. I believe that that review has just been completed. I’m expecting to get the report in the next couple of weeks, and, of course, in due course that will be made available to others and then we will be able to look at the way forward with regards to how we improve the privacy of client information. I actually think there may be something in this for outside of ACC as well, because I do understand that part of what’s been raised is, actually, what is needed for protecting information in this modern era, in particular with more people working from home. And so there is a lot to think about that I think will be important not just for ACC but other Government agencies, and potentially outside of Government agencies, given the large number of people that are working from home.

Net provider trust scores: no, I don’t think they are at the place that we want them to be. In my most recent meeting with ACC, there’s a range of things that are going on, and I think it’s fair to say that many of them fall under the umbrella of important organisational cultural change. That would include how we handle individual client data, and that would include, you know, everything, including how we interact and build trust with the providers that are accessing support. I do believe that that work is under way, and so I would hope to see better results, moving forward.

And with regards to Jan Logie’s question around the actual review wait times: that was quite a specific question and something that, if she is OK with, I think I will go away and get some clarifying information. If there was contradicting information that was given to you previously where it didn’t make sense, then I want to look at that, and we will look to clear that up so that it is given to you in a way that does actually make sense. And, again, if there are issues with regards to review wait time, then that really does sit under this more blanket issue that I do have absolute trust in our board chair, the board, and the chief executive (CE) with respect to them being able to address those things.

I will note, too, it’s been an exciting year for ACC. We have got a new board chair—I acknowledge the work from the previous one, but a new board chair in the Hon Steve Maharey, a new CE, with Megan Main, and new board members as well. And so we are looking forward to the invigorated energy that they bring to the portfolio, and I have absolute confidence in their ability to be able to do the job and do the job well.

Kua tae mai te wā mō te kai o te pō, nō reira ka tīmata anō te komiti hei te whitu karaka i tēnei pō [It is now time for our evening meal and the committee meeting will resume at 7pm tonight], at which stage we will have the Minister for the Environment and Minister for Oceans and Fisheries. Kia ora.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Good evening, members. We now have the Minister for the Environment and for Oceans and Fisheries in the chair.

Environment, and Oceans and Fisheries