Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. I agree that clause 4 is important, because it sets up the system; although it’s a short line, it actually stands for a lot. I want to ask some questions about the culpability of parents for this responsibility. We have here, a group of people who are 18 and 19, and they are, traditionally, adults in our society; they stand on their own two feet. I’d like the Minister for Social Development and Employment to tell us why it is that we have drawn a line here, when, in fact, this is the time when people vote; it’s the time when they can take a whole lot of actions and they are actually recognised, traditionally, as independent in that way. Yet, they’re not going to be in this circumstance.

I’d also like to know about the decision made to set a parental income test, which is not dependent on the reality of the life of that family. For a minute, let’s assume that we have decided that we’re going to have the parents responsible; there’s a really big difference between families in terms of how far an income goes. If, for example, the family has lots of children, that’s going to mean that an income doesn’t go as far. There are other expenses. How has the Minister taken those other expenses into account when setting this test, which seems to be just set straight on a threshold of income and doesn’t seem to take into account how far the income will go given the liabilities of that family? Obviously, that’s true with regard to things like mortgages, because mortgages and rent are something that makes a big difference.

If you’re lucky enough to live in your grandma’s home and, in fact, you’ve got minor expenses, which happens in some families were there is property, it’s a very different situation from a situation where you’re mortgaged up to the hilt and, in fact, you’ve managed to keep it together and your kids have been at the same school because you have taken on that kind of debt—you’ve managed to do the right thing by your kids, but you’ve got very, very little discretionary income. I was wondering about that decision and what the story was in terms of making any kind of allowance for a discretion in that situation where it’s causing issues. And obviously that relates to something that others have raised around the potential of issues like disability being involved. What happens when you’ve got expenses that are just out of the ordinary, in that way? Is there something that brings some humanity to this picture?

I was also interested, in terms of evidence, about the amount chosen. My understanding is the amount chosen is $67,225. What’s the basis for this figure? Why that figure? Why not $70,000? Why not $75,000? Why not $49,000? What’s going on there that picks this number above all others? And what is the Minister doing when she decides on that figure? Is she saying that that really is sufficient in any circumstance? I’ve given an example there of a family with lots of children, or a family with a child with a disability, or a parent with a disability, or a parent with an illness. Where is the humanity in that system built into it? Is it built into it? And did she consider building it into it?

I definitely agree that we got submissions that were very considered, and they were very strong in their opposition to this bill. Did she read those submissions and take them into account, in terms of these issues? They seem to me to be, actually, practical issues, and they will cause practical harm if we don’t have something that reflects that kind of concern, which I just see as utterly practical.

I appreciate my time is up so I might just hope for those answers, and then I’ll come back on some more questions.

Committee of the whole House

I have explained the reason behind the setting of the parental income test and the dollar threshold, so I won’t go over that again. The member asks about why the ages of 18 to 19 years old and why didn’t we go up to 25, which is what the settings are in other countries.

One of the concerns, obviously, in terms of why we’ve brought this bill to Parliament is the number of future years that a young person in New Zealand will stay on welfare, if they go on under the age of 20 or under the age of 25. We have an expectation that young people are in education, employment, or training. That’s the intent behind this. For us, there’s lots of different parts of New Zealand legislation that go up to 25—are 18, are 20, are 21—but we felt 18 and 19 years old was a fair and reasonable age for parents to be responsible for their children. But, look, we want them to be in employment, education, or training, and that’s the clear, simple answer for that.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I have one more call on clause 4 before I move on to clause 5, which I’ll have quite a few questions on, so I’m just flagging that. I’m mindful other members may still want to have calls on clause 4.

First of all, I’m interested in the debating point that the Minister just opened up, around the intent of the consecutive years that people spend on a benefit as a rationale for the settings from the parental income test. Would the Minister be able to confirm whether those years are—how many there are? I know that she’s talked about quite a large amount, and it’s not clear to me whether they’re 20 years, for example, in one go, or whether they’re throughout a lifetime. I’m also interested in knowing whether the figure that she refers to has any sort of additional criteria that, for example, hinges on those young people having experience in State care, poverty, ill-health, because I understand there may be some Ministry of Social Development research that shows that to be the case. Since she opened up that debating point on the consecutive years as a justification for clause 4, I’m interested in knowing the rationale behind the study that she is referring to when it comes to that consecutive year talking point to justify these provisions. Like I said, I’m particularly interested in whether they’re actually consecutive or throughout a lifetime, and the sample or modelling that was done from that argument to create these clauses.

Another point that I want to address in relationship to the response she gave us: she talked about—and she is right, and I appreciate the engagement on my first question—where the parental income test threshold came from. I heard it was the supported living payment (SLP) threshold. Can I ask whether that threshold—the supported living payment threshold—is sufficient to live well on. We know, and we’ve heard from disabled people and people on the supported living payment, that $67,000-odd is actually still a pretty small amount. The thing is, when you take into account the fact that this is taken as combined income between two parents, that’s still quite low. I’m interested in knowing whether she actually deems the supported living payment threshold to be enough for families to live well on.

