Parliament bill

Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill

Royal assent · Introduced by Hon Louise Upston · National Party

Last checked
August 28, 2026 23:00
Source captured
August 28, 2026 23:00
Source
View on Parliament.nz

What this bill does

The bill passed its first reading 67–55; the vote was not unanimous. According to the explanatory material, benefit dependency among 18- and 19-year-olds has increased, and accommodation support for some homeowners is not sufficiently targeted to those with high housing costs relative to income and assets. The bill aims to target welfare assistance to people most in need, reduce young people’s reliance on benefits, and support fiscal sustainability. The bill makes jobseeker support and equivalent emergency benefit for many 18- and 19-year-olds conditional on parental income or lack of reasonable parental support, and requires some homeowners to meet a higher housing-cost threshold before receiving accommodation supplement.

AI-assisted summary based on the bill text and linked Hansard debates.

Latest voting result

May 19, 2026
First reading: Passed Party vote

Ayes 67 · Noes 55

  • National Party Aye · 48 votes
  • ACT Party Aye · 11 votes
  • NZ First Party Aye · 8 votes
  • Labour Party No · 34 votes
  • Green Party No · 15 votes
  • Te Pāti Māori No · 4 votes
  • Ferris, Tākuta No
  • Kapa-Kingi, Mariameno No

View the vote in Hansard

Arguments raised in Parliament

AI-assisted summary of the linked Hansard debates. Each point is grounded in the cited transcript.

Arguments for

For 18- and 19-year-olds who receive jobseeker support, the parental assistance test is argued to interrupt a predicted long reliance on main benefits and move them into employment, education, or training.

For young people whose parents can financially support them, the test is argued to shift responsibility from taxpayers to parents while reserving welfare for those without another means of support.

For some homeowners claiming the accommodation supplement, raising the required contribution from 30 to 40 percent of income is argued to better target taxpayer assistance because it otherwise helps fund a significant personal asset.

Arguments against

For rangatahi whose parents cannot or will not support them, the parental assistance test is argued to assume safe and financially capable homes and could push them into unsafe or unreported hardship instead of employment.

Nuance and qualifications

The accommodation-supplement change does not apply to renters or boarders and excludes several groups likely to need longer-term assistance, limiting its direct impact on those recipients.

The parental assistance test retains benefit eligibility for young people who cannot reasonably rely on parental financial support, rather than treating every parent as available support.

Bill text

Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill

Version published August 11, 2026 00:00.

Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows: 1 Title This Act is the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Act 2026 . 2 Commencement This Act comes into force on 2 November 2026. However, Part 2 comes into force on 1 April 2027. 3 Principal Act This Act amends the Social Security Act 2018. 4 Section 20 amended (Jobseeker support: requirements) After section 20(c), insert: ca meets the parental income requirement ( see sections 23A to 23I ); and 5 New sections 23A to 23I inserted After section 23, insert: 23A Jobseeker support: parental income requirement: when specified young person is subject to it General rule: when specified young person is subject to requirement 1 A specified young person ( A ) is subject to the parental income requirement if— a A applied or reapplied for, and has not yet been granted or regranted, jobseeker support; or b A applied or reapplied for, and was granted or regranted, jobseeker support; or c A’s spouse or partner applied or reapplied for, and has not yet been granted or regranted, jobseeker support, and A is a spouse or partner in…
Read full bill text
Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows: 1 Title This Act is the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Act 2026 . 2 Commencement This Act comes into force on 2 November 2026. However, Part 2 comes into force on 1 April 2027. 3 Principal Act This Act amends the Social Security Act 2018. 4 Section 20 amended (Jobseeker support: requirements) After section 20(c), insert: ca meets the parental income requirement ( see sections 23A to 23I ); and 5 New sections 23A to 23I inserted After section 23, insert: 23A Jobseeker support: parental income requirement: when specified young person is subject to it General rule: when specified young person is subject to requirement 1 A specified young person ( A ) is subject to the parental income requirement if— a A applied or reapplied for, and has not yet been granted or regranted, jobseeker support; or b A applied or reapplied for, and was granted or regranted, jobseeker support; or c A’s spouse or partner applied or reapplied for, and has not yet been granted or regranted, jobseeker support, and A is a spouse or partner in respect of whom jobseeker support would be granted or regranted; or d A’s spouse or partner applied or reapplied for, and was granted or regranted, jobseeker support, and A is a spouse or partner in respect of whom jobseeker support was granted or regranted. Exceptions: when specified young person is not subject to requirement 2 However, a specified young person ( A ) is not subject to the parental income requirement under subsection (1) if— a A is a dependent child in respect of jobseeker support applied or reapplied for by, or granted or regranted to, a person other than A; or b the jobseeker support mentioned in subsection (1) would be, or is,— i granted or regranted to A or A’s spouse or partner; and ii payable at an appropriate rate of benefit that is determined including (as well as A, and A’s spouse or partner (if any)) 1 or more dependent children; or c A, or A’s spouse or partner, is receiving, in respect of a child, an orphan’s benefit, an unsupported child’s benefit, or a foster care allowance. 23B Jobseeker support: parental income requirement: how it is met General rule: how requirement is met 1 A specified young person ( A ) who is subject to the parental income requirement ( see section 23A ) meets that requirement only if— a A has 1 applicable parent whose parental income for the calculation year is not more than the parental income limit; or b A has 2 applicable parents whose combined parental income for the calculation year is not more than the parental income limit. Exceptions: when specified young person must be taken to meet requirement 2 However, a specified young person ( A ) who is subject to the parental income requirement ( see section 23A ) must be taken to meet that requirement if— a A has no applicable parents; or b A met that requirement for a relevant benefit in the last 26 weeks, had or is in a discretionary review under section 304, and in or because of that review is moving directly from receiving that relevant benefit to being included as a spouse or partner in determining the appropriate rate of benefit of another person’s relevant benefit — i that is the same, or a different, type of relevant benefit; and ii for which A is, for any reason, subject to that requirement; or c that requirement would otherwise apply to A on a reapplication for jobseeker support, and A has in the reapplication advised MSD that there has been no increase in the following since MSD last calculated it: i the parental income of A’s 1 applicable parent; or ii the combined parental income of A’s 2 applicable parents. 23C Jobseeker support: parental income requirement: if it is not met Before benefit granted or regranted to specified young person ( A ) 1 If A is subject to the parental income requirement under section 23A(1)(a) and A does not meet that requirement, then, with effect from when A does not meet that requirement, A is not entitled to jobseeker support (regardless of whether A has a spouse or partner who is subject to, and meets, the parental income requirement). After benefit granted or regranted to A 2 If A is subject to the parental income requirement under section 23A(1)(b) and A does not meet that requirement, then, with effect from when A does not meet that requirement (regardless of whether A has a spouse or partner who is subject to, and meets, the parental income requirement),— a A is not entitled to jobseeker support; and b jobseeker support granted or regranted to A is cancelled. Before benefit granted or regranted to A’s spouse or partner 3 If A is subject to the parental income requirement under section 23A(1)(c) and A does not meet that requirement, then, with effect from when A does not meet that requirement, any jobseeker support to which A’s spouse or partner is entitled and granted or regranted is payable at only half the rate of benefit in clause 1(j)(i) of Part 1 of Schedule 4. 3A Subsection (3B) applies if— a A is subject to the parental income requirement under section 23A(1)(c) ; and b MSD has not received, from or on behalf of A and in the period for completing the application or the requirements for regrant, information that shows whether A meets the parental income requirement. 3B With effect from when the granted or regranted benefit commences, any jobseeker support to which A’s spouse or partner is entitled and granted or regranted is payable at only half the rate of benefit in clause 1(j)(i) of Part 1 of Schedule 4. After benefit granted or regranted to A’s spouse or partner 4 If A is subject to the parental income requirement under section 23A(1)(d) and A does not meet that requirement, then, with effect from when A does not meet that requirement, any jobseeker support to which A’s spouse or partner is entitled and granted or regranted is payable at only half the rate of benefit in clause 1(j)(i) of Part 1 of Schedule 4. 4A Subsection (4B) applies if— a A is subject to the parental income requirement under section 23A(1)(d) ; and b MSD has not received, from or on behalf of A and by a deadline under subpart 3 or 3A of Part 6, information that shows whether A meets the parental income requirement. 4B With effect from a date required by or determined under subpart 3 or 3A of Part 6, any jobseeker support to which A’s spouse or partner is entitled and granted or regranted is payable at only half the rate of benefit in clause 1(j)(i) of Part 1 of Schedule 4. Relationship with discretionary reviews and mandatory reviews 5 Subsections (2) , (4), and (4 B ) do not limit— a discretionary reviews under subpart 3 of Part 6 (for example, MSD’s discretion under section 306 to suspend, cancel, or vary the rate of the benefit from a date MSD reasonably determines under section 306(2), even if that determined date differs from when A does not meet the parental income requirement or from the deadline for providing information that shows whether A meets the parental income requirement ); or b mandatory reviews under subpart 3A of Part 6 (for example, any requirement or discretion in that subpart to suspend, cancel, or vary the rate of the benefit from a specified time, even if that specified time differs from when A does not meet the parental income requirement or from the deadline for providing information that shows whether A meets the parental income requirement ). 23D Jobseeker support: parental income requirement: definitions Definitions 1 In the parental income requirement provisions, unless the context otherwise requires,— applicable parent has the meaning given in section 23E(2) calculation year means the year for which an applicable parent’s parental income must be calculated under clause 14A, 14B, or 14C of Schedule 3 foster care allowance means a payment under section 363 of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 MSD income tax deduction or payment , in relation to a payment of an amount of a benefit, means— a a tax deduction made by MSD from the source deduction payment (as defined in section 349) that is the payment of the amount of the benefit; or b an amount for income tax that is paid by MSD under section 350 on the payment of the amount of the benefit parent , of a specified young person ( A ), means— a a natural parent of A; or b an adoptive parent of A; or c a step-parent of A parental income , of an applicable parent ( AP ), means AP’s income within the meaning given to that term by Part 2 of Schedule 3, but with that meaning modified by— a including an amount received by AP, of any of the following benefits, along with the MSD income tax deduction or payment: i a main benefit under this Act: ii New Zealand superannuation: iii veteran’s pension; and b including an y amount , item, payment, or income from a specified source, declared by regulations made under section 422A(1)(a) to be parental income; and c excluding an amount of any accommodation benefit received by AP under regulations made, or that must be treated as if they were made, under section 645 (regulations relating to student allowances) of the Education and Training Act 2020; and d excluding an y amount , item, payment, or income from a specified source, declared by regulations made under section 422A(1)(b) not to be parental income; and e excluding, for the purposes of clause 16A and 17 of Schedule 3 , a sum or payment specified in clause 16A(5) of Schedule 3 parental income limit , for an applicable parent’s parental income for a calculation year, means the amount of gross parental income (that is, parental income before deduction or payment of income tax ) that (because the rate of benefit is subject to Income Test 1) would reduce to zero a supported living payment that must be paid for a year at the rate of benefit specified in clause 1(g)(ii) of Part 3 of Schedule 4 (as in force at the time that the applicable parent’s parental income must be calculated) parental income requirement means the requirement in section 23B as that requirement applies to— a jobseeker support ( see sections 20(ca), 23A, and 23C ); and b equivalent emergency benefit ( see section 63(2A) ) parental income requirement provisions means— a sections 23A to 23I : b section 63(2A) and (2B) : c section 113(1A), (3A), and (3B) : d subparts 3B to 3D of Part 6 : e section 422A : f clauses 14A to 14E and 16A of Schedule 3 : g any rules made under clause 17 of Schedule 3 for the purposes of clause 16A of Schedule 3 : h Part 16 of Schedule 1 relevant benefit means— a jobseeker support ( see sections 23A to 23I ); or b an equivalent emergency benefit ( see section 63(2A) ) specified young person means a person ( A ) who— 18 or 19 years, single, granted or regranted benefit a is aged 18 or 19 years and— i is single; and ii would be, or was, granted or regranted jobseeker support that is payable in respect of A; or 18 or 19 years, in relationship, granted or regranted benefit b is aged 18 or 19 years and— i has a spouse or partner who may, but need not, be a person to whom paragraph (c) or (e) applies; and ii would be, or was, granted or regranted jobseeker support that is payable in respect of— A A and A’s spouse or partner (with, or without, 1 or more dependent children); or B A (with, or without, 1 or more dependent children), but not also A’s spouse or partner; or 18 or 19 years, in relationship, included in spouse’s or partner’s benefit c is aged 