Social Security Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Social Security Amendment Bill. Members, we come now to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 58—“Amendments to Social Security Act 2018”—and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is that Part 1 be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to flag that this is a robust and long bill, so I’ll try to go clause by clause as much as I can. I’ll flag when I’m speaking to amendments as well, just to make sure that it’s in order.

I want to start with clause 5 of Part 1, which amends section 21, in relation to “work gap”. It’s repealing section 21(3). I want to ask the Minister what the policy intent is. I ask this because that didn’t actually get a lot of scrutiny in the select committee, nor was it something that the Minister publicly talked about. The bill, effectively, is doing away with a specific definition of “work gap” in a provision, and, if we look at the Social Security Act, for example, somebody is considered to have that if that person is “(a) … receiving jobseeker support at the rate in [other clauses]; and (b) during a temporary period, [the person] engages in full-time employment; and (c) the income from that employment and [person’s] other income (if any) when calculated over a 52-week period is less than the amount that would, under the appropriate income test, reduce the applicable rate of jobseeker support to zero.” I guess our concern is that rather than just changing the 52 weeks to potentially 26 weeks, the Minister’s just done away with that. We think this is problematic because it would, effectively, reduce the number of single parents who are eligible for jobseeker support. In some ways, it also disincentivises engaging in employment because of that narrowing definition of “work gap”.

I wanted to start with that because it also ties in with an amendment that we have, which is under my name, to delete clause 5 in and of itself. The amendment means that, basically, we would ensure that single parents who temporarily engage in full-time employment where their income from that employment would not reduce the applicable rate of jobseeker support to zero can continue to be considered to have a work gap and remain eligible for support, notwithstanding any other eligibility criteria.

A lot of the bill—particularly if we think about, for example, the debates in the first and second readings—has been in relation to the additional non-financial sanctions, which I will touch on later. This change to what is considered to be a work gap has not actually been given much mention by the Minister, and, I think, actually, the public should have it on the record as to why the Minister is narrowing this definition and taking away one of the specific provisions that helps define whether somebody has a work gap. I’m really concerned about the negative impacts that this could have on people, and I wonder whether this very specific clause’s intent is simply to narrow the scope of who then would be eligible for a benefit, which, in and of itself, will then reduce the amount eligible for a benefit, which then in turn may help the Government meet its target of having less people on the benefit. That doesn’t necessarily mean more people in full-time employment or ongoing full-time employment.

I’m keen to understand, particularly, what the policy intent is and the level of consultation she had on the work gap, because the Minister didn’t talk about those changes in the select committee, nor in her public communications. I think that part deserves a bit more commentary from the Minister. I’m also interested to see if she would be supportive of our amendment that would remove clause 5, because we think, despite our political and ideological differences, that clause 5 will actually disincentivise employment. I think this just feels like an odd thing to be putting forward in the bill.

I’m really eager to start off the debate with clause 5, and I will then go on to other parts of this piece of legislation as we go. I also wanted, while I’ve got one minute left, to flag to the Chair that I recognise that, when we start getting into clause 10 onwards and we talk about the different non-financial sanctions, the language is relatively similar, but I want to float that I may be touching on some of those things that may sound repetitive but that the way that the language ends up applying to the specific benefit sanctions will be different. I just want to pre-emptively flag that in case I’m referring to language that may sound similar where the policy intent is different.

I just thought it would be useful if I provided some opening comments and context. This is a really simple bill. There are really only four changes that we’re making in terms of non-financial sanctions. I think some of the impressions that may have been left by Opposition members in their comments in earlier readings may be misunderstood.

Let me first say that no one is sanctioned if they can’t find a job. There are obligations in terms of people being available for work, looking for work, attending meetings with their case manager, and attending sessions at the Ministry of Social Development. This is all about rights and responsibilities and ensuring that those who are on jobseeker benefits, for example, are taking the steps they need to. Unlike the current settings, which had been unchanged for the six years of the Labour-Greens Government, we are adding sanctions that are non-financial.

At the moment, the only ability is to either reduce a benefit in half or end it completely. These four new non-financial sanctions mean the entire amount of the benefit is retained. There are just a couple of changes. The clause that the member refers to is also related to a 26-week reapplication. We want to ensure that people continue to be eligible for the benefit type they are on. Again, that’s a very simple change that we’ve made. I do want to make it clear that this is not a complex piece of legislation. It’s been through a full select committee process, and I’m confident that we can get through it quite easily.

Just following on the comments from the Minister for Social Development and Employment, if she says that clause 5 was in relation to the 26-week changes, why did she not just simply change the language in section 21(3) of the Social Security Act 2018—the bit that said 52 weeks to 26 weeks—as opposed to just repealing it altogether? That to me doesn’t make a lot of sense, so I will just seek clarification once more: why is she repealing section 21(3) of the Social Security Act and narrowing the definition of “work gap”?

I will move, now, to clause 8A so that I can broaden the scope of the debate a bit. Another thing that she didn’t communicate in her public communications and that wasn’t tested thoroughly, because of the lack of proactive debate in public by the Minister, was clause 8A and the changes to section 181 of the Social Security Act in relation to the application of health and safety legislation. I wanted to understand, basically, the consequences of applying health and safety legislation in a broader sense. I wanted to understand whether, from her perspective, clause 8A was specifically needed as a result of the community work experience. I know that, in clause 8A(2), there is a slight mention of beneficiary activity in the community arranged by the Ministry of Social Development.

More broadly, the broadening of how the health and safety legislation applies to some of this—I’m curious to also know what consultation she did around the enforcement of that. There are a lot of volunteer organisations that work in the community—maybe quite small organisations—and they themselves may not have, for example, an understanding of health and safety legislation. I’m keen to understand how she sees the enforcement of any potential breaches of health and safety legislation as it applies, in clause 8A(2), to, for example, activities in the communities. Otherwise, this feels like it’ll just sound nice, but there will be very little ability to be able to enforce it. What feedback, since this has been debated and introduced, has she received at all in terms of the ability for clause 8A in Part 1 to actually apply in a meaningful way?

Part of the reason why I also wanted to talk about clause 8A(2)(b)(ii) is that it’s an activity that is voluntary. It could be a volunteer organisation. This is quite different from being in a workplace where, for example, you may have people who may be more in tune with health and safety legislation. A lot of our volunteer organisations are struggling to even have enough, for example, governance training to understand the very basic responsibilities under the Incorporated Society Act or the laws that dictate our charities. They would have even less ability to actually understand how health and safety legislation applies to them.

With the broadening of the application of health and safety legislation, how does she expect that the volunteer organisations that, I’m assuming, will likely be part of the community with experienced staff—we’ll debate that later—are equipped with the knowledge of how, when they’re engaging with someone on the benefit, to understand the responsibilities that they may have under the new, now broadened application of health and safety legislation under clause 8A.

Actually, the member Ricardo Menéndez March was on the Social Services and Community Committee where this change was recommended by the Parliamentary Counsel Office. It’s a very minor change that just ensures that, in terms of the report job search that this refers to, the health and safety legislation applies.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just support what the Green member Ricardo Menéndez March was saying there, also. It’s an incredibly frustrating experience for jobseekers, at the moment, being forced off the benefit and then forced to reapply. I want to come to clause 10, in Part 1, inserting new section 183A. Just listening to what the Minister for Social Development and Employment was saying—in particular, on jobseeker profiles—I just need to hear from the Minister, particularly with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), what assessment the Minister has considered in boosting capacity at MSD to process the jobseeker profiles and whether are there enough staff to process these profiles so not to delay their benefit payments. I’m particularly interested in this area, given that our staff at MSD are not trained social workers. They do not, with respect, have the skills to deal with some of the experiences that people are going through and with some of the problems that are being raised out in the community. I’m worried, particularly, about the emphasis and the extra burden put on MSD, given the current climate, also, in terms of funding, with the Government cutting back on funding.

I’m also speaking to an amendment I put up on clause 10, inserting new section 183A. Is there sufficient capacity to process profiles within 10 working days, and can they guarantee the protection of clients’ personal data? These are some of the areas that we want the Minister to look at, and I’ve put an amendment up to record that. Also, to the Minister, how will jobseekers be informed about their profiles and keeping their data safe? I think this is a huge concern amongst the community. What sort of security can people have at that level? How will the bill also assure accurate assessment of jobseeker profiles, and will there be provisions put in place to prevent AI-generated jobseeker profiles from being used? This has been a push, now, that has been put forward. If we’re going to be relying on that, how secure and how comfortable are our people in the community, and what role does automated decision-making play, to the Minister, in jobseeker reapplication processes? I ask her to consider that also, given there’s a real emphasis in terms of automation.

There’s a real worry at the moment—obviously, we’re speaking to these questions—in terms of how whānau are feeling at ground level with this more punitive approach from this Government. How will they feel in these areas? These are questions that I would like the Minister to consider. In terms of guaranteeing the protection of clients’ personal data, can she give us some assurances that will happen? Will she consider putting that forward as a further amendment in terms of some guarantee with regards to people in our community? We do have communities who are very much on edge at the moment. It would help if the Minister could give some assurances that their lives are not going to change dramatically, given the past history in terms of National Governments and given the Labour Governments’ approach particularly in terms of being more embracing. We’ll get into some of the more community-type kōrero later on.

I would ask the Minister to consider some of these questions in terms of assurances for our people at ground level. What level of comfort can they take now going to MSD, who are working under a budget that we would consider is now underfunded? They don’t have the resources, they don’t have the expertise, and they don’t have the skills at MSD to deal with some of these issues. I haven’t even got on to the Māori situation or the disabled situation. There are a lot of concerned groups in the community at the moment. I put those questions forward for the Minister to answer and to consider, and I look forward to her response.

Yes, I’d like to keep to the issues that are outlined in the bill, and the one that the member the Hon Willie Jackson raises is the jobseeker profile. This is more about the fact that we do want to have more meaningful employment conversations with those who apply for the jobseeker benefit. The front-line staff do incredible work. I don’t have the lack of confidence that the member does in the ability of the Ministry of Social Development staff to actually have an applicant have a jobseeker profile with their work experience. Their qualifications will actually make it so much easier for Work and Income to support them into employment. That’s exactly what it’s about. It’s really simple, and we’re just asking that that jobseeker profile is completed at the commencement of a benefit.

