Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSocial Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 01 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2860. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment BillIn CommitteeClause 1JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to speak on the Committee stage of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. It is a bill that Labour has supported all the way through and I continue to commend the member Tracey Martin for bringing this important bill before the Committee.I want to raise a couple of issues in this Committee stage that relate to the technical details but first of all I just want toagain for the benefit of the Committee briefly traverse the difference—which is captured in the title—between those who are in receipt of an unsupported child’s benefit or an orphans benefit versus those who receive support for caring for a child who is in their care as a foster child. Obviously this bill is very specific to those who receive an unsupported child’s benefit. In New Zealand unfortunately circumstances mean that many of those individuals are grandparents raising grandchildren or those who are often described as kinship carers. They are in the devastating situation of their children not being in a position to care for their grandchildren and often reluctantly at great expense have to acknowledge that the grandchildren would be better off in their own care. Many of these individuals are living on pensions. Some scrape together meagre incomes through part-time work. All however have made the decision to put their grandchildren first and we should applaud them for that. I want particularly to applaud the group that has been organised since roughly 1999 under Diane Vivian—Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust—which has been an excellent advocate for change in this area.Qualifying for an unsupported child’s benefit is quite a test: you have to demonstrate family breakdown. That in itself is quite a difficult thing to demonstrate. You may have a biological parent who is very unwilling to accept their inability to care appropriately for the grandchild in question. That in itself can be a hard test to demonstrate to Work and Income which often requires family members to openly agree that there has been family breakdown and an inability to support that child. It is a difficult test. Work and Income also requires there to be a long period of time where a grandparent has actually been caring for that grandchild unsupported before they qualify. I know a lot of members in this House would probably have been advocates. Therefore I do think there is room to look at the threshold test for those families. But the distinction within the legislation that exists that the member is trying to remedy is that in qualifying for that unsupported child’s benefit you do not automatically qualify for the same support that a foster carer would receive. That is what this bill seeks to remedy.The Social Services Committee found however that in clause 4 inserting new section 29B which is the most substantive part of the bill—basically it sets out how administratively it would apply the extension of receiving a clothing allowance which is the one bit of foster care support that we are now trying to transfer to someone receiving an unsupported child’s benefit. The select committee has changed the way the original form of this bill would do that. The select committee has changed it basically by making a reference in the Department of Child Youth and Family Services Act around rates of payments to persons or organisations that are in charge of a child. Why has the committee made a general cross-reference rather than just simply stating in law that you would receive a clothing allowance? Well the select committee points out that the reason is: “the clause as drafted may give the impression that the chief executive is required to determine such an allowance. However section 363 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act relates to the chief executive’s discretion to determine the rates of allowances payable to caregivers of foster children … We believe the amendment would clarify that although a clothing allowance is currently provided for foster children the provision as well as the amount provided is at the chief executive’s discretion”.It is somewhat concerning that such an important allowance is at the chief executive’s discretion. I would have thought that that would be the kind of support that should actually be entrenched in the legislation. Granted it is obviously currently available it is provided for—I would really challenge any Minister who would allow a chief executive to remove that support—but stranger things have happened in policy in this area. So I think it would be good if the Minister could consider entrenching such support and allowances into legislation so that we are not just cross-referencing the discretion of a chief executive in a bill like this.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): If the member would take her seat she will get the call back in a second but I think we have got something procedural to sort out.Jami-Lee Ross: I seek leave for all clauses in this bill to be debated as one question.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I think also “and amendments”.Jami-Lee Ross: And amendments.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): So if we have the understanding that all questions on this bill are going to be debated as one question—is there any objection to that process? There is none.Clause 1 (continued) and clauses 2 to 4 and amendmentsJACINDA ARDERN: Thank you very much Mr Chair. That is actually quite helpful because I have some Supplementary Order Papers I would like to speak to.So not only should it be entrenched in law—one of our other concerns is that we should actually be ensuring equity between foster carers and kinship carers across the board. I think it is fair to say that actually the member has plucked out an incredibly important allowance in the clothing allowance. It is very hard to argue that that should not be shared across that wider range of carers. But there are other allowances that a foster carer currently receives and it is our view that those too should be given to kinship carers because the fundamental question we should be asking ourselves is: if not a grandparent or a kinship carer then who? Who is caring for that child? We know the State is an incredibly poor parent and the State very rarely has any intention of being the long-term carer for a child in a residential facility. That is no home for a child. So if it is not a grandparent ultimately it would probably be a foster carer who would then be entitled to that extra support. So why should a kinship carer not be entitled to that support?We have Supplementary Order Paper 72 which would extend the provisions of this bill so that there is equity between