18 or 19 years, and is a spouse or partner of another person who— i may, but need not, be a person to whom paragraph (b) or (d) applies; and ii would be, or was, granted or regranted jobseeker support that is payable in respect of A and A’s spouse or partner (with, or without, 1 or more dependent children); or 16 or 17 years, in relationship, spouse or partner at least 18 years old, granted or regranted benefit d is aged 16 or 17 years and— i has a spouse or partner who— A is at least 18 years old; and B may be a person to whom paragraph (c) applies, or may instead be a person who is at least 20 years old; and ii would be, or was, granted or regranted jobseeker support that is payable in respect of A and A’s spouse or partner (with, or without, 1 or more dependent children); or 16 or 17 years, in relationship, spouse or partner at least 18 years old, included in spouse’s or partner’s benefit e is aged 16 or 17 years and is a spouse or partner of another person who— i is at least 18 years old; and ii may be a person to whom paragraph (b) applies, or may instead be a person who is at least 20 years old; and iii would be, or was, granted or regranted jobseeker support that is payable in respect of A and A’s spouse or partner (with, or without, 1 or more dependent children). References to meeting parental income requirement 2 A reference in the parental income requirement provisions (except sections 310ZB(3), 310ZL(3), and 310ZT(3), and clauses 14A(2), 14B(2), and 14C(2) of Schedule 3 ) to a person who meets the parental income requirement includes, without limitation, a reference to a person who under section 23B(2) must be taken to meet that requirement. Birthday of person born on 29 February in leap year 3 If a person ( A ) was born on 29 February in a leap year, A’s birthday in a non-leap year is, for the purposes of the parental income requirement provisions, taken to occur on 1 March of that non-leap year. 23E Jobseeker support: parental income requirement: applicable parent No applicable parents, 1 applicable parent, or 2 applicable parents 1 For the purposes of the parental income requirement provisions, only 1 of the following paragraphs applies to a specified young person ( A ): a A has no applicable parents ( see section 23B(2)(a) ); or b A has 1 applicable parent ( see section 23B(1)(a) ); or c A has 2 applicable parents ( see section 23B(1)(b) ). Definition: applicable parent only if MSD makes determination 2 In the parental income requirement provisions, unless the context otherwise requires, a parent ( P1 ) of a specified young person ( A ) is an applicable parent of A only if MSD has determined under this subsection that P1 is an applicable parent of A because MSD is satisfied of both of the following: a A does not have a parental support gap with P1 ( see   section 23G ); and b P1 is not in a relationship with another parent of A ( P2 ) with whom MSD has determined A has a parental support gap ( see   section 23G ) for reasons that are, or include, that, if A were to rely on P2 for financial support, then P2 would pose a risk to A’s safety. Guide A has no applicable parents if MSD has made no applicable parent determinations under this section. A has 1 or 2 applicable parents only if MSD makes 1 or more applicable parent determinations under this section whose effect is that— 1 parent of A is an applicable parent of A; or 2 parents of A are each applicable parents of A. Determination must be based on relevant evidence available to MSD, etc 3 MSD must make an applicable parent determination under subsection (2) — a based on relevant evidence available to MSD (for example, any evidence supplied to MSD by or on behalf of A); and b having regard to any applicable directions given under section 7. 23F Jobseeker support: parental income requirement: priority for applicable parent determinations Natural parents or adoptive parents must be considered before step-parents 1 MSD may determine whether a step-parent of A is an applicable parent of A only after MSD has determined that all or any of the following is or are not an applicable parent of A: a 1 or more natural parents of A; or b 1 or more adoptive parents of A. Example Natural parents must be considered before step-parents A has 2 natural parents ( P1 and P2 ). But P1 and P2 are no longer in a relationship. P1 is in a relationship with a step-parent ( SP1 ). P2 is in a relationship with a step-parent ( SP2 ). MSD may determine whether SP1 or SP2 is an applicable parent of A only after MSD has determined that either or both of the 1 or more natural parents of A is or are not an applicable parent of A. Step-parent who A is living with must be considered before other step-parent 2 MSD may determine whether a step-parent who A is not living with is an applicable parent of A only after MSD has determined that another step-parent who A is living with is not an applicable parent of A. Example Step-parent who A is living with must be considered before other step-parent A has 2 natural parents ( P1 and P2 ). But P1 and P2 are no longer in a relationship. P1 is in a relationship with a step-parent ( SP1 ). P2 is in a relationship with a step-parent ( SP2 ). A is living with P1 and SP1. A is not living with P2 and SP2. MSD may determine whether SP2 is an applicable parent of A only after MSD has determined that SP1 is not an applicable parent of A. If A is not living with step-parent, step-parent in relationship with parent with whom A does not have support gap must be considered before step-parent in relationship with parent with whom A has parental support gap 3 Subsection (4) applies if— a A is not living with any step-parent; and b A has a step-parent ( SP1 ) who is in a relationship with a parent ( P1 ) with whom A does not have a parental support gap; and c A has a step-parent ( SP2 ) who is in a relationship with a parent ( P2 ) with whom A has a parental support gap for reasons that are not, or do not include, that, if A were to rely on P2 for financial support, then P2 would pose a risk to A’s safety. 4 MSD may determine whether SP2 is an applicable parent of A only after MSD has determined that SP1 is not an applicable parent of A. 23G Jobseeker support: parental income requirement: parental support gap Parental support gap only if MSD makes determination 1 For the purposes of section 23E , a specified young person ( A ) has a parental support gap with a parent ( P ) only if MSD has determined that MSD is satisfied that it is not reasonable in the circumstances for A to rely on P for financial support. Situations in which it is not reasonable for A to rely on P for financial support 2 MSD must be satisfied under subsection (1) that it is not reasonable in the circumstances for A to rely on P for financial support if— a A has or had a caregiver who is or was receiving an orphan’s benefit or an unsupported child’s benefit for A until A turns 18 or under subpart 18 of Part 2 (extended payment of benefits for children aged 18 years or over who continue education); or b A is or was in the care or custody of Oranga Tamariki and is or was entitled under sections 386A and 386B of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 to support by way of advice or assistance at any time from when they leave care or custody up to the age of 25 years. 3 Subsection (2) does not limit MSD being satisfied under subsection (1) for reasons not specified in subsection (2) that it is not reasonable in the circumstances for A to rely on P for financial support. Determination must be based on relevant evidence available to MSD, etc 4 MSD must make a parental support gap determination under subsection (1) — a based on relevant evidence available to MSD (for example, any evidence supplied to MSD by or on behalf of A); and b having regard to any applicable directions given under section 7. Determination of specified kind must make clear if based on risk to A’s safety 5 A determination under subsection (1) that A has a parental support gap with P must make clear, for the purposes of section 23E(2)(b) , whether A’s parental support gap with P exists for reasons that are, or include, that, if A were to rely on P for financial support, then P would pose a risk to A’s safety. 23H Jobseeker support: parental income requirement: priority for parental support gap determinations Natural parents or adoptive parents must be considered before step-parents 1 MSD may determine whether A has a parental support gap with a step-parent only after MSD has determined that A has a parental support gap with— a 1 or more natural parents of A; or b 1 or more adoptive parents of A. Example Natural parents must be considered before step-parents A has 2 natural parents ( P1 and P2 ). But P1 and P2 are no longer in a relationship. P1 is in a relationship with a step-parent ( SP1 ). P2 is in a relationship with a step-parent ( SP2 ). MSD may determine whether A has a parental support gap with SP1 or SP2 only after MSD has determined that A has a parental support gap with P1, P2, or both. Step-parent who A is living with must be considered before other step-parent 2 MSD may determine whether A has a parental support gap with a step-parent who A is not living with only after MSD has determined that A has a parental support gap with another step-parent who A is living with. Example Step-parent who A is living with must be considered before other step-parent A has 2 natural parents ( P1 and P2 ). But P1 and P2 are no longer in a relationship. P1 is in a relationship with a step-parent ( SP1 ). P2 is in a relationship with a step-parent ( SP2 ). A is living with P1 and SP1. A is not living with P2 and SP2. MSD may determine whether A has a parental support gap with SP2 only after MSD has determined that A has a parental support gap with SP1. A not living with either step-parent and has support gap with 1 parent 3 Subsection (4) applies if— a A is not living with any step-parent; and b A has a step-parent ( SP1 ) who is in a relationship with a parent ( P1 ) with whom A does not have a parental support gap; and c A has a step-parent ( SP2 ) who is in a relationship with a parent ( P2 ) with whom A has a parental support gap for reasons that are not, or do not include, that, if A were to rely on P2 for financial support, then P2 would pose a risk to A’s safety. 4 MSD may determine whether A has a parental support gap with SP2 only after MSD has determined that A has a parental support gap with SP1. 23I Jobseeker support: parental income requirement: relationship determinations Determination parent is single 1 MSD may make a determination to regard as single, for the purposes of sections 23E to 23H , a parent who is married or in a civil union with that parent’s spouse or partner, but— a is living apart from that parent’s spouse or partner; and b is not in a de facto relationship. 2 A determination under subsection (1) may include a date, determined by MSD, on which the spouses or partners must be taken for the purposes of sections 23E to 23H to have commenced to live apart. Determination parent is in relationship 3 MSD may make a determination to regard as a party to a de facto relationship, for the purposes of sections 23E to 23H , any 2 people who, not being legally married or in a civil union, have entered into a de facto relationship. 4 A determination under subsection (3) , for the purposes of sections 23E to 23H , may include either or both of the following dates: a a date, determined by MSD, on which the 2 people must be taken as having entered into the de facto relationship: b a date, determined by MSD, on which the de facto relationship of the 2 people must be taken to have ended. Relationship with other provisions 5 Every determination under this section also applies for the purposes of every debt-recovery or offence provision in or under this Act. 6 Section 63 amended (Emergency benefit: discretionary grant on ground of hardship) After section 63(2), insert: 2A However, if P is a specified young person, and the equivalent benefit under subsection (4) is jobseeker support, MSD may grant P an emergency benefit only if P meets the parental income requirement. 2B For the purposes of subsection (2A) , parental income requirement provisions that do not mention the equivalent emergency benefit apply to it as if it were jobseeker support. 