I want to know why she didn’t explore—or did she explore?—other thresholds that could be said to, perhaps, better reflect the cost of living that we experience in this country. For example, the supported living payment threshold, as far as I’m aware, is not set through calculating a basket of goods or the average median rent payments, or other costs in this country and other sorts of expenses. As far as I’m aware, other forms of calculation are probably used to get to that point, so it’s just not clear to me whether that supported living payment threshold was just an arbitrary number that was chosen, or the rationale behind it.

The parents of these adults are not people with long-term health conditions or disabilities; they’re often people who may be in work. Their conditions are, actually, completely unrelated to the criteria for the supported living payment, so I don’t understand why a benefit payment that is so unrelated to, say, for example, working parents, is being used as a data point or as a parallel point of a dollar figure to actually use for the calculation of this parental income requirement. That, to me, just points to a concern around the lack of evidential basis as to setting this threshold in line with the SLP.

If she would be able to tell the committee whether other types of threshold were considered, and what were they, and whether the supported living payment threshold actually is enough to adequately make ends meet, and what evidential basis she has to justify this—without this, it just kind of feels like the Government went “Eeny, meeny, miny, moe” and then chose the SLP threshold without any actual proper justification for it. I’d be keen to know whether she thinks all these parents have a similar criteria or circumstances as people who are on the SLP, who may be, for example, trying to enter into employment or otherwise.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a question I want to ask which relates to the issue of the decision made to couple an adult child with a parent. It’s a question that I would really love an answer to. I would like an answer to that too—that initial question—but my question is: in this situation, the parent is being required to give information across about their financial status and their private financial information. How does that reconcile with the fact they’re being required to do it for a person who is of independent status in the eyes of the law?

I hope that you understand my question, but it seems to me a strange thing. It would be as if the Minister was applying for a benefit and, as a result, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) could actually ask me for my personal information. I appreciate that the relationship is slightly stronger, but it actually, at law, isn’t. There’s a separation of people, at that level. What advice did the Minister for Social Development and Employment get on, basically, an insistence on information from a third party—being, in this case, a parent—for that information? It becomes a lot more complicated when you think about estranged families as well where you do have another party, often a father, but there could be anybody who may be relevant to that conversation and to that information as far as MSD is concerned, given that their income is relevant here.

I’ve asked a related question in other cases where the Government’s been restricting access because I get concerned, particularly about agreements out there between parents based on income. They usually come to an end when the child is a certain age and it’s very unusual for them to go on indefinitely, and they’re private contractual agreements, albeit often with the sanction of a court. What happens in those circumstances where the other parent has no liability at law because that decision has been made, absolutely, in good faith at a certain time? What happens, then, to that question of requiring information and liability? Because that parent has often taken a stand that the child is no longer eligible for any kind of support after that age. While that might not be what we’d all want to happen, it is what actually happens. I would be very keen to know what the Minister has to say to that.

I’d also like the Minister to answer the question about that level of payment when we talked about the $67,000. I still haven’t heard an answer to that, and it actually is an answer I need to be able to find out so I can ask other questions, so I’d ask for some priority in answering about that level. It relates to what my friend Ricardo Menéndez March has asked about what kind of testing was done on the viability of that amount. I do note that the figures that are used are all gross figures. It seems that there’s a disconnection from the reality of what a family has in their hand, because at $67,225 gross, that’s not exactly what they’ll have in their hand at all. It relates to my question about expenses, but why was the amount that was decided upon a gross amount rather than an actual amount given that’s the reality of what that family are living off?

I’ve got a big question that I want to ask, and I’m not sure I have time to ask it in this round, and perhaps I can just start it. That question is about the divorcing of these kids who are coming in and not being able to get a benefit from other services that MSD provide. I could continue with that with the leave of the—nope? I’ll just wait and ask it in the second round.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): No, you can keep going.

💬 HELEN WHITE: I can? Thank you. I’ll just take this call. My concern here is quite a big one. You’ve got a group of kids that we know are our most vulnerable kids. They have come out of school, and we know they are our most vulnerable because, as the Minister says, they’re the ones who are most likely to end up staying on the benefit system if we don’t get it right. We used to actually have a front door for them, which was MSD, and it was related to them going in and saying, “Look, I can’t find a job.” At that point, all sorts of things should kick in.

Now, we haven’t done a great job over the last few decades of that. We’ve tried and it’s improved at times, and I’m glad to say that it improved under the last Labour Government, but that’s when we need to look after them. That’s when we can pour in the energy and we can connect them to work. What I don’t understand here is that the focus of this is to cut off that doorway, and it doesn’t seem to address it separately. It isn’t a bill that says, “We are going to say that you can’t have a benefit, but here’s the help we are going to give you. We are going to make sure that we wrap around you in this way.”

