O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I'm really pleased to take a further call. I'm very concerned actually that the Minister for Social Development is pre-empting the discussion in this Chamber around a number of amendments that rightly focus on the winter energy payment. I will touch very briefly on a tabled amendment. Subpart 9A deals with the winter energy payment—but again I think it is a concern as I read it that the attempt to quickly address amendments before members have even raised the reasons for them is most unfortunate but I think it's also indicative of the Government's approach to this bill which is to push it through.What of course is happening—and it will be no surprise to many in this Chamber—is that as this debate goes on more and more tabled amendments are appearing here as members on this side of the Chamber continue to find with growing concern and alarm the variety of changes that have been made. Look I'm conscious a lot of discussions happened on Subpart 1 a little bit on Subpart 3 and certainly on Subpart 9 so I want to turn my mind to Subpart 2 Jobseeker support" and to clause 21 referencing what is known as the work gap. So clause 21(1)(b) states that it is if someone "is in employment but is losing earnings through a health condition or injury". It makes perfect sense. The question really for the Minister in the chair Carmen Sepuloni is: over what time frame? That doesn't appear to be specified. So Minister I think it is very prudent that we look at a work gap. Obviously it is if someone as you've got in the legislation in clause 21(1)(a) "is not in full time employment;" and—quite prudent too—if they are losing earnings due to a health condition or injury. I don't see the time frame specified. It'd be good to understand that and to assure the committee too that "health condition or injury" is broad enough because those of us who have worked in the health sector know that that's actually not necessarily a health—well these are not health terms per se so just clarity of what is covered in there.In clause 22 we may have a logical fallacy at play and I'd probably need someone like Christopher Penk to help me out. Clause 22 is about availability for work here in Part 2. It says a person is available for work if the person "(a) is available for and seeking full-time employment and—(ii) is willing and able to undertake it; and (iii) has taken reasonable steps to find it;". It's the "is willing" in clause 22(a)(ii) which is the critical and somewhat confusing part to me. Obviously from my sort of leanings politically one's simple willingness to find employment is not necessarily sufficient in itself although I would admit it's necessary. However to go on and then say "(iii) has taken reasonable steps" does seem to be sort of around the wrong way.The long and the short is Minister that if someone is willing to take up work then one would assume that they will take reasonable steps. However if someone is according to clause 22(a)(ii) not willing then it's rather hard for them to take reasonable steps to be unwilling. I hope that makes sense. So it basically is questioning why we have clause 22(a)(iii) if clause 22(a)(ii) is being contradicted. In other words if someone is unwilling or not able to undertake work then how is it they can prove that they've taken reasonable steps? It seems a little odd to me. Part 2 clause 23—there is a question here around age requirements. I know from experience in the field that it's normal that it's at least 18 years—as it's put here—for someone seeking a job seeker application but I'm conscious there are a lot of legalities from age 16 these days including those with children so I'm just wondering why they're not specifically covered. I suspect that's in other subparts to follow. So just a couple of questions there.Moving now to clause 27 in Part 2 this is around how the jobseeker support is affected by one's health conditions. It's really good to see that in clause 27(2) it says "The certificate must be given by a prescribed health practitioner." As a former chair of the Health Committee I'm very aware that we put through a piece of legislation with I believe the full support of the House to change the term "medical practitioner" meaning only a doctor to "health practitioner". It's excellent to see that this has been taken up but I think we need a little bit more clarity or assurance that that's not too wide.I don't want to contradict the intention of the Health Committee to ensure there's a broad range of practitioners and it was something that we discussed in the committee at the time. In the case of clause 27 one would expect that a doctor or a nurse would be a prescribed health practitioner but health practitioners also include podiatrists and the like. So I suppose to illustrate the point could a podiatrist on a non-foot related injury write out a certificate for someone seeking jobseeker support? So I suppose it's just that sort of common-sense filter and assurance to be given to the committee. It's prudent that the bill has been updated to say "health practitioner" rather than "medical practitioner" but as I say many people would think that all health practitioners are doctors or nurses and it actually goes much much wider than that—chiropractors podiatrists and so forth. I can see where certain health practitioners would fit but if I'm going in with—I don't know—a viral chest infection will my friendly podiatrist down the road writing a certificate be sufficient? I hope the answer is no.Turning to my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 30 now this is around the supported child's payment in Subpart 5 but I haven't had the chance—I'm not sure who has actually—to address my SOP. Fundamentally it's really asking the Minister why we're not allowing people who are not the biological parents in effect or those acting as caregivers in the first instance to receive the support. In effect my SOP is really just reintroducing this into Subpart 5—and I understand from an earlier speaker that it's because the Government wants to take its time and consider this. I suppose that's a valid—well it's not "suppose"; it is actually a very valid position. However we often hear from the other side sort of a "Who will think of the children?" cry so here's an instant ability to provide some clarity and if in this comprehensive working of the Government they decide it's not prudent well then they can remove it. But in the meantime non-family members who are supporting a child will miss out and I just think that's a little unusual.So I'm not going to go into depth with this SOP other than to say that it's seeking to reintroduce into Subpart 5 in this Part 2 all those elements which allow the—well a child who has no parent but has someone who's prepared to look after that child. So we're talking guardians and so forth or to get really technical there's several degrees of affinity there and I just think it's prudent. I would hope to think that it's a concept supported by all in the committee. I mean if this is a child-centred approach then really the degree of affinity of the caregiver is not all that relevant.Again I do understand—I think it was from the Green Party—that they want more time to think about it I suppose. Well we'd all like more time to think about things but where there is an immediate issue here for some family members—and I think one of the contributions earlier was also talking about funeral grants and death. Well this applies in the case where a child's parent is dead or missing so I think it just fits into all of that.The last bit—because I'm conscious that this is possibly my fourth call and that's sort of the end of it which is possibly of great relief to the other side. I do want to just briefly touch on a tabled amendment in my name. This is to Subpart 9A and seeks in clause 65C to actually delete two paragraphs in subclause (2). I am conscious that around the winter energy payment as I've said we've touched on this quite a bit though we have not touched on this particular tabled amendment. Currently clause 65C(2)(c) and (d) are around long-term residential care in a hospital and people who are receiving residential care services. So the long and short of this is that as currently proposed someone will not be qualified to receive these payments if they're in long-term residential care or they are receiving residential care services. There are a few other words around this but I am conscious of time. I am suggesting via this tabled amendment that we actually delete those. I don't think someone should be discriminated against on those bases and I think again it's just coming back to the fundamental issue. I've heard a lot about universalism and I've heard a lot about discrimination and stigma from the other side and yet here is a prime example of that in practice and I'm suggesting hey let's get on the same page."