7 Section 113 amended (Beneficiary must notify change of circumstances) After section 113(1), insert: 1A A beneficiary must without delay notify MSD of a change in the circumstances of a parent of the beneficiary if— a the change affects whether the beneficiary is subject to, or meets, the parental income requirement; and b for that reason, the change affects— i the beneficiary’s entitlement to receive a benefit; or ii the rate of a benefit the beneficiary receives. In the heading above section 113(2), after Examples of change of circumstances , insert : general . After section 113(3), insert: Examples of change of circumstances: parental income requirement 3A Examples of a change in the beneficiary’s circumstances, in relation to a relevant benefit, include— a the beneficiary becoming, or ceasing to be, a specified young person for a relevant benefit ( see section 23A(1) ): b a change that does, or may, affect whether a parent of the beneficiary is an applicable parent ( see sections 23B and 23E ): c the beneficiary ceasing to be a dependent child in respect of whom a relevant benefit would be or was granted or regranted to, and payable to, any other person ( see section 23A(2)(a) ): d the beneficiary, or the beneficiary’s spouse or partner, ceasing to have the care of the last or only dependent child in respect of whom a relevant benefit granted or regranted to the beneficiary, or the beneficiary’s spouse or partner, would be, or was, payable ( see section 23A(2)(b) ): e the beneficiary, or the beneficiary’s spouse or partner, ceasing to have the care of the last or only child in respect of whom the beneficiary, or the beneficiary’s spouse or partner, was receiving an orphan’s benefit, an unsupported child’s benefit, or a foster care allowance ( see section 23A(2)(c) ). 3B Examples of a change in the circumstances of a parent of the beneficiary that affects whether the beneficiary is subject to, or meets, the parental income requirement, in relation to a relevant benefit, include— a a change in whether the parent is single or is in a relationship, and that does, or may, affect the applicable parents of a specified young person in respect of whom the relevant benefit would be or was payable: b an increase in the parental income of 1 applicable parent, or in the combined parental income of 2 applicable parents, of a specified young person in respect of whom the relevant benefit would be or was payable. 8 New subparts 3B to 3D of Part 6 inserted Before section 311, insert: 3B Reviews related to parental income requirement: child leaves care because of sudden uncontrollable change of circumstances 310W Relevant benefit to which this subpart applies Relevant benefit to which this subpart applies 1 This subpart applies to a relevant benefit granted or regranted to, or in respect of, a specified young person ( A ) if MSD becomes aware in any way of information that does, or may, satisfy MSD that— a a child leaves the care of A, or of A and A’s spouse or partner; and b the child leaves that care in a way that meets the conditions set out in subsections (2) and (3) . Child leaves care because of sudden uncontrollable change of circumstances 2 The condition in this subsection is that the child leaves the care of A, or of A and A’s spouse or partner, because of a change of circumstances that is sudden and beyond the control of A, or of A and A’s spouse or partner. A is subject to parental income requirement 3 The condition in this subsection is that the child leaves the care of A, or of A and A’s spouse or partner, with the effect that section 23A(2)(b) or (c) ceases to apply to A (and A is subject to the parental income requirement under section 23A(1) ) because— a the relevant benefit ceases to be payable at an appropriate rate of benefit that is determined including (as well as A, and A’s spouse or partner (if any)) 1 or more dependent children; or b A, or A’s spouse or partner, ceases to be receiving, in respect of a child, an orphan’s benefit, an unsupported child’s benefit, or a foster care allowance. 310X Review under section 304 to ascertain child exclusion date MSD must carry out a review under section 304 to ascertain the child exclusion date (if any), which, in this subpart, means the date on which,— a if section 310W(3)(a) applies, the relevant benefit ceases to be payable in respect of A, or A and A’s spouse or partner, and 1 or more dependent children; or b if section 310W(3)(b) applies, A, or A’s spouse or partner, ceases to be receiving, in respect of a child, an orphan’s benefit, an unsupported child’s benefit, or a foster care allowance. 310Y Other requirements apply only if MSD notified that child left care Sections 310Z to 310ZG apply only if MSD ascertains the child exclusion date under section 310X , and notice that the child left the care of A, or of A and A’s spouse or partner, is given to MSD— a by or on behalf of A, or of A and A’s spouse or partner; and b at a time before the 21st working day after the child exclusion date. 310Z Conditional payment at rate without dependent children 1 MSD must pay the relevant benefit in respect of A, or of A and A’s spouse or partner,— a at the appropriate rate for a beneficiary, or for a beneficiary and their spouse or partner, without 1 or more dependent children; and b as a conditional payment that, to the extent that A, or A’s spouse or partner, does not meet the parental income requirement for all or any of the days for which the conditional payment is made, is a debt due to the Crown from A, or from A and A’s spouse or partner, for the purpose of regulations made under section 444. 2 The conditional payment is paid until the earlier of the following: a the end of 20 working days after the child exclusion date: b the end of the date on which a review under section 310ZA determines whether A or A’s spouse or partner is, or remains, entitled to receive the relevant benefit, and the rate of benefit of the relevant benefit, that is being paid to, or in respect of, A or A’s spouse or partner. 310ZA Review of entitlement to, and rate of benefit of, relevant benefit 1 MSD must, after MSD has received the required information ( see section 310ZB(2) ), review whether A or A’s spouse or partner is, or remains, entitled to receive the relevant benefit, and the rate of benefit of the relevant benefit, that is being paid to, or in respect of, A or A’s spouse or partner. 2 See also clause 14C of Schedule 3 (parental income requirement: how parental income is calculated: reviews under subparts 3B to 3D of Part 6 ). 310ZB Notice of review and seeking required information Notice of review 1 MSD must, as soon as practicable (and, if possible, at least 20 working days) before the 21st working day after the child exclusion date, give A a notice explaining that— a the relevant benefit is, for up to 20 working days after the child exclusion date, paid as a conditional payment— i at the appropriate rate for a beneficiary, or for a beneficiary and their spouse or partner, without 1 or more dependent children; and ii that, to the extent that A, or A’s spouse or partner, does not meet the parental income requirement for all or any of those working days, is a debt due to the Crown from A, or from A and A’s spouse or partner; and b if the review under section 310ZA determines that A does not meet the parental income requirement, the relevant benefit will be cancelled, or will be payable at only half the rate of benefit in clause 1(j)(i) of Part 1 of Schedule 4, with effect starting on the child exclusion date; and c if the relevant benefit is so cancelled, or is so payable at only half the rate of benefit in clause 1(j)(i) of Part 1 of Schedule 4, MSD must consider eligibility for, and granting of, any other benefit that, if granted, would be payable to, or in respect of, A. Required information 2 That notice must ask A to ensure that MSD receives, from or on behalf of A, as soon as is reasonably practicable before the 21st working day after the child exclusion date, and because it is required by MSD under this section, information (in this subpart, called the required information ) that— a is reasonably required for the purposes of the review; and b shows whether A meets the parental income requirement. Notice if couple both subject to parental income requirement 3 A notice required by subsections (1) and (2) must be given to A, and applies to both A and A’s spouse or partner, if— a A is the person to whom the relevant benefit is granted or regranted, is subject to the parental income requirement under section 23A(1) , and is not required to be taken to meet it under section 23B(2) ; and b A’s spouse or partner is the person in respect of whom the relevant benefit is granted or regranted, is subject to the parental income requirement under section 23A(1) , and is not required to be taken to meet it under section 23B(2) . 310ZC If benefit suspended, or not payable, for another reason Effect on requirement to give notice 1 Subsection (2) applies if, at the time MSD would (but for that subsection) be required to give notice under section 310ZB , A’s relevant benefit is, for reasons unrelated to A not meeting the parental income requirement,— a suspended; or b not for the time being payable under this Act. 2 MSD is not required to give the notice at that time, but may do so before the 21st working day after the child exclusion date if— a A’s relevant benefit has ceased, or will cease, for reasons of that kind, to be suspended, or to be not for the time being payable; and b it is reasonably practicable for A to provide the required information before the 21st working day after the child exclusion date. Effect on requirement to conduct review 3 Subsection (4) applies if, at the time MSD would (but for that subsection) be required to conduct a review under section 310ZA , A’s relevant benefit is, for reasons unrelated to A not meeting the parental income requirement,— a suspended; or b not for the time being payable under this Act. 4 MSD is not required to conduct the review at that time, but may do so after MSD has received the required information. 310ZD Suspension or reduction if required information not provided 1 If A is the person to whom the relevant benefit is granted or regranted, and MSD has not received from A the required information before the 21st working day after the child exclusion date, MSD must suspend the relevant benefit with effect starting on the child exclusion date and until the earlier of the following events: a MSD receives the required information and completes a review under section 310ZA : b MSD cancels the benefit under section 310ZF . 2 If A is a spouse or partner in respect of whom the relevant benefit is granted or regranted, and MSD has not received from A the required information before the 21st working day after the child exclusion date, the relevant benefit is payable at only half the rate of benefit in clause 1(j)(i) of Part 1 of Schedule 4 with effect starting on the child exclusion date and until the earlier of the following events: a MSD receives the required information and completes a review under section 310ZA : b MSD cancels the benefit under section 310ZF . 310ZE What MSD must do as result of review 1 As a result of the review under section 310ZA , MSD must, if A does not meet the parental income requirement,— a cancel the relevant benefit, or pay the relevant benefit at only half the rate of benefit in clause 1(j)(i) of Part 1 of Schedule 4, with effect starting on the child exclusion date (as required by section 23C ); and b consider eligibility for, and granting of, another benefit that, if granted, would be payable to, or in respect of, A. 2 As a result of the review under section 310ZA , MSD must, if A meets the parental income requirement,— a and the relevant benefit has not been suspended, continue the relevant benefit at the appropriate rate; or b and the relevant benefit has been suspended, resume the relevant benefit at the appropriate rate and with effect starting on the child exclusion date. 310ZF Cancellation if required information not provided If MSD has not received the required information 8 weeks after the child exclusion date, MSD must cancel the relevant benefit with effect starting on the child exclusion date. 310ZG Part 7 gives rights to seek review or appeal against decision 1 Rights to seek a review of, or to appeal against, a decision on a review under section 310ZA this subpart are given by the following subparts of Part 7: a subpart 2 (reviews by benefits review committee): b subpart 3 (appeals to appeal authority): c subpart 4 (appeals to courts). 