I really want to look at clause 12, inserting new section 233A, which is where there is the detail around “Cancellation of main benefit for continuing failure to comply”. I want to ask the Minister for Social Development and Employment if she was presented with any new evidence that showed that the measures in this particular section would be effective in any way with regards to not only compliance but also to supporting those who are on benefit to go into employment. Ultimately, it’s important to refer back to that, because the objective of this bill is supposed to be to support New Zealanders into employment. The evidence that I’ve previously seen is certainly clear about the fact that sanctions are not a tool that should be considered effective for the purpose of supporting people into employment, so I’d like the Minister to let us know if she’s been presented with any new credible evidence that would support the new section to stand as it.

Because of the concerns that I have with the proposed new section and with the way in which the sanctions will be applied, I also want to ask the Minister whether or not the operational instruction has changed. In the past, it was always the case that a sanction should be applied as a last resort as opposed to something that is willy-nilly dealt out to clients on benefit, given the very serious implications for the individual receiving the benefit, particularly if that beneficiary has children or minors in their care.

Because of the concern that I have with this section and the implications for people who would already be deemed vulnerable, my colleague Minister—Minister! Ha, ha! Sorry, the Hon Willie Jackson.

Hon Willie Jackson: Wanna be, one day—again.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: He hopes to be a Minister again soon. The Hon Willie Jackson has suggested, after new section 233A(3), the insertion of subclause (4): “MSD must not cancel a person’s (P) main benefit—(a) unless adequate support systems are in place to support client compliance; or (b) without considering an evaluation on the impact of sanctions on the client and their family; or (c) there is a risk of the client being homeless as a result of any cancellation; or (d) if any assessment concludes that the sanction is overly punitive.”

Now, on top of wanting to know, from the Minister, if she has received any new advice that states that sanctions will support New Zealanders or beneficiaries into work, I do want to know whether there was any advice about whether this particular section could lead to increased homelessness of those that are on benefit. They are already receiving very low levels of income through the welfare system. Many of them are paying upwards of 50 percent for the accommodation that they’re living in. If they are to lose half or part of the benefit or the full benefit, then common sense has to prevail: their ability to retain and maintain accommodation would be compromised. I’m concerned about this because, of course, we’ve seen this with the barriers to emergency housing being put in place and the blockage to New Zealanders who require it, and with the increase in homelessness being seen across the country. Our social service providers are very clear that that homelessness increase has come about as a direct result of the policy change to accessing emergency housing, so I want to know whether this section is going to result in increased homelessness and whether or not the Minister has received any advice from her officials that suggests that may be the case.

If I go back to the first question, around whether or not operational practices have changed, in the past, sanctions were applied as a last resort. The increased emphasis on sanctions makes me wonder whether or not that operational instruction, or operational way of implementing the policy, has changed. If the Minister could respond to those questions, that would be great.

Yes, the previous Government had a directive that sanctions should be used sparingly. That’s not the view of this Government. The view of this Government is that there is the balancing of rights and responsibilities between those who are receiving benefits and the taxpayers who are funding it. With the traffic light system, 98 percent are at green, which is fantastic news. They know what their obligations are. They know what the steps are that will improve their chances of finding a job. I’ll repeat that there is no sanction if you can’t find a job. It’s just about taking the steps necessary to improve your chances. The 13-week cancellation, I would reiterate, is for if they fail to re-comply. It would be a very rare occurrence where someone continues to ignore their responsibilities with all the assistance that’s available through the Ministry of Social Development at the moment. There’s incredible support that’s provided by front-line staff. At the end of the day, if people don’t engage and don’t comply with their obligations, there has to be a consequence, and our Government believes in consequences.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is our first call on clause 10—at least on the Green Party side. This is the bit that’s adding new sections 183A to 183D into Part 4 of the Act after the subpart 2 heading. This is the jobseeker profile bit. I wanted to jump on to 183A(2), and I will also touch on 183A(4), and then I’ll move on to new section 183B.

In the select committee, a lot of the questions we asked were about how this would work in practice. We heard from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) that a lot of stuff was still being developed around how this would be applied. For example, in new section 183A(2) of the Social Security Act that has been proposed, it reads “MSD must require … [a person] to have a jobseeker profile completed to MSD’s satisfaction.” Since the select committee process, is the Minister aware of any guidelines that have been developed to ensure that people on the benefit, particularly those who are expected to complete a jobseeker profile, have a clear understanding of what MSD’s expectations are when it comes to the level of thoroughness that needs to be put into this profile? I guess the language in the legislation is very broad. It just says, “to MSD’s satisfaction,” which means there’s a high level of discretion attached. Often some of these more specific bits get added somewhere on the website. I guess I’m curious to know whether these guidelines have already been developed or whether they’re still under way, as we understood they were at the time we were considering this bill in the select committee.

New section 183A(4), for example, proposed for the Social Security Act, talks about how the “Form and revocation of requirement” communicated to a beneficiary may be oral or written. I’m curious to know whether there have been guidelines already developed as to when either of these will be applied. When will MSD choose to communicate things orally or in writing? I’m also interested to know, in clause 10 but basically in new section 183A(4), about the changes to the Social Security Act. That’s on page 12, just for the Chair in case she’s trying to follow my references. It talks about how this “Form and revocation of requirement” may be revoked orally or in writing and only if MSD considers a requirement “not reasonable in the circumstances of … [the person], … [the person’s] spouse or partner, or of both.” Has MSD already developed a list, since the select committee process, of these “not reasonable circumstances”?

Now, we’re moving on to new section 183B, which talks about what happens if a person does not have a jobseeker profile completed. Basically, I’m concerned about how this may result in delays to a benefit being granted. This brings me to my amendment—that is No. 266—which would basically, in clause 10, add new sections 183B and 183C in the Social Security Act and require MSD to assess a claim for a benefit despite the beneficiary failing to complete a jobseeker profile if the person is in serious hardship and if not granting a benefit could present a serious risk to their wellbeing.

The reason for that is that I think it isn’t clear enough in the Act. For example, when I was a welfare advocate, I would work with people who were homeless and who were not receiving a benefit. Sometimes, people would take them on to Work and Income, for example, for them to receive a benefit for the first time. Delays in this would have massive consequences to the person. A lot of the people that were working and who may have been chronically without a home may have literacy issues, for example—some of which are not easily communicated. There’s a lot of shame attached to those. Not everybody may be so open to, I guess, sharing the barriers that they may experience in filling out some of these things.

But, for example, if MSD assesses that somebody’s already in serious hardship and if delays on granting a benefit or the requirement to complete a jobseeker profile exacerbate that, I think the jobseeker profile doesn’t seem to be of much use. At the end of the day, if what we are asking for is for people to be in a good position to enter employment eventually, I would say that going from zero to having a baseline income is actually a really good step to supporting people into employment. I’m curious to know if the Minister would be open to making that provision clear so that if somebody is in hardship, the jobseeker profile does not become a genuinely unnecessary barrier to receiving income support.

That also takes me to another amendment of mine that touches on this very same clause. I want to speak to it over the next five minutes. It is around the inclusion of people on sole parent support. Now, currently, people on sole parent support, depending on the age of their youngest child, have different types of work obligations and requirements, but, for example, in the provisions that are being added in clause 10—new section 183A(1)(b)—sole parent support is explicitly mentioned. I just wanted to test whether jobseeker profiles will be required for people on sole parent support who have children under three. If that is the case, I would invite the Minister to perhaps change that and to not require people on sole parent support with very young children to fill out this jobseeker profile. As has been debated many, many times, we recognise that those first 1,000 days of the child’s life are really important. We want to support parents to be able to focus as much as they can on this, recognising that caregiving is work. I’m curious to know whether the Minister would be seeing people, under new section 183A(1)(b)(ii), to still be required to fill out a jobseeker profile if they have a child under the age of three and whether she is open to my amendment.

With the remaining three minutes that I have, I want to move on to new section 183B(3) and the parts where it talks about the lapsing of benefit applications in relation to a jobseeker profile. We’ve got a provision here that means that somebody could apply for a benefit, but if MSD is not satisfied, I think that can end up lapsing. I do wonder whether, since the select committee, she’s talked to MSD around, for example, what the time frames are in which she expects MSD to be able to evaluate a jobseeker profile and to then make sure that MSD can make a decent enough assessment that it has been completed to MSD’s satisfaction.

The reason why I’m raising this—and this will likely come up in other clauses of this bill—is because we have recently heard from MSD about how the front line is “oversubscribed”. The reason why I’m concerned about this is that we’ve got all these provisions, particularly new sections 183A and 183B, that require MSD to be satisfied. I’m assuming that requires people on the front line to be making decisions and assessments and to be reading those jobseeker profiles, which in and of itself adds new tasks to the front line. If we’re hearing from MSD that the front line is “oversubscribed”—as has been reported in the media by Radio New Zealand recently—I’m curious to know whether—since the select committee process, as I’ve said—she understands, for example, the staff capacity and how much time on average she expects front-line case workers to take to assess this, and whether any additional training has been already developed since the select committee process to ensure that those front-line case officers can assess those benefit applications and jobseeker profiles in a timely matter so as to not put people in situations of hardship.

What I would hate to see is for somebody, for example, to make an application for a benefit, fill out a jobseeker profile, and then for there to be delays of days, weeks, or an indeterminate amount of time and for that delay not to be appropriately communicated to the person on the benefit. The Minister talks a lot about responsibilities, but I would hope that MSD also sees a responsibility to assess these jobseeker profiles quickly. Again, I want reassurance, from the Minister, particularly about whether MSD has developed any more operational guidance or documents around how this is going to be put into practice and about the time frames that she expects these jobseeker profiles to be evaluated and assessed so that people don’t face unnecessary and cruel delays that could actually put them into homelessness, as my colleague to my right, Carmel Sepuloni, expressed in relation to other provisions that exist in this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have answered both what the jobseeker profile is and why, and I don’t intend to repeat myself.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I wanted to ask some questions about clause 15, new section 236B. This is the one with regards to community work experience, which is being introduced here for the first time as a non-financial sanction. I wanted to ask some questions of the Minister for Social Development and Employment to get clarity on this particular clause and this sanction. It’s really important we have this discussion, given the number of concerns that were raised by the community and voluntary sector and their belief that this particular community work experience is, in actual fact, unworkable for a number of reasons. I would like the Minister, on top of responding to these questions, to perhaps give a bit of a general overview on how they may have made it more workable, because we certainly haven’t had that feedback from the community and voluntary sector.