What is going on here? One of the things that’s going on is actually really, really hard to fix. It’s that there are no jobs for that group of people. But, actually, it’s also the time when we can wrap around, and yet what we are saying to them is go and find yourself a course and pay for it and have a student loan, and even though you’re not ready, or you might not be appropriately in that space, that seems to be what we’re saying to them: you’re on your own and your family will sort it out in that time frame. Isn’t that the critical time for the design of the legislation to be that those people get that assistance in finding an appropriate solution to unemployment at a time when they’re extremely vulnerable to that becoming something that keeps going? Because that’s what I heard the Minister tell me repeatedly, that she was connecting unemployment at this stage with a kind of “many years of unemployment” situation, as if it was a bad habit. But isn’t it much more likely that it was the result of our failure to deal appropriately with that group at that time? Isn’t that what the Ministry of Social Development is all about? Isn’t that one of Government’s roles—to make sure we’re connecting people?

It is about why we have focused, in this legislation, in these first paragraphs, on denying the benefit to this group in a kind of cut-throat way and not being focused on what we’re going to do with this group of people. We do know, because it said in the regulatory impact statement repeatedly, that (a) their unemployment is a result of the economic conditions, but (b) that that was their preferred option. They say it really clearly. They say they don’t like what the Minister’s done here. They say that what they think would work is a whole lot of wraparound at that stage. I’d like the Minister to answer it in terms of the context of these early focus paragraphs on cutting off support, and she can tell me what provisions she’s made to make sure that there is still an open door at MSD. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

Thank you so much, Mr Chair. In focusing on who the Minister deems to be a “specified young person”, I’m kind of looking at also, for example, the language around new section 23A(2) and just more broadly about how we deem these people. Can I confirm with the Minister whether she deems that 70 percent of people who are on jobseeker—health condition, injury, or disability—are not worthy of receiving support just because they’re not in employment? Just based on her previous answer, it just kind of feels like including them on the “specified young person” list in clause 5 is a little bit odd. She talked about how 30 percent of those who receive that benefit are actively seeking work or are in employment, but that means that 70 percent of them are not. They would still be categorised as a “specified young person” for the purposes of the parental income requirement in new section 23A, and so I just wanted to test that with the Minister.

Additionally, in regard to the definition of a specified young person who is subjected to the parental income requirement in clause 5, I’m interested in knowing whether she genuinely believes that—you know, she talked in the previous answer about there being better improved outcomes and proximity to the labour market. But if the support that a specified young person would be receiving right now is due to their health condition and, therefore, it is intended for that health condition to improve, how exactly does stripping a young person of their support while they’re facing an injury actually get them closer to the labour market, as she has just claimed in her answers? Those two things just do not seem to be actually consistent with the evidence that we know around health outcomes. The inquiry into mental health, for example, found that there’s a close link between incomes and mental health outcomes.

I know that the National Party whip, during my previous contribution, tried to challenge the relationship with the clause, but these are the people who are the specified young persons in clause 5—like I’m putting a face to who this clause refers to, and so we can’t actually decouple the “specified young person” as an abstract concept when we know that it includes thousands of people who are injured, sick, or disabled. The rationale that the Minister just gave me for including them in the “specified young person” definition just seems to not really add up in terms of what we know. I just wonder whether she consulted, in the definition of a specified young person in clause 5, with any health experts that told her that, actually, cutting income support leads to better health outcomes.

Lastly, in this contribution on clause 5, I wanted to ask whether the Minister is genuinely confident that anyone who actually should be on the supported living payment (SLP) is currently so, because I think she’ll know, and I think any constituency MP will know, that a lot of people on jobseeker - health condition, injury or disability face huge barriers to enter into the supported living payment. She knows quite well that the Ministry of Social Development can review those doctors’ letters and challenge the doctor who may want to push someone on to the SLP.

She’s giving us this guarantee, “Don’t worry. If you’ve got a serious health condition, you’ll be on SLP.”, but can she guarantee to me that no specified young person, as defined in clause 5, will include anyone who is trying to get on the SLP and has been unable to? Does she recognise that, because of the time it takes for a GP to get your documentation ready to meet the criteria of the SLP, there will be some people who are trying to get on to the SLP who are currently on jobseeker and are deemed specified young persons under the definitions of this bill who will be missing out on income, despite having serious health issues?

I just cannot see how the Minister could genuinely guarantee to me that no one with a serious health condition will be deemed a specified young person for the purposes of this bill.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. This is my first call on this bill, so I do want to just check a couple of things with the Minister for Social Development and Employment. Noting what you have stated previously, Mr Chair, I just want to ask a couple of very quick questions. The first one is: looking at the regulatory impact statement, page 3, can the Minister just very succinctly let the committee know why the option that the Minister has preferred is different from the option that is in the regulatory impact statement? That just helps, I guess, the committee to set some of the scene.