2 Subsection (1) is by way of explanation only. 3C Reviews related to parental income requirement: child leaves care for other reason 310ZH Child leaves care for other reason Relevant benefit to which this subpart applies 1 This subpart applies to a relevant benefit granted or regranted to, or in respect of, a specified young person ( A ) if MSD becomes aware in any way of information that does, or may, satisfy MSD that— a a child leaves the care of A, or of A and A’s spouse or partner; and b the child leaves that care in a way that meets the conditions set out in subsections (2) and (3) . Child leaves care for other reason 2 The condition in this subsection is that the child leaves the care of A, or of A and A’s spouse or partner, for any reason other than a change of circumstances that is sudden and beyond the control of A, or of A and A’s spouse or partner. A is subject to parental income requirement 3 The condition in this subsection is that the child leaves the care of A, or of A and A’s spouse or partner, with the effect that section 23A(2)(b) or (c) ceases to apply to A (and A is subject to the parental income requirement under section 23A(1) ) because— a the relevant benefit ceases to be payable in respect of 1 or more dependent children (as well as in respect of A, and A’s spouse or partner (if any)); or b A, or A’s spouse or partner, ceases to be receiving, in respect of a child, an orphan’s benefit, an unsupported child’s benefit, or a foster care allowance. 310ZI Review under section 304 to ascertain child exclusion date MSD must carry out a review under section 304 to ascertain the child exclusion date (if any), which, in this subpart, means the date on which,— a if section 310ZH(3)(a) applies, the relevant benefit ceases to be payable at an appropriate rate of benefit that is determined including (as well as A, and A’s spouse or partner (if any)) 1 or more dependent children; or b if section 310ZH(3)(b) applies, A, or A’s spouse or partner, ceases to be receiving, in respect of a child, an orphan’s benefit, an unsupported child’s benefit, or a foster care allowance. 310ZJ Other requirements apply only if MSD notified that child left care Sections 310ZK to 310ZQ apply only if MSD ascertains the child exclusion date under section 310ZI , and notice that the child left the care of A, or of A and A’s spouse or partner, is given to MSD— a by or on behalf of A, or of A and A’s spouse or partner; and b at a time before the child exclusion date. 310ZK Review of entitlement to, and rate of benefit of, relevant benefit 1 MSD must, on or after the child exclusion date and after MSD has received the required information ( see section 310ZL(2) ), review whether A or A’s spouse or partner is, or remains, entitled to receive the relevant benefit, and the rate of benefit of the relevant benefit, that is being paid to, or in respect of, A. 2 See also clause 14C of Schedule 3 (parental income requirement: how parental income is calculated: reviews under subparts 3B to 3D of Part 6 ). 310ZL Notice of review and seeking required information Notice of review 1 MSD must, as soon as practicable (and, if possible, at least 20 working days) before the child exclusion date, give A a notice explaining that,— a if the review under section 310ZK determines that A does not meet the parental income requirement, the relevant benefit will be cancelled, or will be payable at only half the rate of benefit in clause 1(j)(i) of Part 1 of Schedule 4, with effect starting on the child exclusion date; and b if the relevant benefit is so cancelled, or is so payable at only half the rate of benefit in clause 1(j)(i) of Part 1 of Schedule 4, MSD must consider eligibility for, and granting of, any other benefit that, if granted, would be payable to, or in respect of, A. Required information 2 That notice must ask A to ensure that MSD receives, from or on behalf of A, as soon as is reasonably practicable before the child exclusion date, and because it is required by MSD under this section, information (in this subpart, called the required information ) that— a is reasonably required for the purposes of the review; and b shows whether A meets the parental income requirement. Notice if couple both subject to parental income requirement 3 A notice required by subsections (1) and (2) must be given to A, and applies to both A and A’s spouse or partner, if— a A is the person to whom the relevant benefit is granted or regranted, is subject to the parental income requirement under section 23A(1) , and is not required to be taken to meet it under section 23B(2) ; and b A’s spouse or partner is the person in respect of whom the relevant benefit is granted or regranted, is subject to the parental income requirement under section 23A(1) , and is not required to be taken to meet it under section 23B(2) . 310ZM If benefit suspended, or not payable, for another reason Effect on requirement to give notice 1 Subsection (2) applies if, at the time MSD would (but for that subsection) be required to give notice under section 310ZL , A’s relevant benefit is, for reasons unrelated to A not meeting the parental income requirement,— a suspended; or b not for the time being payable under this Act. 2 MSD is not required to give the notice at that time, but may do so before the 21st working day after the child exclusion date if— a A’s relevant benefit has ceased, or will cease, for reasons of that kind, to be suspended, or to be not for the time being payable; and b it is reasonably practicable for A to provide the required information before the 21st working day after the child exclusion date. Effect on requirement to conduct review 3 Subsection (4) applies if, at the time MSD would (but for that subsection) be required to conduct a review under section 310ZK , A’s relevant benefit is, for reasons unrelated to A not meeting the parental income requirement,— a suspended; or b not for the time being payable under this Act. 4 MSD is not required to conduct the review at that time, but may do so after MSD has received the required information. 310ZN Suspension or reduction if required information not provided 1 If A is the person to whom the relevant benefit is granted or regranted, and MSD has not received the required information before the child exclusion date, MSD must suspend the relevant benefit with effect starting on the child exclusion date and until the earlier of the following events: a MSD receives the required information and completes a review under section 310ZK : b MSD cancels the benefit under section 310ZP . 2 If A is a spouse or partner in respect of whom the relevant benefit is granted or regranted, and MSD has not received from A the required information before the child exclusion date, the relevant benefit is payable at only half the rate of benefit in clause 1(j)(i) of Part 1 of Schedule 4 with effect starting on the child exclusion date and until the earlier of the following events: a MSD receives the required information and completes a review under section 310ZK : b MSD cancels the benefit under section 310ZP . 310ZO What MSD must do as result of review 1 As a result of the review under section 310ZK , MSD must, if A does not meet the parental income requirement,— a cancel the relevant benefit, or pay the relevant benefit at only half the rate of benefit in clause 1(j)(i) of Part 1 of Schedule 4, with effect starting on the child exclusion date (as required by section 23C ); and b consider eligibility for, and granting of, another benefit that, if granted, would be payable to, or in respect of, A. 2 As a result of the review under section 310ZK , MSD must, if A meets the parental income requirement, continue or resume the relevant benefit at the appropriate rate and with effect starting on the child exclusion date. 310ZP Cancellation if required information not provided If MSD has not received the required information 8 weeks after the child exclusion date, MSD must cancel the relevant benefit with effect starting on the child exclusion date. 310ZQ Part 7 gives rights to seek review or appeal against decision 1 Rights to seek a review of, or to appeal against, a decision on a review under section 310ZK this subpart are given by the following subparts of Part 7: a subpart 2 (reviews by benefits review committee): b subpart 3 (appeals to appeal authority): c subpart 4 (appeals to courts). 2 Subsection (1) is by way of explanation only. 3D Reviews related to parental income requirement: beneficiary or spouse or partner turns 18 310ZR Relevant benefit to which this subpart applies This subpart applies to a relevant benefit that— a is, or is an emergency benefit equivalent to, jobseeker support granted under section 25(4); and b is granted to, or in respect of, a person ( A ) who— i was not a specified young person when that benefit was granted; and ii becomes a specified young person (and subject to the parental income requirement under section 23A(1) ) after that benefit was granted and on A’s, or A’s spouse’s or partner’s, 18th birthday. 310ZS Review of entitlement to, and rate of benefit of, relevant benefit 1 MSD must, on or after that 18th birthday and after MSD has received the required information ( see section 310ZT(2) ), review whether A or A’s spouse or partner is, or remains, entitled to receive the relevant benefit, and the rate of benefit of the relevant benefit, that is being paid to, or in respect of, A. 2 See also clause 14C of Schedule 3 (parental income requirement: how parental income is calculated: reviews under subparts 3B to 3D of Part 6 ). 310ZT Notice of review and seeking required information Notice of review 1 MSD must, as soon as practicable (and, if possible, at least 20 working days) before that 18th birthday, give A a notice explaining that,— a if the review under section 310ZS determines that A does not meet the parental income requirement, the relevant benefit will be cancelled, or will be payable at only half the rate of benefit in clause 1(j)(i) of Part 1 of Schedule 4, with effect starting on that 18th birthday; and b if the relevant benefit is so cancelled, or is so payable at only half the rate of benefit in clause 1(j)(i) of Part 1 of Schedule 4, MSD must consider eligibility for, and granting of, any other benefit that, if granted, would be payable to, or in respect of, A. Required information 2 That notice must ask A to ensure that MSD receives, from or on behalf of A, as soon as is reasonably practicable before that 18th birthday, and because it is required by MSD under this section, information (in this subpart, called the required information ) that— a is reasonably required for the purposes of the review; and b shows whether A meets the parental income requirement. Notice if couple both subject to parental income requirement 3 A notice required by subsections (1) and (2) must be given to A, and applies to both A and A’s spouse or partner, if— a A is the person to whom the relevant benefit is granted or regranted, is subject to the parental income requirement under section 23A(1) , and is not required to be taken to meet it under section 23B(2) ; and b A’s spouse or partner is the person in respect of whom the relevant benefit is granted or regranted, is subject to the parental income requirement under section 23A(1) , and is not required to be taken to meet it under section 23B(2) . 310ZU If benefit suspended, or not payable, for another reason Effect on requirement to give notice 1 Subsection (2) applies if, at the time MSD would (but for that subsection) be required to give notice under section 310ZT , A’s relevant benefit is, for reasons unrelated to A not meeting the parental income requirement,— a suspended; or b not for the time being payable under this Act. 2 MSD is not required to give the notice at that time, but may do so before that 18th birthday if— a A’s relevant benefit has ceased, or will cease, for reasons of that kind, to be suspended, or to be not for the time being payable; and b it is reasonably practicable for A to provide the required information before that 18th birthday. Effect on requirement to conduct review 3 Subsection (4) applies if, at the time MSD would (but for that subsection) be required to conduct a review under section 310ZS , A’s relevant benefit is, for reasons unrelated to A not meeting the parental income requirement,— a suspended; or b not for the time being payable under this Act. 4 MSD is not required to conduct the review at that time, but may do so after MSD has received the required information. 