I’m wanting to know, from the Minister, what the expectation is in terms of the length of time that people may undertake community work experience as a non-financial sanction and to ask the Minister whether or not there was a change of heart and consideration given to hardship support being provided to those who were undertaking the community work experience, whether or not those who might find themselves homeless over the course of undertaking the community work experience will be able to access emergency accommodation if they have no other options, and whether or not they will be punished with financial sanctions. If, whilst undertaking the community work experience, they encounter life challenges, which many do, and perhaps become homeless over the course of that time and find it difficult, if not impossible, to show up, what will be the repercussions for them, and will they then face financial challenges on top of whatever life challenges have affected their ability to complete the community work experience?

It’s really important that we have these discussions because we’re talking about a group of New Zealanders who will encounter a level of challenge and barrier in their lives that most people in this Chamber would fail to comprehend. Because this sanction is being imposed on beneficiaries and, in many ways, it’s like a type of non-paid work that they will have to travel to, perhaps on the daily, I’m wondering whether or not the Minister gave consideration and whether or not—because I can’t see it—this clause provides for support for travel and transport across the period of time that they are undertaking community work experience or what some people are calling “forced voluntary service”; and, if so, what does that look like? I mean, clearly, many of them will be struggling with the day-to-day cost of living, let alone the additional cost that they will be faced with as a result of having to find transport to and from that community work experience. If they aren’t able to access hardship support during this course of time, then that is going to cause a major issue for them as well.

I wanted to know from the Minister whether or not they have an expectation, or the ministry has an expectation, that vetting will be undertaken for the organisation and for the person undertaking the community service to ensure that both parties are safe in the work experience that will be undertaken and whether or not there had been a conversation about that. In the event that the client is sick, what are the expectations of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD)? The community or voluntary sector organisation is not really an employer in this situation. They are taking someone on through a scheme that’s been imposed by the Ministry of Social Development, and, therefore, what are the reporting requirements of the organisation so that MSD can hold to account the client who is faced with this non-financial sanction and also for the organisation that has taken them on?

Then, finally, I have seen some of the international research on these types of measures, and it’s not positive. In fact, the outcomes are pretty minimal or poor. I want to know whether or not the Minister’s received any recent updates to show anything different.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just reiterate that there are four non-financial sanctions, where no non-financial sanctions were available prior to this bill. One of the things that is really important is the front-line Ministry of Social Development staff that are working with those who have not complied with their obligations. They are in the best place to decide if one of these non-financial sanctions is preferable and which one. Of course, just as some community organisations won’t be suitable for placements, others will be. This is all about making sure that there are sensible non-financial sanctions that, actually, as a result of individual support for that person and a sanction that is suitable for them and their circumstances, improve their ability to find work.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just following up also in terms of jobseekers—I’m still looking at new section 183A, inserted by clause 10—I’m wanting to know from the Minister for Social Development and Employment how the bill would accommodate people with disabilities and learning difficulties trying to complete jobseeker profiles. There are some real complexities that I would expect the Minister would be very supportive of—or sympathetic to, I should say. How will the bill accommodate these special needs in terms of disabilities?

I would also like to know from the Minister, because this is such a private thing for some of our people in the community, what measures are in place to prevent the misuse of jobseeker profiles? There is a real fear in our community, particularly our Māori communities, that their data, their information, will be misused. I would like to know from the Minister whether there is a strategy in place with regard to that?

Of course, talking about our community, Māori are disproportionately represented in benefit numbers. Are there any specific strategies around Māori clients to support them in completing their profiles and compliance, and to ensure they clearly understand what’s happening? What has the level of consultation been with Māori organisations and Māori community groups on this? It’s incredibly important, and there’s huge worry at the moment out there about what’s going to happen next, particularly in the sanctions area, as we keep talking about sanctions. We have a clear line on this that we have to be more embracing and there has to be more aroha shown. That’s certainly what the previous Minister was showing, which changed much of the culture that was permeating at the time. I’m very proud of what happened before.

I would like these questions answered, but I also want to come to new section 183A, in Part 1, inserted by clause 10. As I said, in terms of filling out the jobseeker profiles, for some of our people at the community level, it’s very hard. It may be OK for us in terms of filling out a jobseeker profile, but for people who live in poverty and who have complex social and mental health needs, they’re not accustomed to that constant compliance of filling out forms. I want to know from the Minister—just under Part 1, new section 183B, inserted by clause 10—whether the Minister has considered the impact on whānau and kids whose parents are sanctioned if a profile is not completed. We keep hearing that there’s not going to be any change, but the problem is there is a flow-on effect in terms of whānau. There are tamariki affected, and there are mokopuna affected. Has she considered the impact on whānau? What extra supports is she considering to help clients complete a profile and to accommodate the complex needs of some people?

Everybody thinks everyone’s got cellphones. That’s not the case. There’s a lot of people without cellphones. Some people are gang-affiliated, but those people have still got rights. After you get through the whole patch carry-on, how do you traverse a system that you don’t associate with? I suppose that’s the problem in terms of gangs. I wonder if the Minister has considered some of these areas, such as clients with complex mental needs, etc., etc.

Coming back to my original question, how has she assisted her Ministry of Social Development staff in going down this track? They are not trained social workers, they are not trained at community level, and many of them do not have the proper background in terms of tikanga, in terms of iwi needs, and in terms of community needs. I think there’s a lot for the Minister to consider here. I look forward to her response.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to take my first call on the Social Security Amendment Bill. I just wanted to add some supplementary questions to the excellent questions that were raised by the Hon Carmel Sepuloni regarding clause 8A(2)(b)(ii). I really want to home down on “an activity in the community arranged by MSD [staff].”, because there is a community work expectation as one of the non-financial sanctions that’s been imposed but I’m concerned that there’s no definition of it anywhere. I think that’s potentially quite concerning, given that, in overseas jurisdictions, we’ve seen these sorts of programmes potentially open to abuse and potentially open to exploitation. What meets the threshold for community work? I do think that is quite important.

What safeguards, if any, does the Minister intend to put in place to ensure that this sort of programme isn’t being abused? There are two ways that I can see it being abused. I invite my colleagues to think of some other hypotheticals and examples of how it might be abused, but the first is that a legitimate NGO might offer work that should be paid work but, instead, offer it as voluntary work. The second is that a business might set up a fake NGO arm to channel workers into their work. Has that sort of thing been considered?

In particular, I’d like to ask whether there has been advice that the Minister has requested, commissioned, or received around the impacts of this on the labour market. It could have the impact of supressing worker wages, and it could have the impact of actually cancelling jobs that might have been created or making jobs that are instead, basically, make-work jobs where the people in these positions are potentially being taken advantage of. That is a particularly important concern because we have seen in overseas jurisdictions—particularly in the experience of Australia—how there have been concerns that there are some employers who might take advantage of this situation. How might we distinguish between different kinds of legitimate community work and businesses that are looking to take advantage of that situation?

Another impact that I’d like to ask about is around whether there has been much consideration on the potential impact of this on the organisations themselves in terms of there being additional resourcing that will be made available to the community organisations. I can see there are a lot of people who are unemployed at the moment, and it’s being exacerbated by this Government’s slash-and-burn policies, but I won’t go that deeply into that. There’s a lot of unemployment at the moment. I can see a situation whereby the NGO sector, which is already dealing with quite a lot, has to suddenly accommodate a lot of people. Look, a lot of the people who are on the benefit in New Zealand—let’s not resort to stereotypes—are skilled, a lot of them are innovative, a lot of them are resourceful, and a lot of them will offer a lot of value within the organisations that they work for. However, the organisations will need a little bit of resourcing and will need a little bit of support to make sure that the employees, the people they are welcoming into their organisations, can have the proper manaakitanga that they deserve. The other—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Madam Chair!

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: We don’t have Lawrence here, so we’re scrambling among ourselves! Where was my train of thought? Yeah, it’s that concept that’s particularly important.

The other side of my questioning is around what the impact might be on wider volunteering itself. If volunteering in New Zealand becomes associated with being something you’re forced to do by the oppressive hand of the Government—the heavy hand of Government—will that lead to a drop-off in volunteer numbers? I think the vibe will be considerably different if I show up to a meeting and there are people who clearly don’t want to be there but are forced to be there.

I want to return to the threshold, as well, of the community work. Will political parties be able to use these community workers? Will we have people campaigning for different political parties who are forced to be there? I’ll leave these questions for now. I’m looking forward to an answer—

The member’s time has expired. I just want to recap on something, because we’ve had a change of Minister in the chair and we had some questions from the Hon Willie Jackson, just before we changed Ministers, about those people with special needs or those people unfamiliar with the system, people with capability who might need particular help in terms of completing profiles. The other question was around the misuse of profiles. I’ll just put that on the table. I’ll give the Minister a chance to think about that.

Ricardo Menéndez March: And the ministerial capability to fill them out, to assess whether they’re correctly assessed.

BARBARA KURIGER: Yeah, so I just want to give the Minister the opportunity to—

Hon Willie Jackson: Shall I repeat the speech?

BARBARA KURIGER: No, I don’t need you to repeat, unless I’ve missed anything. I think we’re quite happy with that. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask some questions that are related to those ones and to extrapolate a little bit further. One of those is simply whether the Minister can share what sort of organisations are saying yes to this kind of community work option. Do we know what kind of organisations would do that? I would hesitate to say most organisations that are based on voluntary work would necessarily want to engage. What sort of work is being considered, and where is the benefit seen in that for both parties?

I also want to know about new section 233A, inserted by clause 12, on page 14. That’s about the cancellation of the main benefit. I took, from the previous Minister in the chair, that she was talking about how we didn’t really have to worry about the settings around community work, because the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) workers would have quite a high degree of discretion and judgment about where they place people and how they place them and the kinds of capability they had to get to the job and whether they had enough money etc. to do that kind of work in that way. I take the point that we have a lot of really talented people in our MSD offices, who, actually, should often be given quite a lot of discretion, but this section, which is about cancellation of the main benefit, seems prescriptive. It says MSD “must cancel” a person’s benefit.

I’m hesitant to use this example because I don’t want to suggest that people who are on benefits are dealing with drug issues; a very small group of them are. If you’ve got somebody who’s, for example, got an addiction issue, they may be going through a process of coping, or not coping, and learning. The point where they get to this point of a breakdown in meeting obligations might be one where the case manager looks at them and thinks, “Actually, right now, they’re at a critical stage”. This provision seems to dictate to the case manager that they have no discretion at all in the situation. What I wanted to know from the Minister is why there is a “must” in this. Why have we gone for discretion in some places—“Don’t worry about it; we don’t have anything to see here.”—and yet, in other areas, we’ve tightened up and made things mandatory in this way? I take the point that one’s about placing someone in work and one’s about cutting off a benefit, but you’re still dealing with a human being in front of you, and there are myriads of situations.