I want to pick up on what the Minister said before in terms of when it comes to parental income requirements already being available in the student allowance, and I think the specific term that Minister has mentioned is that there are “no dramas there”. I wondered, in that particular instance, when we’re looking at existing parental income requirements that already exist in the student allowance, has the Minister actually consulted with the peak bodies for students, who do potentially have experience around the student allowance—such as various university student associations, like Otago University Students’ Association, Auckland University Students’ Association, and Victoria University of Wellington Students’ Association—just to check on whether there actually are any dramas with the current parental income threshold when it comes to the student allowance, to be able to know some of the policy issues that we are looking at here when we are introducing new parental income requirements under clause 5?

Moving on to clause 5, I want to start with new section 23A(1), and I want to specifically focus on paragraphs (a) and (b), because (a) and (b) are worded in a way that looks at “applied or reapplied” and “granted or regranted”. I think this is an interesting point to mention, because what this does is it’s not simply targeting people who are applying for jobseeker support, with a range of various jobseeker support that is affected—my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March has already mentioned some of them that, potentially, would be challenging. But, in this case, can I just check that will also capture people who would be then reapplying for jobseeker support as well, and whether there is any work that is being done or any modelling that is being done on how those who are reapplying, who are now going to be captured under this new system, will be affected by this new system if the support isn’t there between when they applied and were maybe successfully granted the jobseeker support versus what is currently now stated under this new legislation?

Now, my colleague’s amendment—this is my final question, Mr Chair, for this particular call—is around the fact that, as it stands, those with health conditions, disability, or illnesses are being captured in this, but what I’m not seeing in the regulatory impact statement is how this upholds our requirements under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Has the Minister received any formal advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) on this particular bill’s alignment with our international obligations?

Again, we see that there are certain obligations that we have in terms of our international obligations but also in terms of things, as we see in some of the other bills that have been introduced, with our international trade agreements as well. I do want to check with the Minister because of specific requirements that we have, for example, in the NZ-EU free-trade agreement (FTA). In the context of this particular bill and the fact that disabled people are going to be captured as a part of this, has there been any advice taken from MFAT on how this would also impact our current FTAs or trade agreements?

Committee of the whole House

The member asks about “grants or regrants”. When the bill comes into effect, the parental income test and parental support gap will be applied across the board.

The comment around the student allowance referred to a previous member’s question around whether it was suitable to be able to ask about a parent’s income. I was simply saying there is already a way in which that is done with student allowances.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. I just want to ask questions that are concerning my portfolio, which is the prevention of sexual and family violence. I’m concerned, in terms of this clause, with the provisions that go from new section 23G right through—they’re all under this clause. They go on and they say that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has capacity to decide who the parent is, who is liable, etc. There are a group of different people who might be liable in various circumstances, and then it’s MSD that makes that determination.

My concern is that, when it comes to disclosing sexual abuse and physical abuse in families, that’s something that people don’t necessarily do. It isn’t the reality of the situation. I’d like the Minister for Social Development and Employment to answer in terms of what safety measures have been put into place which mean that somebody who is an 18- or 19-year-old coming into the office and being subjected to that kind of assessment as to which parents are liable—what kind of measures are there to make sure that young people who will not necessarily disclose those things are dealt with appropriately before the responsibility for them is assigned to one of the groups under these sections?

Then I’ve got a question about clause 6. I can see there that clause 6 is about emergency benefits and it’s about the discretionary grant that is usually available upon proof of hardship. Now, I appreciate that this is an attempt to line things up, but it says in this section that the young person who would be ineligible, as far as I can understand it, under this particular change, for jobseeker support, will also not meet this criteria. I just wanted to know what sort of grants we are talking about and what sort of circumstances of hardship we are talking about. They’re not just locked out of jobseeker support; they’re locked out of those discretionary grants. I am really keen on discretion in these systems, because it mops up some very real situations people find themselves in. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

The parental support gap is designed to cover situations where there might be a young person who’s had a family breakdown or relationship breakdown or where there is family harm involved and risk. That’s exactly why there is a parental support gap test in the legislation as a safeguard.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I’m on page 5, on new section 23C, inserted by clause 5. One of the areas that I wanted to cover was the language that says—around lines 30 and 35—“(regardless of whether A has a spouse or partner who is subject to, and meets, the parental income requirement)”. This is the dynamic in relation to how the relationship rules in the welfare system are applied to a specified young person, so I just want to get the Minister’s clarification as to whether it is her intention that, say, if you’ve got A applicant—for example, an 18-year-old, an adult, who lives in a combined income household of $70K, and they have a partner who is also unemployed, which probably statistically is not insignificant, considering the youth unemployment rate. Under new section 23C, my interpretation of it would be that if that other partner, say, comes from not just a low-income family but a very, very, very low-income family—say, a combined household income of $45K—that A still wouldn’t be able to get a benefit. This means that an adult couple—say an 18-year-old who may have a relationship with their parents but live outside of the house; and, say, this person is someone who is battling a skin condition or a congenital disorder or has cancer or has depression—would still be having to rely on a single income when it comes to the rate that they receive. It beggars belief to me why a person with a psychological or psychiatric condition would be put in that situation.