310ZV Suspension or reduction if required information not provided 1 If A is the person to whom the relevant benefit is granted or regranted, and MSD has not received the required information before that 18th birthday, MSD must suspend the relevant benefit with effect starting on that 18th birthday and until the earlier of the following events: a MSD receives the required information and completes a review under section 310ZS : b MSD cancels the benefit under section 310ZX . 2 If A is a spouse or partner in respect of whom the relevant benefit is granted or regranted, and MSD has not received from A the required information before that 18th birthday, the relevant benefit is payable at only half the rate of benefit in clause 1(j)(i) of Part 1 of Schedule 4 with effect starting on that 18th birthday and until the earlier of the following events: a MSD receives the required information and completes a review under section 310ZS : b MSD cancels the benefit under section 310ZX . 310ZW What MSD must do as result of review 1 As a result of the review under section 310ZS , MSD must, if A does not meet the parental income requirement,— a cancel the relevant benefit, or pay the relevant benefit at only half the rate of benefit in clause 1(j)(i) of Part 1 of Schedule 4, with effect starting on that 18th birthday (as required by section 23C ); and b consider eligibility for, and granting of, another benefit that, if granted, would be payable to, or in respect of, A. 2 As a result of the review under section 310ZS , MSD must, if A meets the parental income requirement, continue or resume the relevant benefit at the appropriate rate and with effect starting on that 18th birthday. 310ZX Cancellation if required information not provided If MSD has not received the required information 8 weeks after that 18th birthday, MSD must cancel the relevant benefit with effect starting on that 18th birthday. 310ZY Part 7 gives rights to seek review or appeal against decision 1 Rights to seek a review of, or to appeal against, a decision on a review under section 310ZS this subpart are given by the following subparts of Part 7: a subpart 2 (reviews by benefits review committee): b subpart 3 (appeals to appeal authority): c subpart 4 (appeals to courts). 2 Subsection (1) is by way of explanation only. 9 New section 422A inserted (Regulations: jobseeker support: parental income requirement: parental income inclusions and exclusions) After section 422, insert: 422A Regulations: jobseeker support: parental income requirement: parental income inclusions and exclusions 1 The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, make regulations for the purposes of either or both of the following paragraphs of the definition of parental income in section 23D : a paragraph (b) (amount , item, payment, or income from specified source, declared to be parental income): b paragraph (d) (amount , item, payment, or income from specified source, declared not to be parental income). 2 Regulations made under subsection (1)(b) have effect in respect of any income specified in the regulations on and after a date— a specified in the regulations; and b earlier than, the same as, or later than the date on which the regulations are made. 3 Regulations under this section are secondary legislation ( see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements). 10 Schedule 1 amended In Schedule 1,— a insert the Part set out in Schedule 1 of this Act as the last Part; and b make all necessary consequential amendments. 11 Schedule 2 amended In Schedule 2, insert in their appropriate alphabetical order: applicable parent is defined in section 23E for the purposes of the parental income requirement provisions calculation year is defined in section 23D for the purposes of the parental income requirement provisions child exclusion date — a is defined in section 310X for the purposes of subpart 3B of Part 6 ; and b is defined in section 310ZI for the purposes of subpart 3C of Part 6 foster care allowance is defined in section 23D for the purposes of the parental income requirement provisions MSD income tax deduction or payment is defined in section 23D for the purposes of the parental income requirement provisions parental income — a is defined in section 23D for the purposes of the parental income requirement provisions; but b for the purposes of clauses 16A and 17 of Schedule 3, has the meaning in section 23D as modified by clause 16A(5) of Schedule 3 parental income limit is defined in section 23D for the purposes of the parental income requirement provisions parental income requirement is defined in section 23D for the purposes of the parental income requirement provisions parental income requirement provisions is defined in section 23D for the purposes of those provisions relevant benefit is defined in section 23D for the purposes of the parental income requirement provisions required information — a is defined in section 310ZB for the purposes of subpart 3B of Part 6 ; and b is defined in section 310ZL for the purposes of subpart 3C of Part 6 ; and c is defined in section 310ZT for the purposes of subpart 3D of Part 6 specified young person is defined in section 23D for the purposes of the parental income requirement provisions In Schedule 2, replace the definition of parent with: parent ,— a in relation to a specified young person, is defined in section 23D for the purposes of the parental income requirement provisions; and b in relation to a child, is defined in section 43(3) for the purposes of— i subpart 5 of Part 2 (orphan’s benefit); and ii section 31(b)(i) (sole parent support: when dependent child may be regarded as applicant’s child); and c in relation to a child, is defined in section 46(3) for the purposes of— i subpart 6 of Part 2 (unsupported child’s benefit); and ii section 31(b)(ii) (sole parent support: when dependent child may be regarded as applicant’s child) 12 Schedule 3 amended In the Schedule 3 heading, after Income and liabilities , insert , and parental income . In the Schedule 3 heading,— a replace 65, with 23D , 65AAA, ; and b after 101, , insert 113, 304, 304A, 310W to 310ZY, 363A, . In Schedule 3, clause 1(c), after income , insert and parental income . In Schedule 3, Part 3 heading, after General provisions on calculation of income , insert and parental income . In Schedule 3, clause 9, before specified source , insert a . In Schedule 3, after clause 14, insert: 14A Parental income requirement: how parental income is calculated: applications and reapplications Application 1 This clause applies if a relevant benefit is applied for, or if a relevant benefit is reapplied for— a before, on, or after its expiry date (as defined in section 331); and b under section 336 and regulations made under section 441(1). Duty to check if specified young person meets parental income requirement 2 MSD must check whether a specified young person ( A ) meets the parental income requirement if A is— a subject to it under section 23A(1) ; and b not required to be taken to meet it under section 23B(2) . How parental income calculated for calculation year 3 In checking whether A meets the parental income requirement, MSD must calculate an applicable parent’s parental income for the calculation year by completing the following: a determining the representative weeks; and b calculating that parent’s parental income for the representative weeks that MSD determines ( see also clause 14D ); and c if the number of the representative weeks that MSD determines is not 52, annualising that parent’s parental income for those weeks ( see clause 14E ). Representative weeks that MSD determines 4 The representative weeks that MSD determines must be— a the 1 week, or the 2, 3, 4, 26, or 52 weeks, before the application or reapplication; and b those that MSD is satisfied best represent the parent’s ability to financially support the young person in the period during which the relevant benefit is payable and must continue to be paid. 14B Parental income requirement: how parental income is calculated: discretionary reviews under section 304 Application 1 This clause applies if MSD is considering whether a beneficiary was, or would be, entitled to a relevant benefit— a in, or as a result of, a discretionary review under section 304; and b after MSD becomes aware of a change in the beneficiary’s circumstances or of a change in the circumstances of a parent of the beneficiary (for example, because that change is notified under section 113(1) or (1A) ); and c in the period during which the beneficiary’s benefit that is the subject of the review (whether a relevant benefit or any other benefit) is payable and must continue to be paid. Duty to check if specified young person meets parental income requirement 2 MSD must check whether a specified young person ( A ) meets the parental income requirement if A is— a subject to it under section 23A(1) ; and b not required to be taken to meet it under section 23B(2) . How parental income calculated for calculation year 3 In checking whether A meets the parental income requirement, MSD must calculate an applicable parent’s parental income for the calculation year by completing the following: a determining the representative weeks; and b calculating that parent’s parental income for the representative weeks that MSD determines ( see also clause 14D ); and c if the number of the representative weeks that MSD determines is not 52, annualising that parent’s parental income for those weeks ( see clause 14E ). Representative weeks that MSD determines 4 The representative weeks that MSD determines must be either— a the 1 week, or the 2, 3, 4, 26, or 52 weeks, before the change of circumstances (if the applicable parent’s parental income has not earlier been assessed under this clause during the duration of the benefit grant); or b the 1 week starting on the day after of the change of circumstances (in any other case). 14C Parental income requirement: how parental income is calculated: reviews under subparts 3B to 3D of Part 6 Application 1 This clause applies if MSD is considering whether a beneficiary was, or would be, entitled to a relevant benefit in, or as a result of, a review required by— a subpart 3B of Part 6 (child leaves care because of sudden uncontrollable change of circumstances); or b subpart 3C of Part 6 (child leaves care for other reason); or c subpart 3D of Part 6 (beneficiary or spouse or partner turns 18). Duty to check if specified young person meets parental income requirement 2 MSD must check whether a specified young person ( A ) meets the parental income requirement if A is— a subject to it under section 23A(1) ; and b not required to be taken to meet it under section 23B(2) . How parental income calculated for calculation year 3 In checking whether A meets the parental income requirement, MSD must calculate an applicable parent’s parental income for the calculation year by completing the following: a determining the representative weeks; and b calculating that parent’s parental income for the representative weeks that MSD determines ( see also clause 14D ); and c if the number of the representative weeks that MSD determines is not 52, annualising that parent’s parental income for those weeks ( see clause 14E ). Representative weeks that MSD determines 4 The representative weeks that MSD determines must be— a the 1 week, or the 2, 3, 4, 26, or 52 weeks, before (as applicable)— i the child exclusion date (if subpart 3B or 3C of Part 6 applies); or ii the 18th birthday referred to in subpart 3D of Part 6 ; and b those that MSD is satisfied best represent the parent’s ability to financially support the specified young person in the period during which the relevant benefit is or would be payable and must continue to be paid. 14D Further provisions about calculation of parental income General 1 MSD must calculate the applicable parent’s parental income for the representative weeks that MSD determines under clause 14A, 14B, or 14C , based only on the extent to which it was received, acquired, paid, provided, or supplied in those weeks. Discretion to disregard certain parental income 2 Subclause (3) applies in calculating the applicable parent’s parental income for the representative weeks that MSD determines under clause 14B if— a those weeks are the 1 week starting on the day after of the change of circumstances ( see clause 14B(4)(b) ); and b but for subclause (3) , whichever of the following applies would be more than the parental income limit: i A’s 1 applicable parent’s parental income for the calculation year; or ii A’s 2 applicable parents’ combined parental income for the calculation year. 3 MSD may disregard income that is not likely to continue for the duration of the benefit grant. 