When you have those kinds of discretions that you give people for, I think, very good reasons and where they actually get to make a judgment call and get to know a client and get to make those kinds of decisions, what kind of auditing is going to go on to balance that out? If they’ve got those discretions, usually we would see a check and balance in that situation, and so I would like to know what is going on there.

I’ve got a question about the money management part of the situation. I think a lot of us would have experienced, in our communities, going into a shop with a big sign on it saying, “WINZ quotes here”. You go into the shop, and the things that are being sold aren’t necessarily that great. They’re sometimes of quite questionable quality, but they’re often also more expensive than what I would pay for them if I had cash. I want to know, when the proposal is money management—which, to my understanding, means you’ll be telling people where to get things and how to use their money and controlling what purchases are made—how we are avoiding the problem that we constantly have where, if we subsidise accommodation, it goes up in cost and, if we manage the money and we have a preferred provider, suddenly that is built in because the Government is paying etc., and the cost goes up. These costs are often eventually placed very much on the beneficiary, and we end up with people who are also—[Time expired]

I think I can very quickly respond to the last question around the use of “must” and the lack of discretion. If the member draws her attention to clause 14 and the definition of “failure”, there’s the new section that will provide that the department must impose a sanction if there is a failure to comply with obligations. Then, in the “failure” definition, you must comply, or you must have failed without a “good and sufficient reason”. There is discretion in there for the department to determine whether or not there is a good and sufficient reason. There is a bit of discretion, although the “must” has to be applied in the person.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Kia ora tātou. Can I turn our attention to some questions that were asked, just prior, around clause 12 and new section 233A. Looking at this new section, I’m concerned, obviously, that people will have their main benefit cancelled. The impact of that is a big deal. It is a big deal for whānau. What I’m referencing, when I make those comments, is working in a family-harm team and working with people that were trying to get themselves, I guess, well and better. In a similar example to that of my colleague on my right, trying to get to all the appointments to comply, trying to get to the interview, trying to get to the court is tough—God, the whole setting is tough!—and trying to get to all of those, meeting those obligations, getting there on time, and ticking them off is often near impossible, particularly when they’re under such stress.

I live next to a Ministry of Social Development (MSD) office, by the way—well, I think it’s an MSD office because there are security guards outside. It’s a scary scenario for many families that are already in a really vulnerable place. It’s like, “Gee, here I go again! Now, my benefit is going to be cut. I have to go and reapply. I know these people haven’t already listened to me.” All of these new rules and regulations are furthering tension and pressure on families that do, in the main, want to get well. I guess my question is: in Part 1 clause 12, what support and mechanisms might be in place for families who become subject to these orders and provisions in ensuring that they have the tools, the resources, and the understanding of what is needed to become eligible?

This will likely need to be in a timely fashion, so there’s a lot of pressure. These people, without income, cannot survive—even some with income can’t survive, by the way. These are administrative processes that cause a lot of pressure. I have concerns around that and around how this will actually be activated and how it will occur. As you waltz up to a door—as I was saying, with the security guard—you walk in, you’re tagged, you’re given a number, and then you’re lined up like cows. Those are the recent memories that I have of working in such places. I’m not saying that all the MSD people are horrible. In fact, most of them are probably not horrible, but the conditions and the pressure that they are required to work under are tough.

I’m keen to know what the understandings are and what the support mechanisms are that the staff will have to engage with people that are already doing it tough and that are really ticked off because you’ve just cancelled their main benefit and because of the sheer pressure and stress that they’ll be carrying when they walk in the door. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. From my experience as a constituent MP in Ashburton, I can say that the support offered by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to their staff is incredibly valuable and rigorous. In an electorate where there was a horrific incident 10 years ago, the support offered to staff over that time and continuing is very robust, and so I can provide assurances that it is of a high standard. If for any reason it would be found to be wanting, then it would certainly be improved.

I will go to questions from Mr Jackson, who asked around the jobseeker profiles. I’m informed that the profiles are a standard feature in MSD’s current practice. MSD does support clients to complete the profiles, where that’s required, so if there are any accessibility issues, they can help with that, and they can also provide extensions. The member asked about the potential misuse of those profiles and misuse of information. Of course, MSD, along with every Government agency, takes the security of people’s personal and private information very seriously and takes misuse of that information very seriously as well. They will require information security and compliance with all privacy requirements in storing those profiles.

Now, there were some further questions—I don’t recall from whom—about community groups being able to offer community work experience. MSD can’t anticipate which community groups may be in a position to offer work experience until the clients are actually out there in the community, but they will reach out to wider local groups for those opportunities.

Ricardo Menéndez March: You could have consulted.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: There was actually a mixed response during MSD’s consultation, but there are providers out there who are willing to be open to helping clients with opportunities like this.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I find it really concerning that members of the other side have started trying to take calls, likely for closure motions. Two of the four benefit sanctions introduced here did not receive adequate select committee scrutiny and were not flagged publicly by the Minister for submissions, which means that, actually, this is the first time we get to adequately scrutinise two of those.

I want to take us to new sections 183C and 183D. These are found in clause 10. We haven’t actually spoken about those. I have a few questions and an amendment that I want to touch on on those. This is in relation to what happens if a person, spouse, or partner does not have the jobseeker profile completed. I particularly wanted to take us to new section 183C(3) in relation to the language, which says that “(a) any benefit referred to in section 183A(1) that … is granted, at half of the rate of that benefit payable to a beneficiary—(i) who is in a relationship;”. This is, basically, trying to articulate what happens if one half of a couple does not fill the jobseeker profile. What I wanted to ask is whether that half-rate would be deemed to be at the couple rate or at the single rate?

I say this because a couple rate is less than two single rates combined, which is a really archaic way of thinking. It immediately assumes that being in a relationship is cheaper than being single. I’m assuming mathematically that that doesn’t make sense. It’s just a really weird thing.

Simon Court: It is. You share bills.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Not necessarily, because people who are considered to be in a relationship—

Simon Court: You share cars.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: No, Mr Simon Court. Being in a relationship could be dating. We’ve had news stories about people going on Tinder dates being deemed to be in a relationship in the nature of marriage, which is why this is actually quite concerning. I wanted to ask, from a technical point of view, whether new section 183C(3) is going to be half a couple rate or, basically, a single rate.

On new section 183D, the “Period allowed for completion”, if we go to subsection (2), there’s that 20-working-day period that’s allowed for completion when it comes to the jobseeker profile. I particularly wanted to ask whether the Minister had sought any advice from Whaikaha or, for example, any of the disability organisations as to whether that 20-day work period adequately accounted for disabled people. I say this because the jobseeker benefit is often the first benefit that a disabled person will enter. Then, they will likely try to apply for the supported living payment if they do have long-term disabilities. Since a person’s first point of contact with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) as a disabled person is on the jobseeker benefit and they only have a 20-working-day period, I wanted to understand what work the Minister did to adequately consult with disability organisations to understand whether that was suitable.

This takes me to an amendment that I have under my name. This is Amendment Paper 281, which would go to clause 10. Basically, it deletes new section 183 and related clauses so that a person cannot be refused the benefit for the failure of their partner to complete the jobseeker profile. The reason for this amendment is that I’m really concerned about how family violence is not adequately incorporated here. In some ways, financial coercion could be used by one half of the couple to, basically, say, “I’m going to refuse to fill out this jobseeker profile and then, basically, strip away income from you.” In my view, it seems really counterintuitive that this could be used as a form of financial coercion in the way that the new section, as it is, is written. I would say that, actually, if the Government didn’t want to add new tools of financial control and coercion, my amendment to it would be a good way to—even if the Government wanted to retain the intent of the jobseeker profile—make sure that no perceived partner—I say “perceived” because it’s MSD who determines them, not necessarily the beneficiary—can actually then say, “I’m not going to fill the jobseeker profile” as a form of control, which, basically, becomes a tool of violence.

The individualisation of income support is something that has been campaigned on by advocates for a very, very long time. I myself, before becoming an MP, actually helped launch a campaign around this. It’s been well documented, actually, and the Child Poverty Action Group has talked about how this marrying of benefit entitlements and mixing of them has resulted in family violence becoming more prevalent. I wanted to touch on that. I still want to talk about clause 11, which I haven’t had a chance to do. I wanted to particularly go into the new section 233A on the “Cancellation of main benefit for continuing failure to comply”. I wanted to talk about subsection (3) that is found in this new section, because this subsection is subject to sections 236D(3)(d) and 245 to 248.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We’re jumping around a little bit, and I thought we’d moved on from clause 12, but I’ll address Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s questions from clause 12 around the support in place for clients to meet their obligations and to recomply. I’m advised that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) can do things like arranging recompliance activities at the earliest opportunity. Where a client makes contact, they can explain to clients exactly what they need to do to recomply and to get back on track with their obligations. That’s the initial support that’s in place for those clients.

There was a range of questions around community work experience, and I’ll try and fly through the answers quite quickly. I think these were in Mr Hernandez’s section. They were questions about whether community organisations will be vetted. Yes, they will. Is there support for travel entitlements—i.e., to attend the placement? No, there is no direct support for that. Access to hardship: clients will not be able to access the special needs housing grants—oh, yes, including emergency housing, yes, and special needs grants—while on non-financial sanctions. What kinds of organisations would be suitable? The MSD undertook consultation with a small number of community organisations, and some signalled that they actually could support clients.

Mr Menéndez March raised a point around his Amendment Paper. We, unfortunately, will not be supporting that Amendment Paper. He raised points about challenging the notion that it’s cheaper to live as a couple than it is to live separately. I can think of things like sharing fixed costs like the power costs that you could share, and the fixed-line daily rates would be more affordable if you were living in a shared relationship. I can think of things around telephone costs or internet costs, which would be much better shared in a relationship, and, of course, there’ll be situations on the border where the definition of “relationship” is blurred. I think, in general, it’s commonly accepted that it is much more affordable to live in a partnership and in one household, which is, of course, why many people, when they go out in the world, look to get boarders or they look to flat in order to share or split some of those core household costs. That’s why the rate for a single person is not exactly half the rate for a couple.

I’m going to call the Hon Willie Jackson, but before I do, I’m just going to say that if the Minister is going to be standing up answering questions, I’d prefer people not to be shouting back at him as he’s answering. The odd interjection is fine, but if you want to ask the question and listen to the answer, please listen to the answer.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the Minister in the chair, the Hon James Meager, for his previous answers. I still haven’t got the answers to what I was asking before in terms of new section 183B(1), inserted by clause 10, pertaining to Māori relationships. Knowing now that in the chair we have one of the Māori experts in the National Party, I’m sure he’d be able to traverse this very well, given his background and expertise. I asked it earlier, and I haven’t had that response. The impact in terms of whānau and kids—I’d like to know where the Minister stands on that.