foster carers and those kinship carers. I accept that that may be a bridge too far for the Government so to speak—but we thought it was worth a punt because we think the argument is right. But again that is not to diminish what Tracey Martin has done with this bill.Another point that I wish to raise is the commencement date. I know this will be raised by others. I want to put on record Labour’s support for Jan Logie’s Supplementary Order Paper 70 which would mean that the commencement of this bill—essentially when families would receive the support—would be much closer to when it is passed in the House than it currently is in this bill. In this bill we are looking at waiting until 2018. Many members of this Committee may like me have received letters from grandparents and children—photos messages handwritten messages pictures; they have been heartbreaking to receive—saying: “Please bring this in now we need that support.” The argument that has been made by the select committee that looked at this bill was that the Government has brought in start-up payments at the beginning of each year for these families between $250 and $400 and that really that will suffice until we hit 2018—and that is when this extra support can phase in.I have to say that if we are going to demonstrate any generosity—and I use that word in inverted commas—then it should be for this group. Really to say that it would be too generous to double up on a $250 yearly payment with a clothing allowance feels sadly mean-spirited to me. I think it is great that there is that start-up support but when you are looking at school fees books and uniforms then actually that amount at the beginning of the year is barely going to touch the sides. So I do not think it is too much to ask to have the continuity of having this kick off straight away being in place for those families and making sure we show that support that I think they rightly deserve.To conclude we would like to see an early commencement we would like to see it extended a bit further but failing that we will of course wholeheartedly support the bill as it stands. We think it is the right thing to do and we again thank the member for bringing it before the House.ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise and take a call. First of all can I again acknowledge my friend and colleague Tracey Martin. Both of us have worked in our first term as first-term MPs and the work that we did actually with kin carers and on the specific task force that was to look at the very funds that have now become the Extraordinary Care Fund is supporting some of the benefits that we know that kin carers grandparents raising children actually absolutely need. I think that throughout that process we heard some of the concerns but also too I know that Mrs Martin was very clear that that process was not about the clothing equity that was needed in regard to kin carers. At my standing I do not want to talk for too long but I want to do this because I want to acknowledge the fact of the journey that we took together to make sure that those kin carers and those grandparents who are out there are acknowledged for the work that they are doing. I think that again as I have often said for any member of Parliament to have their member’s bill drawn—in fact Mrs Martin I do not know what it is but you have got the lucky wheel because you have had another bill drawn again so you are very fortunate to have had two in this period of time.In regard to the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill for kin carers and orphans I just think that this bill is important. With regard to the previous comments by Ms Ardern in regards to the time frame I think we have worked together collectively and collaboratively to get the balance right. I think we came to a point where we realised that at the moment the Extraordinary Care Fund was important to see us through to a point where we could then also look at the commencement date and so that has been in negotiation with us and I think that is important.I just want to finish off by saying that last Monday I was with the Hon Jonathan Coleman and we were up in Kaitāia. We just happened to be in a great place. Great people up there. [Interruption] OK. Some people call it tiger country but I think it is a wonderful place to be—a wonderful part of the world to be in. We just happened to be at Ōturu School. Some of you may not know that place because many of you have never travelled there but I was there with the Hon Jonathan Coleman and at Ōturu School the principal Fraser Smith was there. He talked about the wonderful things that they were doing in that school. They had won this environmental award and in that school they had just pressed 200 tonnes of olives into olive oil. They had honey bees and they had a whole variety of things there that they were working collectively on. It is a low-decile school.He then said to me that the demographic profile of their school is that one-third of the children there come from solo parents; another one-third come from grandparents raising grandchildren; and as for the others they do have a mixture of families that are supporting them. He said to me that this is one of the absolute challenges especially when grandparents are coming forward and talking about the challenges that they have. It was also a great example of how the school was working collectively to be able to have its own community garden where actually people could be involved in meeting some of the challenges that they faced as well. But the point that I wanted to make in this is that when I told him about the work and about this bill he began to see the importance of how this could meet some of those needs. So I just wanted to give a small practical example Mrs Martin of how this bill will definitely meet some of the needs of the families that I have seen up in the far north in Kaitāia at Ōturu School where Fraser Smith is the principal—and the work that they are doing as well.So I just want to commend you for the work that you are doing. I think this is a bill that we in the Government worked collectively on with New Zealand First and with you Mrs Martin and I believe that this truly does make a difference to our families. So on behalf of the Government and on behalf of myself as well I just want to commend this bill and congratulate you on the work that you have done as well. Thank you.JAN LOGIE (Green): I too would like to offer my congratulations to Tracey Martin on getting things this far. I will speak mostly to my Supplementary Order Paper 70 which relates to how Mrs Martin has managed to get the bill this far. It was a feat of quite supreme nuancing and finessing to be able to get this bill through the Social Services Committee and to get the Government to make adjustments to be able to keep this bill alive.It is a real credit to you to have been able to do that to keep this bill alive but I sense that it is not what you ultimately wanted because I know that this bill has come from Grandparents Raising Grandchildren and that Mrs Martin has been working very closely with those people all the way through. The fact is that they are now contacting us—or actually they are not contacting us so much; it is the children who are contacting us—as MPs in this House and I am sure that probably everyone in this House has had the letters and has seen the photos of these children. They are what this is about.The fact is that you have managed to keep this alive but I believe it is our duty now to respond to those children’s requests and to your perseverance in keeping it alive by taking this opportunity to give this House the chance to say: “Hang on. Actually do we really want to make those children wait until 2018? Do we really believe that our budgets are so constrained that we cannot afford that little extra for those children to be able to have new clothes to wear to school?”