Ardern Jacinda: Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ardern Jacinda: Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8783. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I want to thank the Associate Minister for Social Development Chester Borrows for his contribution. I note though that he did not speak specifically to the amendment around the issue of disabled children. I would be interested in hearing his views on that particular amendment. I think the point still stands there as I think the point still stands around the issue of those dependent children who might be in study but for the purposes of this bill will affect the eligibility of their parent for a living alone payment if they are over the age of 18. 
Despite what the Minister has said it seems to me that this has been an issue in the past. If you read the regulatory impact statement there is some discussion in the statement which of course was prepared by the Ministry of Social Development. It says: “For the purpose of determining eligibility for social security benefits section 63A of the Social Security Act … sets out the circumstances in which a child aged 18 years or over is considered to be a dependent child. Our analysis has identified issues with the consistency of this definition across social security legislation.” It goes on to talk about a specific case where this has been an issue: “A recent decision by the Social Security Appeal Authority (SSAA Decision No. 38/09) has highlighted an inconsistency between the definitions of a dependent child as it applies to a child aged 18 years or over. This decision found that an adult child (ie over 18 years) who is maintained as a member of a superannuitant’s family and is not financially independent may be categorised as a dependent child for the purposes of eligibility for the [living alone payment].” 
There has already been a case that has highlighted that this can indeed be an issue and that according to the Social Security Appeal Authority it needs to come down on the side of the entitlement remaining because of the fact that the adult child can still be considered a dependent child because of their circumstances. There is some further clarification though admittedly and we concede this point. This will not apply to a large number of parents and their children but it does clarify that “The Ministry is of the view that it is very unlikely many other cases will arise as the situation applies only to superannuitants living with a student with no income other than a Student Loan (but not a Student Allowance).” 
This has been our point—that there will be students who will not be eligible for a student allowance. They may access a student loan but they may be living with someone who is eligible for a living alone payment and because they are over the age of 18 the crude definition in the bill means that that living alone payment could be affected by that. No one is arguing that this is going to be a really prevalent situation but what we are arguing is that it could occur and that it would be wrong if it did and the regulatory impact statement admits that. 
There is some admission in here that there is some discretion for the chief executive “to continue paying a benefit at a rate … until the pay day immediately after 31 December in the year that the child reaches the age of 18 years.” but we should not ever allow these things to be determined by discretion when we know the issue exists and we have the ability within primary legislation to fix it. So this is something that we are asking the Minister to fix. We are at a point now where we can fix it. We have evidence that it has arisen before. Why should we have to require people to go via an appeal authority to have it addressed? 
So I would like the Minister’s thoughts on that but I equally really would like to hear his views on the definition of “dependent child” as it applies to a child who may have an intellectual disability because equally we feel that that particular issue has gone unanswered. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 191 in the name of the Hon Paula Bennett to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to clause 5 be agreed to: 
insert in new section 4A(4)(b) after “18 years old” “unless that child has an intellectual disability as defined in section 7 of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003”.  
A party vote was called for on the question that the amendment be agreed to.