I also talked about the gang question and what extra support—I know it’s a tough area, but it’s an area that has to be dealt with, because they come with complex needs. They’ve got these new laws around patches, which we understand and we work by, too, at my marae, so there’s not a problem with that. What extra pūtea or funding has been put in to support this area?

The key area in this, for me and for us, is the by Māori, for Māori area, which has been a real component in terms of this Government. I want to remind the Minister that it’s actually been a strategy from previous National Party Governments. I want to know from him, in terms of jobseeker profiles, what sorts of Māori approaches are being put in place to facilitate the completion of profiles and compliance. I know that, on my marae, we have an approach that’s not just an individual approach; it’s an approach that embraces the whānau, the wider community, and trained professionals who’ve worked with the whānau. What has the Minister got in place, and what are his comments on this? Is a by Māori, for Māori approach still going to be the strategy in terms of where this kaupapa goes? We’ve been assured by the Minister that there are not going to be huge changes. Given Minister Meager’s expertise in terms of tikanga Māori, I’m sure he’ll want to comment on this and give us his view. Has the Minister considered the unintended consequences with regards to this?

Further to the question I asked earlier about the level of consultation, I’d like to know that if the Minister’s able to find out. Has there been a level of consultation in terms of Māori NGOs, and is there a strategy around that? Has there been a level of consultation in terms of the Iwi Leaders Forum? Minister Meager, perhaps, may have been involved in some of that kōrero. What is the stakeholder feedback to these measures? As I say, we’d like to really find out if there has been a real strategy, given the high benefit numbers—too high; too high in terms of Māori. Our people still deserve a certain amount of respect on this.

Given that, I want to draw your attention to one of my amendments to new section 183A, inserted by clause 10, which adds, “Consider the specific needs of Māori.” Would you consider implementing that going forward? Is there going to be a radical change in terms of the relationship with Māori? Is by Māori, for Māori something that this Government is still—I remember previous National Governments led by Bill English were quite embracing of that kaupapa; they were absolutely embracing of this kaupapa. Is that something that is on the table still, in terms of this Government? Given all the bad publicity, we’ve been assured that that type of kaupapa is still in place. I ask the Minister: where does the Government stand on this consultation process? Will he consider the amendments in terms of considering specific needs for Māori, and is there a specific strategy going forward that embraces the community?

Also, I want to know, from the Minister, how he distinguishes between iwi and NGOs. This is quite a major question, given Mariameno’s got some fundamentalist mates who just want to be consulted. We want some of our groups at ground level to be consulted. Is the Minister going down that track in terms of broad consultation?

I thank the member the Hon Willie Jackson for his kind comments and his elaboration on my many years of experience of being a Māori. I’ve been a Māori all my life, despite the protests of some people in this Chamber.

I want to respond to one of his questions about whether there is going to be a specific approach taken to clients. I would have faith that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) would take whatever approach suits an individual client’s needs best, whether that be bringing in expert advocates like himself to support people through the process, whether that be including whānau in that process, or whether that be determining what the individual themselves actually wants help with to go through that process. I think it’s whatever works best for that person and that family and how well MSD can help them best move through the jobseeker process and back into work that would be the approach that we should take—whether that’s through a particular kaupapa Māori approach or whether that’s a Pasifika approach or a particular ethnic or age or any kind of demographic approach. Take whatever one works best, based on the individual’s needs and assessment. We won’t be supporting the member’s amendment, by the way.

I’ll address Mr Menéndez March’s questions around consultation with disability groups, which were, in particular, in regards to whether a 20-day working period was enough time to complete a jobseeker profile. Along with the assistance that I outlined before, the 20-day working period aligns with how long a person has to complete their whole benefit application. MSD, in that situation, can allow a client more time if they have a good reason for needing it. In those particular circumstances, a disabled person could take longer if their condition means that they need it in order to complete the requirement. I would anticipate that MSD are quite forthcoming with that.

I’ll just address some of the reasons why we’re not going to support Mr Menéndez March’s amendment in Amendment Paper 281. It’s our view that the bill already provides protections for clients when their partner does not complete jobseeker profiles. Clients and their partners can have an extension, all the requirements can be revoked, and MSD has discretion in this matter and would certainly use it in situations involving family violence.

We indicated at the start of this that we were going clause by clause, and it’s been going very well. People have been looking at the clauses. It’s now my judgment that probably everything before clause 15 amending section 236A on page 16 has probably been well-traversed and well-answered, so I’d prefer if questions came from beyond there. The Hon Kieran McAnulty—is this a point of order or a call?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Oh, no, I’m seeking a call.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK—the Hon Kieran McAnulty.

Point of order. Thank you very much for your reflections. I did want to touch on, particularly, parts of clause 14. For example, I just want to, because no one has mentioned anything—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ve just taken a call from the Hon Kieran McAnulty.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I know, but I wanted to just test the comments—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, is this a question? I know it’s a point of order—is this a question that hasn’t been—

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: It’s a point of order. I’m seeking your clarification.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, but the point of order—is it about a question that hasn’t been answered?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: No, I’m seeking your clarification and your comments around the clauses that have been covered.

Yeah, well, we’ve had plenty of opportunities to take them. We can’t spend all day at the beginning of the parts, so it’s my discretion that we’ve covered that part off pretty well. I’m going to take a call from the Hon Kieran McAnulty.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Can you point out where clause 14 has been adequately—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, I’ve made a ruling, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You’ll be pleased to know that my contribution is about new section 236B, inserted by clause 15. I specifically want to talk about the community work experience. It goes down under subsection (4)(a)(i) and outlines the type of community work experience that might be suitable. Obviously, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has the discretion to decide.

I actually hadn’t intended to take a call, but I was reading through the bill, and this thing caught my eye. It caught my eye because many years ago for a period of time under the Key Government, I was a case manager at Work and Income.

Helen White: I did not know that.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Yep. Yeah, no, I’m a pretty private guy. The regular frustration for us when we were trying to help people into work during that time—and it was a difficult period of time—was that many of the rules that came out in that period were really made for the cities and weren’t made for regional and rural New Zealand. Of course, if you become unemployed in rural New Zealand, it is exceptionally difficult to comply with any requirements. It’s even harder to comply with sanctions just by virtue of the fact that you live so far away from the place where you’re supposed to engage with your case manager.

Now, obviously, technology has improved since then, but the point remains the same: if you are on a significantly restricted income due to being unemployed and you are required to report at significant cost and time just to get there, or you’re required to search for jobs in some areas where there are no jobs, that is a massive barrier. It wasn’t considered then, and reading through this, I’m concerned that it’s not considered now. More specifically, I want to look at the two descriptions that may comply with community work experience—the first being with a community or voluntary sector organisation that MSD is satisfied is reasonably suitable, and the other one that MSD is satisfied is reasonably suitable. This part hasn’t been addressed by previous speakers.

My concern is that some communities—and, actually, the Minister in the chair will recognise this from his electorate itself—are so isolated and so small that the opportunity to engage with the community or voluntary group is actually really limited. In some rural communities, the only volunteer organisation would be the rural fire brigade, and there is no way in hell that they—through their rules that are based on health and safety—would allow anyone that is required to comply with these to volunteer for them. It’s quite a long and protracted process to get involved in the fire brigade, with good reason. The point I’m trying to make is that, in these isolated rural communities, the opportunity to comply with this is actually quite restricted. It’s not unreasonable or unfeasible that there could be someone in these current, difficult economic times that finds themselves without work and needs assistance through Work and Income and is required through the process to then do community work experience but can’t find anywhere that would take them on. I want to know what would happen in that instance. It’s a genuine question. I think it deserves to be traversed in the committee stage today.

The other thing that I want to clarify is whether the Minister can rule out that an organisation that isn’t a community or voluntary sector organisation would be considered to comply with this. In other words, could a business fit the bill? If a business does fit the bill and it could be deemed reasonably suitable by MSD given the lack of suitable community and voluntary organisations in a specified area, can he rule out the prospect that someone who’s required to do community work will end up doing so for a private employer for no pay? Now, that might seem ridiculous, and, if it is, it’s easily clarified, but if there isn’t a restriction on that, then that’s quite a serious thing that would deserve further exploration. That’s just a couple of questions for the Minister there, and we might follow up after.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I am trying to answer these questions in real time so we can get some good back and forth and some quick progress. I’ll point the member back to retread a couple of pages back to clause 14 and the definition around “failure”. That failure does not include having a good and sufficient reason, so you must have failed without a good and sufficient reason.

In the circumstance that the member outlines around the rural and regional community, he makes a very valid point. I’ll push back a little bit. I think, actually, our rural communities are relatively strong when it comes to the accessibility to voluntary groups. I can think of an incorporated society’s constitution that I rewrote for the Lagmhor Westerfield War Memorial Hall Committee, and in and around the community of Lagmhor and Westerfield, where my brother farms, I can think of three or four community organisations that centre themselves around a school of about 30. So, yep, in some communities, it will be limited; in others, there are very strong community organisations. In the rural sector and regional sector, the only things that we have sometimes are our strong community organisations, our parent-teacher associations, our kindergarten groups, our Playcentre groups, our hall societies, the local school pool organising committees—all those things that form the backbone of our rural communities.

I’m advised that the bill, in fact, will give case managers more scope to apply consequences that are appropriate for the client than what existed before. If anything, along with removing that binary choice between financial or nothing, this provides, actually, more of a medium way to put some obligations on clients but also to give them the opportunity to meet those obligations and continue to work their pathway back into work, and that includes considering things like where they live and what’s available locally.

I think the only other question there for the Minister was around whether businesses could fit the bill. I’ll get some advice on that. My instinct would be that, if it was replacing something that would ordinarily be paid work, it would be similar to how you can have interns but not interns that would ordinarily replace paid work. Members around the Chamber have had experience with that in the past, and we’ve all seen instances of interns coming into Parliament and doing jobs that ordinarily wouldn’t be paid for. Sometimes they push the boundaries a little bit, and we’ve seen that in the past too, so I’ll get some advice on that one from the ministry.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Ricardo Menéndez March. I do note that I have confirmed and I did hear the advice that was given before regarding clause 15.

