Ardern Jacinda: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ardern Jacinda: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 17 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3612. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to stand up and take the first call on Part 3 of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. I point out that of course this part does have a different commencement date from the other parts we have previously discussed. It is taking effect on 15 October of this year. Obviously the substantive changes are as previously raised to do with new work-testing arrangements so these are clauses that will affect a significantly larger number of people certainly than those we have discussed up until now. 
I would like to focus in on some of the amendments that have been put forward by Labour members around some of these clauses. Rather than going into the substantive changes made by the Social Services Committee I want to hone in on where there continues to be ongoing debate and where we would still like to see some change. I want to start with clause 29(3) in which there is some discussion around the definition of “suitable employment”. That is a critically important definition to have entrenched in this bill because if you are putting in work-testing arrangements that then have a flow-on in terms of sanctions that can be applied it is obviously very important to set out the criteria under which Work and Income is able to use its discretion to determine whether or not something that has been put forward to a Work and Income client is considered suitable employment. As set out in subclause (3) “suitable employment in relation to a person means employment that the chief executive is satisfied is suitable for the person to undertake for a number of hours a week determined by the chief executive having regard to the employment required to satisfy the work test for that person.” 
What we wanted to see was as much consideration as was given to the definition of “suitable employment” given to the definition of “suitable childcare arrangements”. The reason for that is because obviously it is the prerogative and up to the discretion of a Work and Income case manager to determine whether or not all of the needs of that client have been met and if the client is then turning down work they have the ability to sanction them. That means as set out in section 60GAD in clause 34: “The purpose of sections 60GAE and 60GAF is to improve the financial and social outcomes for families that include people to whom those sections apply by providing earlier access to employment services and expectations while recognising the care and development needs of children.” In order to recognise the care and development needs of children we felt it was important to set out a specific clause that set out what were considered suitable childcare arrangements. 
There was some discussion at the select committee as to whether or not defining this ended up placing a prescription on the job seeker that might mean that we would be setting a bar that they would have to reach. So for instance if a job seeker came up with their own childcare arrangements such as a grandparent whom they thought was suitable would setting in the legislation a definition that had a higher bar mean that their arrangements were not considered suitable and therefore they would not transition into the job? 
 We would dispute that that is what setting a definition would do. We wanted to set a definition that is not necessarily around determining if someone has found their own childcare arrangements whether or not those arrangements are suitable. If they are suitable for the individual and they have determined that for themselves that should be their prerogative. But if a Work and Income case manager says: “We have a job that we believe is right for you.” and that person then disputes that and says: “But I do not have suitable childcare arrangements.” we thought there needed to be a definition if a dispute then ensued and a Work and Income case manager said: “Well we believe there is a babysitter network on the corner of your street that is suitable.” In that circumstance we believed it was appropriate to have a definition for the sake of clarity but also for the sake of ensuring that we are not putting children in vulnerable situations because at the discretion of a case worker Work and Income deemed those childcare arrangements from their bar to be suitable. 
So what we have proposed is a new subsection under section 60Q where we wanted to make clear that “ ‘Quality child care’ is defined as one that provides healthy environment that meets standards prescribed by regulation” so those standards we set ourselves including “the availability of registered professionals and the appropriate ratio of care-givers to children prescribed.” 
We wanted to go on as well and pick up on one of the recommendations that from my recollection I believe was raised by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner which reflected on this as well around whether or not we should be taking into account the availability of suitable early childhood education where the child is aged 3 or over. We know based on the substantive work that the Office of the Children’s Commissioner has already done that the availability of suitable childcare in some parts of our community is poor. So if we are going to oblige those on a domestic purposes benefit to transition into work at a particular point and it is on the assumption that early childhood education is available with 20 hours free surely we should be testing that that assumption is correct because it is not in all cases. This is why our amendment adds subsection (6) which says “Where the child is 3 or over the parent (beneficiary and their spouses and/or partners) must have access to registered early childhood education requiring services to be widely available in the area of residence prior to the obligations …” being applied—and those are those work-testing obligations. That is an amendment in the name of Sue Moroney as our early childhood education spokesperson. I think it is sensible. It is not saying that if someone finds their own childcare arrangements that meet their needs the arrangements are not sufficient. But it is saying that if it is mandated by a Work and Income case manager we should have some standards in place and I think that that is only fair. 
I want to come to a couple of additional amendments. It was interesting that the Minister for Social Development raised in one of her earlier interventions from the chair the issue that this is a bill that does not make assumptions about those on Government support. Yet one of the clauses we have in this part of the bill places earlier work-testing requirements on those on Government support who may for whatever reason have an additional child whilst on Government support. That is making an assumption I would wager about those who are having additional children whilst on Government support. If I am wrong and if the Government is not making assumptions about those on Government support in the circumstance of having additional children then I would be very happy to hear the Minister clarify what the purpose of this bill is. I have heard it very plainly stated that there is a perception that people have additional children to stay on Government support and yet I did not see the evidence of that in the select committee. So if the Minister has evidence of that I would welcome seeing it. Until that evidence is provided we believe that work testing when a child is 12 months old when that would require care arrangements would therefore be imposing that provision on that family and our preference is to remove that clause because of developmental reasons of the child. If the Minister has some counter-evidence to counter that amendment we would welcome seeing it. 
 The next amendment I want to speak to is around clause 37. We had a discussion around the exemption from obligations. In particular a very good case was brought by CCS Disability Action from my recollection around parents who are looking after disabled children in particular children with behavioural issues or for instance children who have been expelled from school. We believe that it is important to set out that there should be the ability to have an exemption from work-testing obligations where a parent has a very high-needs child. In high-needs we include potentially a disability that prevents the parent from being able to step away from their full-time care arrangements or if there are significant behavioural issues that require that parent’s full attention and care. Although we were given assurance at the select committee that that ability existed we thought there was no harm in that being explicitly stated in the bill and that is why we have an amendment to clause 37 suggesting that in section 105(1) after the words “from complying with section 60HA” we insert “or where the beneficiary has a dependent child who has a disability has been deemed to have significant behavioural issues and/or has been excluded from school.” That does not stop a parent exercising their choice to transition into work if that is appropriate for their arrangements. But it does allow a bit more flexibility for individual circumstances. I think given the discussion had at select committee—