Then the question I had was at what rate would the partner or spouse of A, under new section 23C, be receiving? Would that partner receive half the couple rate, or would they be entitled to a single person’s rate since the partner wouldn’t really be eligible for a benefit altogether? If they’re eligible for either half the couple’s rate, the partner of A, that’s a lower amount than a single rate. Half a couple’s rate is less than a single amount. I’m really interested because new section 23C, and some other subsequent lines, specifically talk about A in relation to the partners, and I would like the Minister to put on the record as to whether it is the intention that the partner of A would have to survive, if they are on income support, on half the couple’s rate or whether they would at least receive the single’s rate if their partner A is not eligible for a benefit.

Subsequent to that, the way that new section 23C is worded would lead me to believe that you could then end up having circumstances in which people would be having to not disclose who their partner is to Work and Income in order for, potentially, the partner of A to receive the full rate—if it is the case that the way that new section 23C is worded means that the spouse or partner—and, again, I’m referring to lines 30 to 35—would only receive half the couple’s rate. I hope the Minister is following what I’m intending to sort of probe here, because—and I say this from experience at the front lines—if you force a couple to live on half a couple’s rate, they will be more prone to try and not disclose that relationship to Work and Income. It’s not just hypothetical; it’s just what happens in reality. This is not a decision that is taken lightly by those young people. Often it is a means of survival, particularly since the parental income threshold has been set at such a low income.

So I would like clarification on whether the partner of A who does not meet the parental income requirement would receive the single or half the couple’s rate. I’m also interested to get the reflection of the Minister as to whether the way that lines 30 to 35 are worded under new section 23C would lead to, potentially, more people not disclosing their relationship status to Work and Income.

Committee of the whole House

This has been through a select committee process, and I accept there are parties in the Chamber who don’t agree with the fact that it’s the policy intent of the bill for 18- and 19-year-olds to be in employment, education, or training and that there is a parental income test. I’ve explained why it’s been set at the level it is. For those parents above that, the expectation is that parents support their children. I think we could have that conversation for hours. We’re not going to get over the difference in opinion. Obviously, when anyone falsely provides information to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), MSD takes that seriously—as they should. Fraud in the MSD system is—

💬 Hon Member: Against the law.

💬 Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —against the law, and I wouldn’t hope that anyone in this Chamber is encouraging that.

💬 Joseph Mooney: Mr Chair.

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

There’s no change to the definition of income as to the rest of the Social Security Act.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you so much. I’m mindful that my colleague may have questions on new sections 23D and 23E, but I’ve got questions on new section 23F; this is page 11, between lines 5 and onwards. This is the “parental income requirement: priority for applicable payment determinations”. I have concerns that the Government has tied itself into knots trying to ascertain which parents are responsible to meet the parental income requirement should the natural parents, the biological parents, be separated. If you look at the example provided between lines 25 and 35, does the Minister for Social Development and Employment accept how convoluted the legislation has been created, to the point that, potentially, it could be really impossible to implement?

I don’t say this lightly considering the recent media articles on the lack of ability of the front line to adequately implement policies, through no fault of their own but through policy decisions. The example that was given on page 11 talks about, for example, two natural parents—“P1” and “P2”. They’re not in a relationship, but “P1 is in a relationship with a “step-parent (SP1). P2 is in a relationship with a step-parent (SP2). A is living with P1 and SP1. A is not living with P2 and SP2. MSD may determine whether SP2 is an applicable parent of A only after MSD has determined that SP1 is not an applicable parent of A.” On the following page, it says, “If A is not living with step-parent, step-parent in relationship with parent with whom A does not have support gap must be considered before step-parent in relationship with parent with whom A has parental support gap”.

Does the Minister accept that the way that this example and the lines have been provided does not really take into account the strength of the relationship that, for example, the children may have with stepparents in this situation? Or, for example, even just the fact that some children—well, actually, in this case, adults. I have to remind myself that we’re not talking about children here; we’re talking about full-grown legal adults, who may be living, for example, with a parent and stepparent who are cohabitating, but are actually maybe having a stronger relationship with a parent and stepparent who may not be cohabitating. Why is the cohabitation of a parent and a stepparent treated as any sort of criteria for the purposes of determining who is going to be subjected to the parental income requirement?

