Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill

Thank you so much, Mr Chair. While Part 2, particularly clause 15, may be brief in terms of pages, I believe that it impacts quite a large number of people, so it is worthy of debate.

First of all, as of today, is the Minster for Social Development and Employment aware of how many people are captured under the new thresholds that was lifted to 40 percent of the base rate? Since the bill was introduced, I believe that most families that were affected—particularly by clause 15, in Schedule 4, Part 7, clause 4 and then clause 6—I think, were families with children. Is that correct, and is it still the case?

Is it still the case that most of the families—families that are working families—will see a reduction on the accommodation supplement under this provision? What impact does she think cutting the accommodation supplement by certain amounts—which I’d like to know what the latest estimates are of the weekly reduction on accommodation supplement for low-income homeowners will be.

And I wanted to know whether she has also received advice that whatever savings may be produced as part of Part 2, may be offset by those families having to access assistance in other parts of the system in the form of advances, hardship grants, and the likes, because, obviously, this Part 2 also produces a bunch of savings as part of her budget initiatives. Effectively, what Part 2 does is that it, basically, means less people can access the accommodation supplement if they’re homeowners. Normally, you can access the accommodation supplement if you’re spending more than 30 percent of your income on housing costs. In this Part 2, it lifts it to 40 percent, right? So it means less people are eligible. I would like to know how many people and what the weekly reduction is. I don’t think these are issues around changing the policy, but wanting to get clarity on who exactly this is capturing as off today.

Lastly, just talking about the cost, can she confirm to me how much money she thinks she will save with this Part 2, and has she sought any further advice on how much actually will be spent elsewhere as a result of the potential hardship she may put families under?

The first thing is there’s no change in the eligibility to the accommodation supplement. It is provided for low-income households—and working households as well as benefit households. All this is doing is saying that if somebody is eligible, they would then need to contribute slightly more.

💬 Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Oh, so a change? That is actually a change.

No, it’s not a change in the overall settings for who is eligible for the accommodation supplement. As I was saying, the accommodation supplement is available for working households and beneficiary households. I don’t have the data in front of me, but I did want to make sure that the member was fully aware that there are exclusions for those on the supported living payment, for those on the New Zealand superannuation, and for those on the veteran’s pension. They are excluded from this.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to talk about the supplementary analysis report, and I want to ask some questions about the comments, on page 7, about the policy assumptions underpinning this decision. Those are of concern to me, and I’d like the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s answer to those assumptions and why she decided to continue. The first one is: “This proposal assumes that affected homeowners may be able to leverage other financial options for meeting their accommodation costs, such as refinancing their mortgage or taking on additional occupants ([i.e.,] renting out a room or … a boarder).” I’d love to know what the Minister thinks about that, because it then goes on to say, “There is a risk that this may not be realised. If this assumption is not met, some homeowners may choose to manage their accommodation costs by deciding to sell their home and move into rental accommodation.” That’s an impact. And then it goes on to say, “The ability of homeowners to manage their accommodation costs will vary depending on their individual circumstances.” It will matter what their interest rates are, and what their council rates, insurance, and mortgage payments are. They are at risk, and it is really worth reminding the Minister about my earlier concern that the two changes together are going to impact on the same group predominantly, which is our poorer families. They’ll be worse off in this circumstance. If you could do address those issues, I’d be grateful.

To answer the previous member, Lawrence Xu-Nan’s questions, there’s no grandparenting of the accommodation supplement payments; they apply to all existing and new clients on or after 1 April 2027.

In terms of the Amendment Paper, that was just one of those technical changes that’s picked up by the Parliamentary Counsel Office to make sure that we are absolutely accurate when the bill is presented to the Parliament.

In terms of the question around accommodation costs for homeowners, allowable accommodation costs include mortgage repayment, insurance, rates, water, and those sorts of costs.

Thank you. Would she have any information on the geographical areas across the country? I know she talked a lot about the rural areas that she’s expanding the accommodation supplement on. I’m interested in the geographical areas that may see the steepest reduction in the accommodation supplement on a per week basis.

Like I said, I believe that the advice showed us that some families may see a reduction of around $40 per week, which is actually quite substantive if you’re trying to meet your costs. But something that hasn’t been addressed or engaged with has been the sort of geographical concentration of where those reductions will be. She talked a lot about the expansion of rural communities, but is the reduction, for example, predominantly in urban areas? Is it also in rural communities that currently have access to the accommodation supplement? Did she even make any analysis on the geographical sort of distribution of the families that will see a reduction; if not, why wouldn’t she take that into account, well knowing that housing costs do differ across different parts of the country?