.I cannot imagine anyone standing up in this Chamber and actually saying you know: “My account for it is that it is a maximum of $8 million a year.” It is not anywhere near that amount because that is looking at the total sum for over 12000 children and at the full amount on top of $900 if there are 1600. I know that that is not the full amount and I have not been able to calculate it.So it is nowhere near $8 million and it is the chance for over 12000 children to be able to go to school feeling like everyone else in their class—that they have the clothes and they are able to stand tall and that if their family is fostering other kids they have the same clothes as those other kids in the same household. I really really would like to hear from any member in this House who would stand up and say that $8 million out of the Government’s Budget is too much to enable that.We have offered any member in this House the opportunity to just say that yes 2018 is too long to wait and we are not going to make you wait that long. All members need to do is support Supplementary Order Paper 70 and then 3 months from the day on which the bill receives the Royal assent we can give those kids the chance to be able to get those clothes go to school and stand with pride. And we can take that burden away from their families who are surviving in many cases as Jacinda Ardern has mentioned on pensions. They are struggling to get by and are trying to do the best for their families.I remind this House that these are not just any old kids; these are children whose families have fallen apart and who are now with their grandparents because something went horribly wrong. Often those kids have been through unimaginable trauma and they have enough to cope with. We can do this. We can just say that yes we will deliver this to you now. We are not going to make you wait until 2018. I hope against hope because nobody is listening to me right now in this Chamber apart from members on this side.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am enormously proud to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take my first call on my colleague Tracey Martin’s bill. I know it has been a source of great passion for her as well as reflecting the great knowledge that she has on this subject. I do not intend to take up too much of the House’s time. I do wish as I say to give some acknowledgment to Tracey Martin for having this bill drawn from the ballot and also for the enormously productive cross-party work she has done both in the Social Services Committee and through other auspices to gain the Government’s approval to basically get it on side and to persuade some essentially very decent members on the Government side that this is a necessary bill and this is a bill that will help a sector of the community that otherwise would not get help. I think it does reflect the fact that even in a combative adversarial Westminster-style parliamentary democracy there are still avenues by which we as good people can work together for a common goal.I want to also acknowledge the other Opposition members who have spoken as well as Government members such as Mr Ngaro. I acknowledge Jacinda Ardern for bringing what is a very forthright and valuable Supplementary Order Paper to this bill. I also acknowledge Jan Logie and I want to speak about her Supplementary Order Paper in a moment.I had a brief conversation with Tracey Martin this morning when we talked about the upcoming Committee stage of her bill. She said to me: “What’s an orphan?”. My understanding of an orphan was that it was a child who had lost both their parents to death—that was my perception of it. She said: “Yes you’re right but there’s much more to it than that. A child in New Zealand is legally declared an orphan if they do not have parents for a number of other reasons.” which I had not previously been aware of. If for example both the child’s parents are in jail or if they are both unable to carry out the activities of parenting because they are drug addicts or alcoholics or otherwise incapable of providing care then that child is declared to be an orphan.As this bill addresses there are a number of gaps in the legislation and in our social care arrangements that need to be filled so that children who fall into these categories and the people who care for them are able to access the sort of support and the kinds of allowances that are available to children who for whatever reason do not fill those particular pigeon holes. We do not want to go into too much more detail on that because I know it has been addressed by other speakers and I realise there are other speakers who wish to take a call on this bill.I want to predominantly talk about Jan Logie’s Supplementary Order Paper 70 which calls for bringing forward the commencement date of this bill from 1 July 2018 to 3 months after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. Again I say I am very appreciative of the fact that Government has agreed to support this bill but pushing the start date out to 2018 means that what we are essentially doing as a nation as a Parliament as a Government in order to save a comparatively very small amount of money is putting what is a small amount of money for a Government and for a nation onto the shoulders of a small number of people who are in the worst possible position to be able to afford to pay it.I do not want to be provocative but I do wish to make a comparison between the amount of additional funding required from the Government that bringing the start date forward will cost and compare that with one particular other item of discretionary Government spending that is going to go ahead. We know from the breakdown and from the figures that Tracey Martin has given us in support of this bill that the additional cost to the taxpayer of rolling it out will be about $16 million a year in total. So what I would like to say is that what we are about to do as a nation is spend $26 million on two referendums on changing the flag. I say that just to put this thing