Can she see how this has opened the doors to some pretty messed up interpretations of, say, family structures, familial connections, the relationship between an adult and, say, their stepparents, and also making pretty outdated assumptions on whether cohabitation is directly linked to, for example, the health of a relationship or the ability for parents or stepparents to provide support? A lot of healthy parental relations may choose not to cohabitate with each other, sometimes because those people may have other sorts of familial responsibilities; they may just be facing health issues or work issues that require them to commute to other places that may make cohabitation just not practically possible. Does she accept that this sort of cohabitation component between P1 and SP1 and P2 and SP2 opens the door to pretty discretionary decision-making based on some assumptions that I think could be pretty outdated?

My question is: what are the assumptions that has led to the—and again, this is not a difference of opinion; it’s me trying to elucidate information from the Minister, so I just want to request that she does not just fob off a question by claiming that this is a difference of opinion. I am genuinely trying to ascertain what are the assumptions that went behind—from the Minister, not officials—to agree to a definition where, potentially, the cohabitation between a parent and a stepparent may be used as a determining factor for who will be tested when it comes to their incomes, which could, therefore, affect a cancer patient or someone with a psychological or psychiatric condition from being eligible to income support.

Committee of the whole House

It’s just purely reflecting modern day families, and they are very different from what they used to be. There’s a range of different scenarios and parents that will be considered in terms of both the parental support gap as well as the parental income test.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The committee will resume at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.55 p.m. to 7 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Good evening, members. I hope you dined well. The committee is resumed on the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill. Before the committee suspended for the break, we were debating Part 1. The question, again, is that Part 1 stand part.

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

As I’ve referred to with other aspects of the bill, it’s not changing any of the significant definitions in the Social Security Act. It was actually the member himself who referred to the fact that he thought that more people would attempt to be fraudulent in this system. I actually disagree with that decision.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I just want to challenge those comments a little bit, not because I think the Minister for Social Development and Employment is lying by any means but because, I think, she may just not be interpreting. There is a new definition here in determining whether someone is single. That is the literal new definition. There is a change. Previously, in the welfare system, if you have two working parents in full-time work, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) actually had no business in their relationship status.

This specific new section 23I, inserted into the principal Act by clause 5, allows MSD to prod two parents in full-time work or two people in full-time work, who may not be receiving a benefit—it allows MSD to basically prod and ask about their intimate lives. This is a substantive change in how MSD operates and who MSD is giving themselves power to inquire about their intimate lives and their relationships. As I just mentioned earlier, MSD does not have the ability nor reason to ask two full-time people whether they’re in a relationship or otherwise. This allows MSD to do exactly that. Therefore, I would like to know how many parents and people are captured in here. If the Minister would like to engage at least on the substance of my questions, which are not in bad faith, I would deeply appreciate it, because I don’t want to keep litigating this specific new section 23I, but she didn’t engage with the substance of my question. She also didn’t engage with whether additional resources would be required, and, again, I’m seeking the Minister’s engagement on this.

Finally, I would like to know whether, if she genuinely thinks that nothing is changing in the system, can she confirm, then—because if she thinks nothing is changing, she is basically telling me that these full-time working parents could be subjected to integrity interventions. Whether she agrees with me or otherwise that some parents may feel like they don’t have to be fully upfront with their relationship status is beside the point. I am asking whether two full-time working people who do not receive a benefit could be subjected to integrity interventions by MSD on the basis of their relationship status.

Finally, my last question would be what impact this will have on, say, a disabled parent who may be trying to find connection or a solid parent who, for example, may have escaped family violence and may be entering a new relationship. Again, the reason why I’m not trifling with these questions is that when I worked at Auckland Action Against Poverty, one of the news stories we did when I first got in was that a woman had her benefit cut because she was deemed to be in a relationship with someone she went on a Tinder date with. That is the level in which MSD sometimes chooses to cut people’s benefits when they deem someone to be in a relationship. And so, when I have had real-life examples that I’ve seen at the front lines that have hit the media, that have seen a person who goes on two dates have their benefit cut, how can she give me confidence that this will not happen between two working people who just simply go on a few dates? Because if she’s saying, “Hey, look, the relationship definitions haven’t changed on how we apply them to beneficiaries”, she cannot give me a guarantee that this won’t happen again to two working people. And what is the business of MSD in determining two full-time working people’s relationship status? Why should that ever be MSD’s business? I think that maybe she would like to give some reassurance to the parents as to whether the provisions in new section 23I actually allow for integrity interventions into working families.

Again, I just really challenge the idea that nothing here is changing. This wouldn’t be the first time that I raise this important issue and she says, “No, nothing is changing” or “No, nothing has happened” and it turns out things have happened. If some engagement happened from the Minister on new section 23I I would be happy to move on, but I think this is one of the most substantive changes in clause 5 in relationship to the powers that MSD is giving itself to investigate—potentially—full-time working people.