14E How parental income annualised Application 1 This clause applies if the number of the representative weeks that MSD determines under clause 14A, 14B, or 14C is not 52. How income annualised 2 MSD annualises an applicable parent’s parental income for those weeks by multiplying that income by— a 2, if the number of those weeks is 26; or b 13, if the number of those weeks is 4; or c 17.33333, if the number of those weeks is 3; or d 26, if the number of those weeks is 2; or e 52, if the number of those weeks is 1. In Schedule 3, Part 4 heading, after Deprivation of income or property , insert or of parental income . In Schedule 3, after clause 16, insert: 16A Effect of deprivation of parental income of applicable parent 1 This clause applies if MSD is satisfied that— a a specified young person’s applicable parent has, directly or indirectly, deprived the applicable parent of parental income: b the deprivation results in either of the following: i the specified young person’s qualifying for a relevant benefit; or ii the specified young person’s spouse or partner qualifying for a relevant benefit at a rate of benefit that is payable other than as specified in section 23C(3) or (4) . 2 For the purposes of this clause and of rules under clause 17, deprivation of parental income, by a specified young person’s applicable parent, excludes that parent doing all or any of the things specified in clause 16(1A)(a) to (e). 3 Subclause (2) does not apply to, and does not limit the application of section 9 (UCB beneficiaries must apply for formula assessment) of the Child Support Act 1991 to,— a an applicant for an unsupported child’s benefit; or b the spouse or partner of that applicant; or c a UCB beneficiary; or d the spouse or partner of that UCB beneficiary. 4 MSD may refuse to grant a benefit, or cancel or reduce a benefit already granted. 5 In this clause and clause 17, parental income excludes, for 12 months after the date of the applicable parent’s receipt of the amount, an amount that— a MSD considers is, or might have been, derived by an applicable parent from— i an impairment lump sum under Schedule 1 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001; or ii a lump sum payment of an independence allowance under Part 13 or Part 4 of Schedule 1 of the Accident Insurance Act 1998; and b is paid to, and received by, the applicable parent, on or after 2 November 2026. 6 This clause— a overrides any provisions to the contrary in this Act (under clause 2(3)), Part 6 of the Veterans’ Support Act 2014, or the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001; but b is subject to any rules prescribed by rules under clause 17. In Schedule 3, heading to clause 17, after deprivation of income or property , insert or of parental income . In Schedule 3, clause 17(1), after clause 16 , insert or 16A . In Schedule 3, replace clause 17(1)(a) with: a relating to either or both of the following: i the deprivation of income, property, or both: ii the deprivation of parental income; and In Schedule 3, replace clause 17(1A) with: 1A Rules under this clause relating to the deprivation of income, property, or both are subject to clause 16(1A) (under which deprivation of income, property, or both, excludes specified conduct by a person who is an applicant for a benefit, or the spouse or partner of that applicant). 1B Rules under this clause relating to the deprivation of parental income are subject to clause 16A(2) (under which deprivation of parental income excludes specified conduct by an applicable parent). 13 Schedule 1 amended In Schedule 1,— a insert the Part set out in Schedule 2 of this Act as the last Part; and b make all necessary consequential amendments. 14 Schedule 2 amended In Schedule 2, definition of community spouse or partner , paragraph (b), replace item 6A of Part 7 of Schedule 4 with clause 6A of Part 7 of Schedule 4 . 15 Schedule 4 amended In Schedule 4, Part 7, replace clauses 4 to 6A with: The following table is small in size and has 3 columns. The columns have no headings. 4 To a person (other than a specified person) who has 1 or more dependent children and who is in a relationship, or a sole parent with 2 or more dependent children, whose accommodation costs are the sum of payments required under any mortgage security, and other payments that the chief executive is satisfied are reasonably required to be made in respect of the person's home 70% of the amount by which an applicant’s weekly qualifying accommodation costs exceeds 40% of the base rate, but not more than— a $305 a week, if the applicant resides in Area 1: b $220 a week, if the applicant resides in Area 2: c $160 a week, if the applicant resides in Area 3: d $120 a week, if the applicant resides in Area 4 4A To a specified person who has 1 or more dependent children and who is in a relationship, or a sole parent with 2 or more dependent children, whose accommodation costs are the sum of payments required under any mortgage security, and other payments that the chief executive is satisfied are reasonably required to be made in respect of the specified person's home 70% of the amount by which an applicant’s weekly qualifying accommodation costs exceeds 30% of the base rate, but not more than— a $305 a week, if the applicant resides in Area 1: b $220 a week, if the applicant resides in Area 2: c $160 a week, if the applicant resides in Area 3: d $120 a week, if the applicant resides in Area 4 5 To a person (other than a specified person) who has no dependent children and who is in a relationship, or a sole parent with 1 dependent child, whose accommodation costs are the sum of payments required under any mortgage security, and other payments that the chief executive is satisfied are reasonably required to be made in respect of the person's home 70% of the amount by which an applicant’s weekly qualifying accommodation costs exceeds 40% of the base rate, but not more than— a $235 a week, if the applicant resides in Area 1: b $155 a week, if the applicant resides in Area 2: c $105 a week, if the applicant resides in Area 3: d $80 a week, if the applicant resides in Area 4 5A To a specified person who has no dependent children and who is in a relationship, or a sole parent with 1 dependent child, whose accommodation costs are the sum of payments required under any mortgage security, and other payments that the chief executive is satisfied are reasonably required to be made in respect of the specified person’s home 70% of the amount by which an applicant’s weekly qualifying accommodation costs exceeds 30% of the base rate, but not more than— a $235 a week, if the applicant resides in Area 1: b $155 a week, if the applicant resides in Area 2: c $105 a week, if the applicant resides in Area 3: d $80 a week, if the applicant resides in Area 4 6 To any other person (other than a specified person) whose accommodation costs are the sum of payments required under any mortgage security, and other payments that the chief executive is satisfied are reasonably required to be made in respect of the person’s home 70% of the amount by which an applicant’s weekly qualifying accommodation costs exceeds 40% of the base rate, but not more than— a $165 a week, if the applicant resides in Area 1: b $105 a week, if the applicant resides in Area 2: c $80 a week, if the applicant resides in Area 3: d $70 a week, if the applicant resides in Area 4 6AA To any other specified person whose accommodation costs are the sum of payments required under any mortgage security, and other payments that the chief executive is satisfied are reasonably required to be made in respect of the specified person’s home 70% of the amount by which an applicant’s weekly qualifying accommodation costs exceeds 30% of the base rate, but not more than— a $165 a week, if the applicant resides in Area 1: b $105 a week, if the applicant resides in Area 2: c $80 a week, if the applicant resides in Area 3: d $70 a week, if the applicant resides in Area 4 6A The rate of accommodation supplement payable to a community spouse or partner (as defined in Schedule 2) is the rate in clauses 1 to 6AA that would apply to them if they were single (and their other circumstances were unchanged). 6B In clauses 4 to 6AA , specified person means a person, or the spouse or partner of a person, who is receiving— a supported living payment on the ground of restricted work capacity or total blindness; or b supported living payment on the ground of caring for another person; or c emergency benefit, but only if the equivalent benefit under section 63(4) is— i supported living payment on the ground of restricted work capacity or total blindness; or ii supported living payment on the ground of caring for another person; or d New Zealand superannuation; or e veteran’s pension. 1 New Part 16 inserted into Schedule 1 16 Provisions relating to Part 1 ( J j obseeker support and equivalent emergency benefit: tightening eligibility) of Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Act 2026 122 124 Definitions for this Part In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires,— amendment Act means the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Act 2026 amendments means the amendments made by Part 1 of the amendment Act pre-commencement notice or advice of expiry , in respect of a relevant benefit, means the notice or advice that a beneficiary ( A ) receives if, before 2 November 2026,— a MSD gives A a notice in respect of that benefit stating the matters set out in section 335(1)(a) to (c), as required by section 335(1); or b MSD takes reasonable steps to advise A of those matters, in respect of that relevant benefit, as required by section 335(2) and (3) relevant benefit and specified young person have the meanings given to them in section 23D . 123 125 Amendments apply only to specified relevant benefits The amendments apply, on and after 2 November 2026, only to a relevant benefit— a applied or reapplied for on or after 2 November 2026; and b not reapplied for after MSD gave any pre-commencement notice or advice of expiry in respect of that relevant benefit; and c granted or regranted as a relevant benefit commencing on or after 2 November 2026. 124 126 Application of amendments not affected by otherwise relevant change of circumstances of specified young person Clause 123 125 applies even if the specified young person concerned ( A ) has, before, on, or after 2 November 2026, a change in A’s circumstances in relation to a relevant benefit that, but for this clause, would, or may, mean that A is subject to the parental income requirement while that benefit is payable and must continue to be paid. 125 127 Application of amendments not affected by otherwise relevant change of circumstances of parent of specified young person Clause 123 125 applies even if a parent of the specified young person concerned ( A ) has, before, on, or after 2 November 2026, a change in circumstances in relation to a relevant benefit that, but for this clause, would, or may, mean that A is subject the parental income requirement while that benefit is payable and must continue to be paid. 2 New Part 17 18 inserted into Schedule 1 17 18 Provisions relating to Part 2 ( A a ccommodation supplement: entry threshold percentage for homeowners) of Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Act 2026 126 131 Definitions for this Part In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires,— amendment Act means the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Act 2026 amendments means clauses 4 to 6B of Part 7 of Schedule 4 (as inserted by Part 2 of the amendment Act). 127 132 Amendments apply only to specified existing or new recipients or applicants The amendments apply, on or after 1 April 2027, only to the following: Recipient of accommodation supplement immediately pre-commencement a a person who, immediately before 1 April 2027, had applied for, was entitled to receive, and was receiving, an accommodation supplement: Application made, and not finally determined, pre-commencement b an applicant for an accommodation supplement whose application was made, and was not withdrawn or determined, before 1 April 2027: Application made on or after date of commencement c an applicant for an accommodation supplement whose application is made on or after 1 April 2027.