Sure. I’ll take it. I wanted to ask why dependent children were added to the definition of “failure”. That is in clause 14. It hasn’t been touched upon. It’s new language that’s been added. Why would you be including that “failure” means “by the person, or in relation to the person’s dependent children” when that was not there? What is the policy intent to that? That is massively unclear and has never been articulated by the Minister at any point in this debate. That’s a significant addition in terms of language. Unless it’s intended to fill some sort of gap that had been identified, I’m keen to get clarity as to why, for section 235 of the Social Security Act, this is being proposed.

Before I move to clause 15 on money management—that also hasn’t been touched upon—I wanted to clarify for the Minister in the chair, who seems to not understand, the definition of “relationship” under the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). You actually don’t have to live together for MSD to treat you as being in a relationship of the nature of marriage. Actually, you could be flatting in different places and still be considered to be in a relationship of the nature of marriage. In fact, there have been well-documented cases of MSD constantly misattributing a relationship of the nature of marriage for people, which is why I was asking those questions.

If we move to new section 236A on money management, I want to talk about the proposed new subsection (1) under new section 236A, where the money management—which, again, is the first time we’ve raised it—would apply if somebody is under active case management. Now, I ask this because this kind of section, even though the Minister has talked about how it’ll apply to a small percentage of people on the benefit, will still apply to thousands, and it requires somebody to be under active case management. I wanted to know, since the select committee process, whether the Minister understood, or had any updated figures around, how many people are under active case management.

Actually, what is MSD’s capacity to, potentially, for example, increase the amount of people that are under active case management? Actually, for a lot of these non-financial sanctions that are being added, there’s an ongoing requirement for people to be under active case management. Now, I think that, in and of itself, raises concerns in relation to the oversubscription of the MSD front line. If there’s going to be, in primary legislation, a requirement that somebody’s under active case management—the Government has indicated that they’ll want to increase the amount of sanctions; the Minister who was here before the one in the chair literally talked about how this Government believes in sanctions being applied more often. I have concerns about whether this is actually able to even be executed. That’s on new section 236A.

I also wanted to then move on to new section 236A(1)(b) in relation to the “first failure”, particularly in relation to the language that is being added around discussions with MSD and an appointment with MSD in relation to a person’s failure to comply. I wanted to ask whether, so far, MSD had already designed any operational guidance around whether these forms of communications will be by phone, face to face, or by email, and how that would be incorporated.

I also wanted to then move on to new subsection (4), which is in relation to how money management will be applied in “the prescribed proportion of an instalment of [a person’s] main benefit that is an instalment payable to [a person]”, where this touches on the regulations under section 418(1)(ia). I wanted to ask whether the Minister would be open to one of our amendments in relation to this, because, at the moment, with the way that this is worded and as the Minister touched upon earlier, people won’t be able to access hardship assistance. We have an amendment that allows people to access hardship assistance while they’re under non-financial sanctions. “Non-financial” isn’t defined in the bill in and of itself, but if we are told that people can’t access financial assistance while they’re under a non-financial sanction, that to me has financial implications, and I just don’t see how that is logical. I wanted to understand whether, after seeing advice from MSD, which wasn’t presented to him or to us prior to this bill being introduced, that shows that jobseeker beneficiaries on average are paying more than 50 percent of their income on rent, he thinks new subsection (4) in new section 236A is adequate.

I also wanted to ask about new subsection (6), which talks about how money management is imposed on a person, and there are conversations around the minimum amount of time, but there’s nothing around the maximum amount of time that is being prescribed. We do have an amendment as well that I haven’t spoken about that would then add—[Time expired]

I’m just wary that we’re running through too many five-minute slots without getting to questions that previous members have asked, so I wanted to circle back to Kieran McAnulty’s question. It was an important one around whether the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) consider organisations such as businesses for community work experience when they aren’t actually community or volunteer organisations. The definition of “organisations” in the bill is broad, but MSD has been quite clear that those opportunities cannot displace paid work, and MSD would not approve community work experience if it is not a community organisation in a volunteer-type role. There may be some grey areas around some businesses that run charitable operations or have charitable aspects to their business, but it cannot replace paid work.

There was a question from Mr Menéndez March around dependent children: why were they included in the bill? It refers to social—

Ricardo Menéndez March: No—on the “failure” definition.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Yes—the “failure” definition back in clause—whatever it was—that we’ve gone back to, but hopefully we move forward. It refers to the social obligations which require clients to meet certain requirements in respect of their dependent children, and those obligations are part of the traffic light system. Dependent children, themselves, do not have obligations.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Can I just indicate to you, members, that the endeavour, in the committee of the whole House stage, is to try and get interactions going—questions and answers. I know it takes a committed Minister and a committed questioner to do that, but let’s endeavour to do that, and, in that case, I’ll make sure that I give the questioners and the Minister the time to do that. That way, we can get through it. There’s a lot to get through in here. To those who are calling for closure motions, can I suggest you actually have a look at the bill and see how big Part 1 is. Not to curb your enthusiasm, but there is quite a lot in here. It is within your rights, but I would suggest you pick up the bill and have a look at it.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I am trying to pack in as many questions as I can to actually respect the process. I genuinely want to honour the process that we have.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Can I just—

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I’m just going to continue—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’m endeavouring to keep up as well—

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I can slow the process down.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): If you could just, perhaps, make it a little bit easier, particularly when we’re using a lot of sections and numbers.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Yes, absolutely. There are no worries from our end. I wanted to understand whether the Minister in the chair thinks there’s any merit to having not just a prescribed minimum amount of time that people can be subjected to some of these non-financial sanctions but actually having a prescribed maximum amount of time. I say this because of the financial implications that people can end up being subjected to.

The other reason that I wanted to talk about money management and continue that line of questioning was because the Government has yet to produce a list of essential items and what is considered to be essential. I have another amendment under my name that would seek to give greater clarity. Why I’m putting this amendment forward is because, at the front lines, for example, there’s very little clarity for people on the benefit and, I would say, even for front-line case managers, as to what is considered, for example, essential under what can be purchased with the green card. The green card is something—colloquially known as a green card—that people use when they get given a hardship grant. This green card will now be used more often because it’s the one that’s going to be used when people are subjected to compulsory money management.

For example, colloquially, people assume that that can only be mostly used, at least in the grocery store, for things like food, but, for example, toiletries can be included in that. I would say that there’s an opportunity to add a non-exhaustive list of essential items, or what could be considered essential, to give greater clarity and guidance. I think that could be something that the Minister could consider.

One of the questions where I left off before the Minister stood up is whether he had given any other thought about the use of discretion in the application of compulsory money management, following the evidence we received at the select committee stage in relation to the percent that people pay on rent. I find that this shows that compulsory money management, in and of itself, is unlikely to be workable for the average beneficiary. The departmental report—and even the select committee report that we had—very clearly showed that it’s just over 50 percent for a person on the benefit, and it is not just that, right? While you’re under compulsory money management, you may not be able to then access hardship assistance. You will be able to access your accommodation supplement, but the reduction on your ability to use half of your benefit to pay for your rent will leave the person under compulsory money management without the means to survive.

I also wanted to understand—because people can’t access emergency housing grants, should somebody lose their home while they’re subjected to compulsory money management—whether the Minister believes that the access to the grants that allow people to access emergency housing should be relaxed. The worst-case scenario we could see is somebody being subjected to compulsory money management, losing their home, and not even being able to access emergency housing while they’re under compulsory money management. That seems like a financial impact to what is supposed to be a non-financial sanction.

Just lastly, on compulsory money management, I wanted to see if the Minister had an update. At the select committee, we were yet to get, for example, the most up-to-date list of the retailers that people could then use for compulsory money management. Specifically, are these going to be absolutely the same as, for example, the ones that you can use the card for when you receive a hardship grant, or will there be a slightly different list there to better accommodate things?

I also want to note that bills cannot be paid with the card that is used for compulsory money management, and that is another problem, because it’s not just that the 50 percent that goes into people’s rent will mean that they can’t put a roof over their head but it’s also that they can’t use the rest of that amount to cover the bills. We are looking not only at people not being able to put a roof over their head but also at people not being able to pay their bills. I’m curious to see how the Minister sees the provisions of the compulsory money management sanctions in relation to the potential hardship that people can experience under this benefit sanction.

Thank you, Mr Chair. The officials are doing a much better job at keeping up with the flurry of questions than I am. I’ll do my best to try and get through as many of Mr Menéndez March’s questions as possible. He started off, a couple of contributions ago, asking whether or not we have confidence in there being capacity to execute the policy. Yes, we have confidence. He then went on to ask whether or not subsection (4) was adequate under new section 236B, inserted by clause 15. Yes, we believe it is adequate.

Then we had a long discussion around money management and active case management. In response to some of the questions, part of the reason that money management is targeted at clients already in case management is that the Ministry of Social Development is already working with these people and they are well equipped to determine the most appropriate sanction for them, because they are the ones that are most familiar with their clients’ individual circumstances. All non-financial sanctions are available to clients who are in case management.

In terms of the question around “We have a minimum time; will we set a maximum time?”, we have decided not to set a maximum time in the bill. We would be hoping that our clients would be under these sanctions for as little time as possible because we want people back on their feet. We want people to be independent and living strong, independent, and healthy lives.

There were some questions, again, around active money management. I’m advised that a list of suppliers will be available to clients when the policy is implemented. Mr Menéndez March has proposed a range of Amendment Papers that would change and cap the amount of money on payment cards. This would actually reduce future flexibility in the system, and we don’t support those changes.

There is an additional Amendment Paper there from Mr Menéndez March around providing clients access to the temporary additional support. That’s already the case under the bill. However, it is a longstanding policy that clients under sanctions cannot access hardship assistance. Access to hardship is a matter outside of the scope of the bill, and those settings exist in secondary legislation.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I wanted to move to one of the benefit sanctions that was introduced at the select committee stage, with no ability for the public to actually feed into those during a submission process. This is the report job search, which is in new section 236E, which is being added under clause 15B—well, new section 236E to the Social Security Act, under clause 15B of the Social Security Amendment Bill. This is called the report job search. I wanted to ask the Minister—because, again, this was approved by Cabinet but wasn’t even mentioned in the press release by the Minister when she announced the bill. We were only alerted to this when amendments at the select committee stage came through, which means that the Minister knew that she intended to introduce this and didn’t let the public know; therefore, the public wasn’t able to submit. Mm-hmm! That’s correct. We’re now debating this, basically, for the first time.