Committee of the whole House

The only reason this is relevant here is if there’s an 18- or 19-year-old who is not in employment, training, or education and is applying for the parental income test or support gap. That is the only reason a young person would be seeking—or that the Ministry of Social Development would be seeking—information or assurance from them: looking at their parents’ income requirements, and also if there is a support gap. As I said before, it’s similar to student allowance, where other parts of the system consider what the parents’ income is to see if their student—at that stage, up to the age of 24, under 25—is eligible. It’s really not that much different.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Lawrence Xu-Nan—but we’ll be needing to move on from this particular point. It’s been well exhausted.

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

I’ve got a question on clause 6, Section 63 amended, in relation to my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment, but again, I’m still seeking the Minister’s engagement on how many intermediate interventions—I’m happy to move on, but—I don’t even have to like the answers. She’s just refusing to engage in the debate, which makes this debate a little bit pointless.

I’m looking for the Minister’s engagement on that, and on the Amendment Paper—this is the one tabled at 15.20.01. It seeks to change clause 6, section 63(2A): “delete ‘only if P meets the parental income requirement’ ”. The reason why I wanted to have the Minister’s engagement on this is that clause 6 adds a provision in which an emergency benefit could be granted on the discretionary ground of hardship. If the person’s on hardship, why would they be subjected to the parental income test? You already identified that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has the ability to grant someone a benefit, discretionarily, on the grounds of hardship—why would one add a process that requires a person to not just test the parents’ incomes, but also potentially test the support gap that this part has sort of included in that? For example, when I was on the phone lines, you would be able to go and seek an appointment on the day for someone who was experiencing hardship, and on that very same day, have an emergency benefit granted—on the grounds of, say, hardship, or other issues that may arise. This provision basically prevents, in my view, MSD from adequately being able to provide that support to an 18- or 19-year-old, by adding another layer of requirements to the emergency benefits. That is at least how I understand it.

However, and when I say “however”, this is the line from clause 6, in how the language begins—adding another layer, another barrier, basically—my question is: if MSD already has the discretionary ability to grant someone a benefit on the grounds of hardship, why would they still want to test the parental income? What potential processing delays could arise from this additional requirement that clause 6 adds for the purposes of someone’s eligibility for the emergency benefit?

Perhaps, one way the Minister could give us some assurances of how much this may add additional barriers, or otherwise, could be useful. What are the usual processing times for emergency benefits? Are we expecting those median processing times to change as a result of this provision? How many people, for example, have received—who are of the ages of 18 to 19 on the emergency benefit—even if you’ve just got new data points, the past five years, the past year, or whatever. That may actually give us a bit of a picture as to how many people would this likely capture? We’ve got a provision for emergency benefits, specifically for 18- and 19-year-olds. I don’t think you, Mr Chair, or myself, or anyone here in this House, would be able to ascertain out of a magic hat how many people this likely will capture.

I’d like to know from the Minister if she sought to add this requirement in the emergency benefit on the grounds of hardship, does she know how many people could be subjected to it? If not, what level of analysis and robust work did she do to justify adding this on the emergency benefit? Part of the reason is that some people on the emergency benefit may then go and apply to a normal jobseeker benefit, eventually.

I could see the rationale, even if I disagree with the Minister’s intention of the bill, that at the point at which you apply for the jobseeker benefit, the parental income test may come into effect. I don’t understand why you would want to add it at a point in which MSD would normally grant someone a discretionary benefit under grounds of hardship. There is a purpose and principle of the Social Security Act already, that the role of MSD is to effectively alleviate hardship. If you add an additional barrier for benefits on the grounds of hardship, it could end up potentially resulting in decisions that are inconsistent with the purpose and principles of the main Act, which to me seems really problematic.

My final question is whether she thinks there could be any incidents here where MSD could be unintentionally making decisions that go against the purpose and the principles of the main Act.

Committee of the whole House

I accept that members of the Opposition don’t like the policy position that the Government is introducing in this bill, which is to say 18- and 19-year-olds are the responsibility of their parents first. If their parents, through either an income test or support gap, are unable to provide that support, then the State will.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Would you like to engage with the question?

💬 Hon LOUISE UPSTON: But the State is not the first—I’m answering your question, which relates to the emergency benefit. They will not be eligible unless there is an income gap.

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have just a short question. This is clause 7(3). This is inserting new section 113(3A). This is around when a beneficiary must notify changes.

Now, new subsection (3A) states that, in relation to a relevant benefit, the changes include paragraphs (a) to (e). My assumption is the term “include” means that, again, paragraphs (a) to (e) are not exhaustive; there might be other criteria that are being looked at as well. Can I check, in those cases, how would, if there are other criteria—OK, I guess my first question is: is that list exhaustive?

If that list is exhaustive, that’s clear; beneficiaries know exactly that these are the five circumstances when they need to notify a change of circumstances. If it is not exhaustive, how would beneficiaries then know what additional requirements there would be for notification, and would that be published by the Ministry of Social Development—what is going to be required—in a way that is through either the Gazette or publicly on the website?