into perspective. Many people would contend and I would agree that no one has called for a referendum on the flag. No one actually wants a change in the flag if the political polls are to be believed. Yet here we are about to spend nearly 2 years’ worth of what it would cost to bring the start date of this bill forward from July 2018 to 3 months after the date it receives the Royal assent.We can as an intelligent caring nation and as a Parliament that has shown we can work across party boundaries look at those two things not in isolation but alongside each other and say: “Here we have a bill that will cost about $16 million or a referendum that will cost $26 million. One of them is for a change in the flag that no one wants and a referendum that no one called for. The other one is a very tangible assisting support payment to some very vulnerable kids and some very stretched caregivers who look after them.” I would really like the Government to take that on board look at those two things side by side have a deep think about which is more valuable and put its money where its mouth is and support Jan Logie’s Supplementary Order Paper 70 as we are going to. Thank you.JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): I am pleased to take a call on the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. The Labour Party strongly supports this bill. May I commend Tracey Martin for bringing this bill to the House and for championing such an important issue something that I am passionate about and an issue that I think is important for this Parliament to address. Children who are orphans or who are unsupported usually go through a lot often very tragic circumstances before they get to the point where they are orphans or they are not supported and they can no longer livewith say their biological parents. For instance both parents might have died in a car accident; or a mother might have died from cancer after suffering for many years leaving behind five children; or as was presented to the Social Services Committee a husband might have taken the life of the wife and the children are left in the care of the grandparents—very very tragic indeed. The State considers kids unsupported when parents are no longer able to support them due to a family breakdown. So the circumstances in which kids get to this point—either being an orphan or being unsupported—is indeed really really tragic. Again I commend you Tracey for bringing a bill that will actually address this issue that will bring parity for how we deal with kids who are orphans or who are unsupported as well as those whom the State already pays the clothing allowance to at the moment.In this bill it will no longer matter if the child is cared for by family or by a kin person. This bill makes sure that children actually get the clothing allowance and I think that we as a society should look after all of our kids but especially those who are in such vulnerable vulnerable states like these kids. Fairness and equity are some of the core core values of the Labour Party and they are some of the reasons why we strongly support this bill. Providing parity for foster children as well as those who are orphans and unsupported is what I think this bill actually does and for that we are in support of it.I was not fortunate enough to sit on the select committee that considered this bill; however in reading the documents that came through from the committee process it states that there are around 8500 families and kin carers who are caring for over 12000 kids in this situation in New Zealand right now—a lot of kids. This bill was first introduced as far as I can see from the paperwork in September 2013 so it has been around for quite a while.I would like to talk about the commencement date which is in clause 2 of this bill. This bill has come back to the House with a new proposed date for commencement. So the commencement clause says that it will not start after it receives the Royal assent not even this year in 2015; it will not even begin next year. It is not until 3 whole years from now in July 2018 that this legislation may come into force after it gets through the third reading. May I just reiterate what my colleague Miss Ardern stated earlier on: the Labour Party is in full support of Jan Logie’s Supplementary Order Paper 70. If I can just quote from it it says: “This Supplementary Order Paper amends clause 2 to change the commencement date of this Bill bringing it forward from 1 July 2018 to 3 months after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” The Labour Party supports this Supplementary Order Paper and we hope that the Government considers it favourably.If our children are a priority for this Government especially our most vulnerable children and I believe they are then implementing a bill like this one—implementing this on behalf of orphaned and unsupported children—should be a priority now today in 2015 not 3 years from now in July 2018. We believe that if New Zealand really wants the best outcomes for children then we need to invest in and prioritise the policies that focus on our children especially our most vulnerable kids. All children in New Zealand deserve equal opportunities. Mr Chair I would like to thank you and I would like to thank Tracey Martin for bringing this bill to the Committee. The Labour Party is very very pleased to support this bill.TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): This is just a very short call to thank all the other members of the Committee who have spoken already and to thank them on behalf of the children. I want to thank Jan Logie and Jacinda Ardern for their Supplementary Order Papers 70 and 72. I want to acknowledge Alfred Ngaro and the statements that he made around the process of this bill and the arrangements and the conversations that were had and the reasons that had been articulated previously for the way that the bill stands now. So this is just a very very short call to thank you all for your support.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): We now come to putting the questions. Just in case we do not get through it I am going to seek the indulgence of the Committee by seeking leave that if we have not quite finished by 9.55 p.m. the report back of the Committee will be slightly delayed. Is there any objection to that process? There appears to be none.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 70 in the name of Jan Logie to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 48New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2.Noes 72New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 11; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 72 in the name of Jacinda Ardern to clause 4 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 46New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14.Noes 74New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.Clause 4 agreed to.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.