This job search, those job supervisions, which is one of the non-financial sanctions that is being added, requires that beneficiaries subjected to the sanction apply for a number of jobs each week and report back to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) as a result of this. For example, if we look at subsection (4) under the new proposed section 236E of the Social Security Act, it reads: “If report job search is imposed on [the person],—(a) [the person] must within the prescribed period … undertake at least the prescribed minimum number of job-search activities per week”. Again, there’s a minimum amount prescribed here; there’s no maximum amount. What’s stopping a vindictive case manager, for example, from potentially setting a really cruel and punitive number of prescribed—or a future Minister from directing MSD to add a really unreasonable amount of minimum job search activities that must be undertaken?

In relation to this, the bill talks about how these must be reported, and this clause talks about how these must be reported back to MSD, but the Minister hasn’t given us clarity about, for example, what tools are being developed—for example, MyMSD. Have these already been finalised? What are the fiscal implications around potentially having to design a new portal for people to actually report these job search activities? While I totally understand that the Minister has just talked about how he is confident about MSD’s capacity, we do have recent statements about the front line being oversubscribed. Particularly in subsection (4)(c)(i), (ii), and (iii), these provisions read that a person “must provide MSD with supporting evidence of all job-search activities that [the person] has reported under this section,—(i) only to the extent that the evidence is of a kind that it is reasonable … (ii) in the way that MSD decides … and (iii) promptly after MSD requires the evidence, and in any case within five days after the prescribed period.”

This actually adds quite a bit of work to MSD, because it’s not just assessing the work that the beneficiary has undertaken to then report that they’ve done these job search activities. In order for the beneficiary to be deemed to have then complied with the requirements of this new non-financial sanction, MSD must be satisfied, which means the casework must then have to evaluate these three—at least three, as Minister Louise Upston has indicated she’s requiring right now—job search activities. That’s quite a bit of additional workload. It’s not just looking at three applications for each person who’s subjected to the sanction; it’s actually determining that they meet the standards that MSD will be asking for. Will this be, for example, just sending your CV or having a cover letter that, actually, is not just “Hello, I want a job”? The fact that MSD will then have to determine whether these meet some specific requirements does add quite a bit of workload.

I also wanted to understand, for this new section 236E in relation to the report job search, whether any additional funding will be given to people for whom English isn’t their first language, because I can see that, for example, for someone for whom English isn’t their first language or who may have limited English skills, this may be an obligation that may be hard to comply with. When I was on the front lines, I would work with a lot of migrant Pasifika families for whom English wasn’t their first language. Complying with these obligations can be really difficult. I understand that MSD has phone lines where people can access interpreters, but there are delays around this, so I’m just asking whether the Minister has sought clarification from MSD about the support available for people with limited English skills to be able to comply with the requirements set out in new section 236E, particularly in subsection (4)(c)(i), (ii), and (iii).

We are really rollicking along now. Let’s go to the remaining questions on active money management. There was a question around how money management interacts with hardship people may experience. In terms of paying bills, clients will still get 50 percent of their main benefit as well as any supplementary assistance in the hand. Clients can use these funds to pay bills that can’t be covered with the payment card, but the payment card can be used for some essential costs, such as food. We all know all of this, of course. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) then assesses whether money management is the most appropriate sanction to impose, and this will include working out whether a person could pay their housing costs from their in-hand amount. But, fundamentally underlying this, a non-financial sanction must always be a better option than a financial sanction, which can only reduce payments by 50 percent. That’s that binary choice. Again, on that, although cards cannot be used for bills, clients’ expenses will be considered when deciding whether to set active money management. If a client’s expenses—that includes rent and bills—exceed 50 percent, it would be considered as a factor in deciding whether to apply it in the first place.

Now, Mr Menéndez March made some comments around information being in or out of a press release. Now, with all due respect to the very competent communications advisers around the building, press releases are not the be all and end all of Government policy. You do have to look further into various policy documents. The bill itself—

Ricardo Menéndez March: There’s no way they could have submitted.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: I’ll get to the rest of the question—and then the question around how this is the first time we’re considering the change made by the Social Services and Community Committee.

Ricardo Menéndez March: In the House, yeah.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Well, of course, that’s the process that this Parliament goes through in terms of considering a bill. A bill goes through to select committee. The select committee hears submissions. Submitters sometimes make really good points. Those points are incorporated into select committee reports, which recommend changes to the House. The House considers those changes at second reading, and they vote on them, and they incorporate them into the bill. Then the bill moves forward to the committee of the whole House stage where we get a chance to debate them. That is the process that the select committee goes through, and I’m very encouraged that we have a legislative process that is one of the strongest in the world, actually. Of course, it sets out a very detailed and well-trod pathway for legislators in this House to consider the content of bills, to hear submissions, to make changes, and then to debate them, whether or not they’ll be supported in the House. Of course, the House has accepted the amendments to the bill at second reading, and, now, we’re talking about the detail clause by clause.

Finally, just on whether or not MSD are capable of implementing these changes, well, MSD are a highly professional, competent organisation. They are a large, established organisation who have been doing this for many, many years. They will implement the appropriate training for their staff to be able to roll out these kinds of new policies. I’m very, very confident that our excellent men and women at the Ministry of Social Development can do this now and a long way into the future.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I only have, unlike my colleague Mr Menéndez March, one point. It’s actually around what happens if the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) fails to impose a sanction. In my constituency role, I’ve dealt with a number of people whose benefits have been paid mistakenly. One was an accommodation benefit, which was paid about $20 too much for six months. Now, it was money they weren’t entitled to, and MSD came and sought to recover it as a debt, and that was really onerous. I understand that, and we resolved that.

One of the challenges here—and I’m looking at clause 15, and section 236 of the Act itself—is “If this section applies to P [a person], MSD must, for the first failure of P, reduce the rate of P’s main benefit by half until P recomplies.”

Now, given that, as the Minister just said, MSD is a large organisation and it deals with a lot of clients, there’s going to be a lot of these things going on, and these are actual trigger points. It does not say MSD “may” impose this sanction; it says they “must”. If the trigger occurs and they don’t impose the sanction, does that lead us to a conclusion that the beneficiary “P” is being overpaid? Now, the sanctions are, on some occasions, half but, on other occasions, the entire benefit. That could be $700 or $800 a week. Now, if the MSD system fails to pick up or a person fails to action the reduction that is mandated by this legislation, is it the case that the beneficiary is receiving, wrongly, $800 a week and MSD will then be obliged to go and recover that $800? Are we, if this occurs, throwing the beneficiary into a pit of debt? Of course, they won’t be concerned; they’ll think, “Well, MSD’s not too worried about me. I’ll keep my benefit. All is well and good.”

MSD is stuck on the horns of a dilemma, because they’re obliged to impose the sanction—they haven’t—and they’ll be obliged to recover it. Is that what’s happened? Now, I know that, in the depths of the Act, there is a provision that says, where MSD makes a mistake—I can’t remember the exact details, but there is some ability to give an indulgence, but if my memory serves me right, this wouldn’t fit within it. It’s actually quite an important problem, because there will certainly be cases where, for whatever reason, sanctions that meet the “must” test aren’t imposed. I’d be curious to know what the response to that would be, once you get some advice.

Thank you, Mr Chair. We’re getting a number of questions generally around the suitability of sanctions, so I’ll reiterate that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) determine the most appropriate sanctions for clients, and if a particular non-financial sanction is not appropriate, MSD have a range of other options they can consider. Hopefully, that puts to bed questions around whether or not some sanctions or others are suitable.

On Mr Menéndez March’s questions around the tools being developed to support the report job search, people will be able to complete the requirements via their MSD profiles, and staff are being trained to support people to meet these requirements. On the question along the lines of assistance for English, or otherwise, literacy skills, as with any client engagement, MSD have been doing this for years. They’re mindful of different clients’ circumstances in engaging with them, and they can provide assistance with literacy or English skills.

There was a question around what we do if MSD acts unreasonably in setting a minimum time period. Well, those decisions are administrative decisions which are all reviewable for reasons of reasonableness. Those remedies exist under this change, as they have existed under administrative decisions across Government for years and years.

Then to Dr Webb’s question, which is kind of a circular one: what happens if MSD don’t impose sanctions and what’s the impact on a client? Well, sanctions don’t apply until sanctions are applied, so it’s kind of a circular argument, but there’s not going to be a disbenefit to the individual until the sanctions are actually applied. You can’t fail to follow a sanction until the sanction is in place. It’s kind of a tautology that tracks itself.

On the general question of what happens if MSD don’t follow the requirements under the Act, well, again, that’s just similar to any agency that has requirements under a piece of legislation. The failure to follow those obligations are the same ones that have been in place for years and years and years.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I think I can help the Minister with his problems around sanctions. I think we all know that the research tells us that sanctions don’t work. In fact, we’ve been told very clearly that it can just compound problems for the whānau.

Joseph Mooney: Why did you keep it for six years as the Labour Government?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, we made a lot of changes, I thought, in that time. The culture of the Ministry of Social Development was changed dramatically by the previous Minister, and we brought a more aroha and manaaki - type approach. I was very proud of what the previous Minister did.

I can help the Minister in terms of new section 236A, inserted by clause 15. He will see that I’ve got a tabled amendment up which is designed so that families are not left with nothing. That’s the problem with the sanction; they’re too punitive. I know it fits in with Joseph Mooney’s and many of the National Party members’ general views about always pushing down on beneficiaries, but it’s not the right type of policy for us to see our community thriving. That’s why I put up an amendment. I’m sure that the Minister, given some of his answers, will probably agree. This is under clause 15, in new section 236A. He’ll see my amendment in terms of reducing the rate of a person’s main benefit to an extent that it threatens the wellbeing of children or people for whom that person is responsible or it diminishes the financial position to an extent that recovery will be difficult to achieve. I think that that will cover the problem in terms of the punitive side.

He will also see, in terms of my amendment, that the principles of the Treaty are there. Again, given his background and his experience in te ao Māori, I’m interested in his view. Does he see this as a breach of Treaty principles that the National Party holds so dear—as they told us during the Treaty principles debate—or where does he see it? I’d like him just to elaborate in terms of his Māori answers. He gave me some answers before, but does he consider that there is a partnership in place, and where does that extend to in terms of Māori going forward? In terms of whānau going forward and in terms of the strategies around by Māori, for Māori, where does that extend? What is the Minister’s position? I’d like a response in terms of that sanction because I think it’s far too punitive at the moment. I think that my amendment will help the Minister immensely and the House, who all have whānau at the forefront of their priorities.

