Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister for Social Development): Tēnā koe Madam Chair and thank you for this opportunity to address some of the questions that have been put to the committee this evening on Part 2.Can I start with the orphans benefit and the unsupported child's benefit—in particular the question raised around the step-parent and their eligibility. The orphans benefit and the unsupported child's benefit provide financial support towards the cost of caring for a child whose parents cannot provide care or support due to family breakdown or due to a parental illness incapacity death or the parents cannot be found. The Act requires the benefit to be applied towards the maintenance or education of the child or otherwise for the child's benefit.The bill as introduced included the following changes to the orphans benefit and unsupported child's benefit: it merged the orphans benefit and unsupported child's benefit into one benefit called the supported child's payment". It's not a term that is rare in the debate on this particular matter this evening and it is about being policy-neutral. It also removed eligibility for step-parents to receive the supported child's payment—and I'll talk a little bit about that a little bit more shortly. It also created a single rate of sole parent support for single caregivers receiving a supported child's payment. The Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25 removes the provisions related to the supported child's payment and replaces them with provisions for the orphans benefit and the unsupported child's benefit.Now the member raised an issue about the eligibility of a step-parent and there are already mechanisms for assistance for step-parents. Step-parents caring for a step-child can receive the benefit assistance that is available to any parent. If they qualify they can receive a benefit with the child included in that benefit. They can also receive a higher rate of accommodation supplement and hardship assistance if they qualify. They can also receive a family tax credit. The mechanisms are already there. In the SOP it will be removing the original position which was to merge them and maintain the orphans benefit and the unsupported child's benefit acknowledging that step-parents can still qualify.Can I address two amendments that have been brought on to the floor this evening. The first one is in the name of the Hon Louise Upston and it refers to Part 2 Subpart 9A the winter energy payment. This particular amendment seeks to amend the requirements of the Ministry of Social Development to ensure they explain the four-week absence rule to superannuitant recipients of the winter energy payment in all cases. Once again—it's not going to be a new phrase in the debate this evening—that is not policy-neutral. General information on the website and letters and communications with those affected about overseas absence will affect eligibility. What sadly too this particular amendment does—and it's shall we say the unintended consequences—is two things. It perpetuates the belief from the other side of the Chamber that—actually it treats people with suspicion. It casts aspersions on them on those who seek support and benefits and that they are treated with suspicion whether they go overseas or they receive assistance and it's a shame that that approach is taken. The other one of course is it undermines the good work that many of the good people in Work and Income are already doing to engage with their clients to make sure that they do receive a full and comprehensive entitlement what they're already eligible to receive.The other amendment is in the name of Simon O'Connor. "The purpose of this amendment is to remove both clauses to allow those receiving long-term residential care in a hospital or a rest home which is funded in whole or in part under the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 and those receiving residential care services funded in whole or in part under the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 to be eligible to receive a Winter Energy Payment." We sadly will not be supporting that amendment. The tabled amendment is once again in our belief not policy-neutral and also has significant financial implications which I'm sure the member hasn't calculated just yet."