Williams Poto: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliams Poto: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 01 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8389. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): When we were last debating this bill I was speaking I believe on Part 1 clause 4 and in subclause (1) is the definition of “part-time work”. This bill seeks to change the definition from what is currently standard—around 15 hours a week—to that of 20 hours a week.I want to refer the Committee of the whole House to some submissions that were made regarding those particular changes particularly with regard to the Council of Trade Unions submission. It has some very clear views about the change from 15 to 20 hours and I just want to quote that submission: “Single mothers in particular face a range of economic penalties as well as social difficulties. They are more likely to find only unpredictable part-time work making it hard for them to access the childcare and other support they need in order for work to be feasible.” It makes a really valid point which other submitters spoke to and that is about the precarious nature of part-time work for some of these mothers who are forced to also look for work that will satisfy the 20-hour definition. That often means transport to and from—and I know that this bill does make some provisions around providing some support for that limited though it is.But that also requires mothers potentially to be working during standard working hours which would be during the day. That does not take into account that many part-time jobs might occur in the evening which would require childcare services which are not currently delivered as a norm in this country. It is not easy to access childcare outside the normal hours—after hours—in the evening or overnight where there may be jobs for example in the retail sector stacking shelves at supermarkets or working at services that operate overnight. That might be at gas stations or the like. We are talking generally about a group of workers who have limited skills and are not generally able to access work that would provide them with enough resources to attend to that childcare.I also want to talk about clause 4(2) and (3) which change the age at which your youngest child should be before you are then required to seek work from the age of 5 which we all know is the age where most children will be attending school to the age of 3. That does apply some pressure to parents to actually find that childcare.I also want to go back to the Council of Trade Unions submission and just talk about what it says about this. It states that “The Bill requires solo parents and partners of beneficiaries to be available for part time work once their youngest child turns three rather than five …”. The Council of Trade Unions did not support these provisions in the bill because they: “impose stronger work-testing which will heavily impact on sole parents. The stricter work testing obligations and sanctions regime will cause hardship and deprivation to already disadvantaged people and force sole parents into work when they and their children are not ready for it.”We could not find any evidence—there was no evidence that was brought to the select committee—that could really rationalise dropping the age from 5 to 3. Not even the Children’s Commissioner could provide sufficient evidence to that fact. In fact the Children’s Commissioner said that the basis on which the change should be made was really around the fact that on average when parents return to the workplace their youngest child is 3. We are talking on average about all parents. They will be parents who have got resources to support them to stay at home for longer or they may be in different types of jobs. But the Labour Party members on the committee felt that that was not sufficient justification to require parents to return to work when their youngest child is aged 3. It just did not give us sufficient comfort that there was good evidence that that should happen.In relation to that the National Council of Women also raised the point that childcare would need to be available for shift workers and weekend workers as well as being available during the standard working week. That is also required for these children who are aged from 3. When you are aged 5 I guess you are far more developmentally advanced. When you are aged 3 you are still in a particularly vulnerable age group. We were unconvinced by those aspects of the evidence that was given. As I said earlier we could find no justification—no evidence was provided to the committee that could make us feel comfortable that dropping the age was in the best interests of the children.