Committee of the whole House

Again, “change of circumstance” is a fairly common process for the Ministry of Social Development. It includes those ones there but is not restricted to that.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I’ve got a question on clause 8, on page 18, but also just wanted to emphasise that my questions on parents are not to challenge the policy; it’s actually just to understand how many people are affected and how this will actually apply.

Look, the Minister for Social Development and Employment has made it clear that she won’t accept any changes, but I guess I just want to sort of test the Minister’s understanding, in clarification for the public, on, for example, whether the provisions under new section 23I—for example, how many people that will capture and how it will operate in practice?

As for clause 8, this is new section 310ZB, “Notice of review and seeking required information”. There’s a notice of review here that requires the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to, as soon as practicable and before the 21st working day after the child exclusion date, give a notice talking about the relevant benefit, the appropriate rate of the benefit. Then it talks about the required information that MSD needs to ask the person.

Now, following both the regulatory impact statement (RIS) from the bill, which identified that one of the biggest risks to this bill was actually the ability for MSD to keep up with the broader legislative agenda, and particularly the fact that we have seen news stories come out as of this week that, in fact, MSD hasn’t been able to keep up with this Government’s legislative agenda, suspending benefits due to persistent delays due to the fact that the front line hasn’t kept up, can the Minister assure me—well, (a) is she confident that MSD has the front-line capacity to operationalise the provisions in new section 310ZB? Again, it’s not about whether I want policy changes. I am just wanting to know whether she thinks the front line has capacity. Has she, since MSD has clearly been unable to keep up with the pace of the legislative agenda that the Government has implemented, sought additional assurances or briefings on the operationalisation of this provision or others?

If not, when the RIS identified that provisions that add additional requirements to MSD could face barriers in implementation due to other changes, does she think it is responsible, and therefore does she think that it could well be the case that some beneficiaries actually do not receive, in 20 working days, the notice around the child exclusion date? If the Minister sees that happening, could she clarify to members of the public watching or for the Hansard record what recourse is available should MSD not fulfil the obligations under new section 310ZB? The Minister will note that I am not proposing changes to any policy but simply elucidating information.

Committee of the whole House

Any time there is a change of legislation, it’s up to the agency to operationalise it. I’m confident that they know very clearly what my expectations are in them doing it.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We’re nearly there, members. I’ll give you one more question each. I suggest you utilise them very well.

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

As I said before, anytime there is a change of legislation that’s planned, the Ministry of Social Development prepares for that and prepares to operationalise that. As I said, I am confident that they have planned appropriately and can deliver it.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. My one will be short. I want to thank the Minister for Social Development and Employment for actually responding to the first part of my question. But my second part of that question on new section 3A is: if there are additional criteria that are required for the beneficiary to notify change of circumstance, would the beneficiary be notified of what those changes are or would that be, in some ways, sprung on the beneficiary afterwards, and then, where they get penalised for not declaring any change of circumstance that isn’t immediately, I guess, clear or transparent to the beneficiary. So that was my first question.

I’m going to move on to a further question. I think this might be clause 8, new Subpart 3B, new section 310ZF. There are other clauses that are similar when it comes to the cancellation. I do want to check that if the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has not received, I understand the 8 weeks’ notice—that’s fair enough when it comes to child exclusion date. Will MSD, in those circumstances—and this might be more of a general question around the operations of MSD—make multiple attempts to contact whoever they are seeking information from prior to those eight weeks? So rather than just a one-off, will they try it multiple times—for example, at week four, at week seven, saying, “If you don’t give it to us by next week, we are going to continue with the cancellation.”? Those are my two questions.

Committee of the whole House

There’s already a process around the way that the Ministry of Social Development communicate with clients. Generally, there’s a notification through MyMSD as well as emails. There are usually multiple emails that are sent to the client.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 39

New Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new section 23A(2)(ba) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 39

New Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new section 23AA be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 39

New Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 23A(2), inserting new paragraph (d) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 23A(2), inserting new paragraph (d) to (h) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 23D, replacing the definition of “parental income limit” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting new section 23D(3) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 39

New Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 5 replacing new section 23F be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 39

New Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 5 new section 23G inserting new subsections (1A) to (1D) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 39

New Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 5 new section 23G inserting new subsections (2)(c) and to (2A) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 39

New Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 5 replacing new section 23I be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 39

New Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 6, new section 63(2A) is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill.

The Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 113, inserting new subsection (5) to (7) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 8 replacing new section 310W(2) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 39

New Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 8 new section 310ZB inserting new subsections (1A) to (1D) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 39

New Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 8 new section 310ZD inserting new subsections (2A) to (2D) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 39

New Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 8 deleting new section 310ZE(1)(a) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 39

New Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 39

New Zealand Labour 26; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 1 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 2 Accommodation supplement: entry threshold percentage for homeowners, and Schedule 2

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, we come now to Part 2, the debate on clauses 13 to 15—“Accommodation supplement: entry threshold percentage for homeowners”—and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Committee of the whole House