We’re talking about subsection (3), “Effect: general”, in Part 1, clause 15, new section 236A, “Sanction for first failure: money management”. That sanction, as per my new paragraph (c), is put in place so as to not impact the wellbeing of our children, so that their financial position isn’t made worse by the sanction preventing recovery and making it difficult to achieve. I think it’s a pretty clear message and question for the Minister. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. This one is an easy one: we won’t be supporting the member’s amendment, because the bill already does exactly what he wants it to do. It introduces non-financial sanctions so that there is a stepping stone rather than it being an all or nothing situation, and so we can put obligations on people who are trying to get back on their feet and do not unfairly financially penalise them. In terms of his question around Treaty partnership, I just refer the member to the inspirational speech given by the Hon David Parker last night and his views on that particular question; I thought they were quite enlightening.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to ask you about—on page 39, new section 270A, inserted by clause 33—the cancellation of the youth payment and incentives for continued failure to comply. At subclause (2), it says that “MSD must”—“must”; again, it’s the use of the word “must”—“also cancel the following benefits if P is receiving them:”. Along with those two incentive payments, or youth payments, there’s a cancellation of the accommodation supplement, temporary additional support, and any disability allowance. I’d like to understand the rationale for this.

My understanding is that this is dealing with fairly young people, by the nature of the wording, and if they’ve entered into a lease for accommodation which has attracted an accommodation supplement, they’re then in a situation where they have a lease that they’re contractually obliged to be in, but there will no longer be money to make that possible. I’m concerned about this sort of spiralling issue for somebody who might already be in difficulty then having that compounded by the cancellation of an accommodation supplement and really having the rug pulled from under their feet. I’m not quite sure what they’re supposed to do, at that point, about that and why we’re seeing that this is going be a good thing or is in proportion. I understand that there is a need for other penalties, but that seems quite dramatic, and I wondered whether the Minister has had advice on that particular section and what the rationale was.

I note that there’s a very similar treatment of young parents in that situation. They, again, lose their accommodation supplement, temporary support, and disability allowance. In that case, there’ll obviously be an impact on children in that situation, given that it’s a young parent. I would like to know if there was any advice on that and to get the Minister to talk about why that’s justified.

Then, finally, I’d like to know about the credit card payments. This is an interesting thing. My understanding is there’s credit loaded on a card, in money management. It’s to be used in certain ways. It says, in that paragraph—this is page 46, new section 340B, inserted by clause 50, subclause (2)—that “MSD may, after receiving an oral or a written application to do so”, actually pay the person out if they come to the end of the money management period and there’s money on the card. They can be given that money. It’s an interesting concept. I’d like to know whether the idea is to incentivise saving on that card so it can be cashed up at the end. I really am open to what the point of this is, but it’s an interesting one because the amounts are pretty low anyway. I presume we’re not talking about a great deal of quantum that would even accumulate on a card, but I’d like to know what kind of quantum might be possibly at stake here. Thank you. I’m looking forward to the answers.

I’ll approach the first half of those questions, and the officials can provide some specific advice on the second half. In terms of the failure to comply with the sanction, the legislation is very clear that there’s a 13-week window in which the client has, or individual has, to comply with the particular obligation. That’s three months. Then the failure must be without good cause or good reason, so not only does it have to take a three-month period of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) continually trying to engage and work with that individual, particularly if they’re a young person, but then there also has to be a failure without good reason or good cause. You’re talking about a situation where there is repeated unreasonable failure to work with MSD and to comply with their obligations and to hold up their end of the bargain.

We understand there are all sorts of exacerbating circumstances and there are difficult situations that could cause MSD to believe that there are good reasons for failure to comply, but at some point, there must be a balancing test between what the obligations are on individuals receiving support from the community and what the obligations are on all of us to provide that support. That’s the reason why the penalty is in place if there is a failure to comply, and I’ll get some advice on the second part of the question.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Following on my line of questioning on the report job search, in my last call, I talked about subclause (4) of new section 236E, inserted by clause 15B, but I want to move on to subclause (5), which talks about the duration. One of the concerns that I have in how subclause (5) is worded is that the way in which I can see the report job search working is that it’s applied for a duration of time in which the person’s required to apply for a specific number of jobs and to report back to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), but they can’t access additional assistance. The key concern that I have is what happens if, during the duration of the sanction, somebody actually reports that they’ve applied for a job, they get an interview, and, for example, that interview requires them to travel, to get a uniform, or to require additional assistance. There are grants that very much specifically exist. The transition to work grant, for example, exists. Are people eligible for the transition to work grant if they’re subjected to the report job search non-financial sanction?

The transition to work grant hasn’t been updated in quite some time, but it’s actually really critical to, for example, supporting people should they be required to have, for example, specific types of footwear for a job. If they have to present wearing boots for health and safety reasons, that allows them to actually get the job that they need.

The concern that I have is that we have a so-called non-financial sanction that requires them to apply for a specific number of jobs, but then they can’t actually access the assistance that allows them to then follow through with the application, the interview, and then getting the job. The Government is doing the very opposite to what they told us they want to do. I wonder if the Government would consider suspending the report job search sanction should, for example, somebody get to the interview stage of this process so that they can then apply for the additional assistance that means that they can then acquire other types of grants that allow them to then enter into employment, which I would have assumed was part of the Government’s goal.

That actually takes me to two amendments under my name that I haven’t spoken to. Similar to what I said around lifting the report job search should the person meet the required intent, I also wonder whether, in the compulsory money management section, maybe we could have language in new section 236A(6)(b), inserted by clause 15, to replace “even if” with “or until”. That’s with the intent that the money management is lifted if they have met the requirements that the person was deemed to have failed to comply with and that then triggered that sanction. For example, we have these non-financial sanctions that have a duration of time, but some of those are overly prescriptive—for example, four weeks. If somebody already meets the requirement, then they can just continue having no access to the hardship grants and other types of assistance. I wonder, for the purposes of ensuring that no one ends up being further disadvantaged by this so-called non-financial sanction, whether the Minister in the chair would consider that amendment that I have, which actually ties in really well with what I am asking in relation to the report job search.

The other question I had is around whether MSD was collecting any information about the ratio that exists—particularly in the report job search sanction—between jobs and the number of people on the benefit. In times when unemployment is high—and if we have a number of people being subject to the sanction—the reality is that there’s not a job for every single person on the benefit. That’s a fact; there just simply isn’t. That has been the case, actually, since capitalism’s been around. I wanted to ask the Minister whether he thinks that the job search sanction is also relatively unworkable, because there’s no way that the Minister will be able to make things in a way that everyone who’s either subjected to the sanction—or to the obligations that exist that, if failed, could trigger the sanction—will ever get a job. You always have a group of people on the benefit who will never actually be able to attain a job, because unemployment is baked into the system, which puts into question the whole purpose of these sanctions.

Most importantly, I want to go back to my question around the transition to work grant in relation to people that are subjected to the report job-search sanction. I’m yet to talk about the upskilling one—the other one that wasn’t flagged by the Minister before coming into the Social Services and Community Committee.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to make a comment. I’d be wary of stating what counts as full employment pre-capitalism, because some of the definitions of what someone was doing for employment under feudal systems and other kinds of distasteful forced labour systems—I’m not sure we really want to get into whether or not full employment 300 and 400 and 500 years ago was a good thing to aspire to. But, anyway.

We will go on to the general response, I guess, to Mr Menéndez March’s questions, and it’s something we’ve covered before. What happens if there’s not enough employment in a particular area to meet the job search requirements? What happens if we live in a rural area where the community work or the voluntary groups aren’t available? That’s all covered under the “failure to comply without good cause or good reason” section. If we consider all of those individual circumstances, those are all captured under that “failure” definition. I think a lot of these questions around particular circumstances have well and truly been answered and captured under that section.

I will touch very quickly on the second part of Helen White’s contribution. The question was around whether the provision to be paid out money on a payment card after money management will incentivise savings. I’m advised that we actually expect clients to be using the money on the card to meet their essential costs. This provision is useful, though, where a client has completed the sanction and may need to access the money. For example, if someone moves off the benefit or into employment, they might prefer for the Ministry of Social Development to pay them what is left, rather than continuing to use the credit until it runs out. That’s the reason why there’s provision to be paid out money on a payment card.

My colleagues are celebrating for me because, after an hour and 10 minutes of seeking a call, the youth spokesperson for the Labour Party is able to ask the youth Minister, now in the chair, answering for the social development Minister, about youth benefits. I hope to ask the Minister some questions about the effect of the non-financial sections on young people. I’m talking here about 16- to 19-year-olds who are eligible for the youth payments and the youth jobseeker benefits, but I’m also speaking about people who are older than 19 but younger than 24 and who are an important group to target in getting into work quickly. The research shows that being in work and getting into the workforce is really important for the development of young people, but it’s also really important to support them.

I’m asking here about new section 233A, inserted by clause 12, through to new section 243AA, inserted by clause 19, and the impact of the non-financial sanctions. I want to put four different questions to the Minister. Firstly, is he concerned about the increased reapplication frequency punishing instability for young people? Does he think that young people—especially those new to the workforce, without strong family support, and often facing unstable housing and fluctuating health conditions and patchy access to technology and transport—are all well placed to respond to an increase in sanctions, whether they are financial or not—but particularly around the non-financial sanctions—and whether young people can in fact comply with those? When we’re talking here about some of the most vulnerable people in our community—16- to 19-year-olds with nobody backing them, no stable housing at all, and no adults in their corner—are these the people who we should be sanctioning in the way that new sections 233A to 243AAA envision?

The next question is about the burden of the administration—say, on a minimum income—that would be put on to young people who might not be able to access either the system through the front of the house, because they don’t have access to ordinary transport. Driver licensing is a real problem in New Zealand for young people, and so getting there in rural areas is harder, and access to public transport, now that public transport is more expensive for young people, is a real issue.

It also points to this idea that missed appointments, lost paperwork, and systems errors are going to have an impact on everyone in the system but particularly on young people who do not have those skills after years of experience in a system. If you are 16 and have had limited educational opportunities and limited work opportunities, you’re exactly the kind of person who, if you then have to comply with further rules in a bureaucratic system, is going to muck it up. Are these sanctions at all appropriate for the young people to whom they will apply, and how is the Minister considering the impact of this on the dignity of young people who are within the system already?

My next question is about extending the sanction periods on the records of young people. As I read the application of the sections, it looks to me that recording obligation failures for young people will now increase to double the period—so a full two years for young people. Effectively, that would mean that somebody who was 17 who found that they were unable to comply might have a failure notice on their record for a long time, and they would be required—

I’m sorry, I know the member has waited patiently for this moment, but the Government has indicated that it does not wish to proceed any further with urgency. I will therefore leave the Chair to report progress.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Social Security Amendment Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 13 May.

The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.