Hansard

May 19, 2026

Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Select Committee · Full day report

Instruction to Select Committee Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:44): I move, That the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 20 August 2026 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196. Our Government’s priority is getting young people off benefit and into— Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but the motion that she has just put has to be put under Standing Order 295, which refers to the member’s first reading speech. In Standing Order 295(1)(b), it says that “if it is proposed to move any special powers or instruction in respect of the committee’s consideration of the bill, [it must] indicate the terms of that proposed motion.” Now, in the member’s first reading speech — Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I did. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: —she did ment…
Read full Hansard debate
Instruction to Select Committee Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:44): I move, That the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 20 August 2026 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196. Our Government’s priority is getting young people off benefit and into— Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but the motion that she has just put has to be put under Standing Order 295, which refers to the member’s first reading speech. In Standing Order 295(1)(b), it says that “if it is proposed to move any special powers or instruction in respect of the committee’s consideration of the bill, [it must] indicate the terms of that proposed motion.” Now, in the member’s first reading speech — Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I did. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: —she did mention the report-back date, which was 20 August, but she did not mention— Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Yes, I did. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: —any other special powers whatsoever. If you turn to Standing Order 298(1), it says that “When the House has determined the committee to consider the bill, and if the terms of a motion for any special powers or instruction in respect of the committee’s consideration of the bill have been indicated … the member in charge may move that motion.” So she can only move a motion that refers to the special powers that she has referred to, and the only special power she referred to was the truncated report-back time. Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Speaking to the point of order, I am repeating exactly what I said before I started my first reading speech, and the member must have missed that. If he wants to refer back, I can give him a copy of the speech that I read at the time, but it was also in the drill sheet, which absolutely gave the same instruction that I have just moved. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I took advice from the Clerk, who also confirms that the Minister is within the Standing Orders. Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Our Government absolutely sees it as a priority to get young people into earning or learning and not starting a life on welfare. This initiative is absolutely intended to reduce benefit dependency amongst young people, encouraging them to enter further training, work, or study. That’s why we have set the report-back date as 20 August—we want to ensure that we’re able to get on to this soon. This was well-signalled. It was in Budget 2025, and so young people and their families have had a long time to get used to this expectation. We want more for young people; it is urgent. Our Government, the members on this side of the House, see the future of young people isn’t something that should be wasted. As I said before in my first reading speech, 18- and 19-year-olds who currently go on to welfare are, on average, going to spend another 21 years on welfare. It’s simply not good enough, and that’s why we are dealing with this at pace. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:47): Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. I would like to take a call on this referral motion, and I just wanted to comment on a few things the Minister said in her call. First of all, she made the argument that because this was well signalled in advance, it justifies having a three-month report-back date, and I don’t think that actually stacks up. The Green Party is not supporting it for the reason that if the Minister had signalled that this was going to come well in advance, she could have introduced this bill earlier and allowed it to have adequate select committee scrutiny. In between her announcement and now, there hasn’t been the opportunity for public submissions and there hasn’t been the opportunity for members of the Opposition to engage in the select committee process with officials. I just think it’s outrageous that for whatever reason the Minister and the Government chose not to introduce this bill earlier, now we’re seeing a justification that just because she mentioned it was coming, it therefore deserves less than adequate scrutiny. I think that’s a disservice because in the period between now and 20 August, I am particularly concerned that despite the powers that the Minister is proposing for the committee to meet outside of sitting days, etc., in those three months we’ve got scrutiny week and we’ve got Budget week. We’ve got the significant amount of extended sitting hours that we’ve seen over the past few months, and a record amount of the use of urgency, which, in my view, will— Grant McCallum: It’s called working hard. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Well, none the less—really? I hear the member say that they think this equates to working hard, as opposed to undermining democracy. The other argument is that ultimately this, at least for sitting days—and the members of the Government will know this—will only leave, say, like 8 to 9 and 1 to 2 on the Wednesdays, as per usual when there’s extended sitting hours or urgency being used by the Government, which massively prevents adequate public engagement on the bill. I think also that the use of select committee hearings during adjournment ultimately creates an opportunity cost for every MP—list or electorate only—in terms of whether we spend time in, say, the community or engaging in the select committee process. I just think that there’s no solid justification provided by the Minister on this. My concern, as well as that, with the three-month period is that we’re likely to see a shortened amount of time that people can make for submissions. Now, if we look at the demographics of who is impacted by this bill—and I would assume that everyone, Government or Opposition, would want to see people who are impacted by this bill submit on this bill—we’re talking about working families on low incomes. I assume some of these working families on low incomes may be working multiple jobs. These are some of the families that, as I mentioned in my speech, may see an up to $59 a week reduction to their weekly income, which is significant. Now, if you reduce the select committee scrutiny and likely reduce the amount of time there is for submissions or the period for people to choose a time slot that can best accommodate their schedule, you’re also more likely to see those working families on low incomes disproportionately impacted by the bill less able to participate in the process. This really undermines people’s ability to give feedback on what it will mean for the 68 percent of working families on low and middle incomes that will see an average of $42 less in their accommodation supplement. We will see less of those kinds of demographics represented in the select committee. I think that’s a disservice to the process. The challenge that I have, particularly in the lack of synchronicity between what the Minister has said and the document that we have in front of us, is that the Minister talks about how this is a targeted approach, but the evidence in front of us talks about how people may be likely put into hardship as a result of the provisions of this bill, including working families. I’m really concerned about that lack of scrutiny. Now, when it comes to the shortened select committee process—and particularly I want to focus, now, on engaging with officials—one of the challenges I have had with a lot of these saving initiatives—and I think of, for example, one of the previous bills we’ve had in the Social Services and Community Committee that reduce the amount that people with boarders can receive when it comes to the accommodation supplement—is that we were told at the time, on that bill, for example, that the savings that will be produced were unclear, because you may be saving some money by taking the accommodation supplement from some groups, but then those groups, as we were advised by the Government, may need to access other types of Government assistance, like hardship grants, student allowance, etc. It’s very similar to what we’re seeing in these bills. The same advice has been produced. My concern is that if we have a shortened select committee process, we won’t be able to adequately scrutinise and unpack what’s the projected amount that people may need from Work and Income to make up for the loss of the accommodation supplement in the form of hardship assistance. When you have a shortened select committee process, we encounter the issue that when you ask some of the more complex questions to officials, they’re having to work under humungous time pressures, and, due to those time pressures, sometimes we’re not able to receive—not through a fault of the officials themselves but just through the time pressures they’re facing—the robust answers that, I think, we and the public that is interested in this bill deserve. That’s another reason why we are concerned and do not support this referral motion. I think this is particularly important—I think of some of the other bills that have similar cost-saving initiatives and affect people who receive the accommodation supplement. I have yet been able to find out through my written questions, etc., how much people have seen a reduction to their accommodation supplement. Therefore, we’re none the wiser of how much the Government has actually saved through those previous saving initiatives to the accommodation supplement. As we go on to the scrutiny of this bill, and well knowing that the previous saving initiatives have yielded nebulous results, I think, you know, it’s all the more reason to have a really proper select committee process. Now, I wanted to touch on some of the hours that the select committee will likely end up sitting under extended hours and urgency. I know I mentioned that briefly, but I’m just going to expand on that a bit. When we think about working families working multiple jobs, often to make ends meet or just with really long working hours, because often, at least on sitting weeks, we end up just having the 8 till 9 and 1 till 2 p.m. slots during extended sitting and urgency, which is almost becoming, more often, the default than otherwise, we’re, effectively, asking working people to forego their lunch break to make a submission. We’re often asking working families— Grant McCallum: Working hard. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: —to—well, they may claim that they’re working hard, but it is part of our jobs, and the member Grant McCallum may be getting paid to listen to submissions, but working families are not getting paid to contribute to how this bill will affect them. If you’re asking them to give up whatever small break they have during their shift, I think this is a bit of a disservice and almost disrespect, I think, to the working families who are indeed working very hard and are working even extra hard unpaid to try and analyse how this bill will impact them and to try and contribute to the democratic process which they should be afforded more flexibility over. Again, I don’t think this goes against the idea that working families are working hard or otherwise; this speaks to the fact that because working families are working so hard, we’re actually restricting their ability to constructively engage on this. The other reason why I’m concerned about the shortened select committee process is that we know that there will be a substantial amount of people with complex caregiving responsibilities. Now, in the advice presented to us on this bill, we know that a significant proportion of the people impacted by the removal of support when they’re homeowners and they need the accommodation supplement are people on sole parent support. We’re talking about how people who may be the sole caregivers may be working while also having caregiving responsibilities. When you put people with strenuous caregiving responsibilities and work responsibilities with a tightened schedule and reduced hours to submit, you again end up more likely to exclude those very same people on sole parent support. The other group that I’m particularly concerned about that may be left with less accommodating time slots as a result of this referral motion are the sick and disabled people captured in the jobseeker medical that they would have been able to access—this is for the 18- and 19-year-olds. We know that around one in five, if I recall correctly, of the people impacted by the bill who are 18-, 19-year-olds are people who would have been in jobseeker medical. Now, that’s a big proportion of people who have health conditions, who, I think, deserve an adequate select committee process so that we can accommodate those health conditions for them to give their views. Leaving people who are facing ill health or are disabled with less abilities to participate, I think, does a disservice. These are some of the reasons why I just wanted to add my objections to the referral motion. Thank you. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (15:57): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to speak to this motion. The Minister simply said this is urgent, which I must say is barely an excuse. It’s usual for a Minister to give somewhat more substantive reasons, so I think it’s entirely appropriate that we do kind of interrogate exactly what those reasons are. It may be that someone on the other side of the House can take a call on this and give us some further detail. One of the concerns is that, really, when you think about what a select committee does, there’s a lot of steps to it. I’m sure some of my colleagues will speak to the stakeholders who want to have a say in this process, but even if we just think about the period of time that submissions are going to be open for, it’s likely, because this is basically a halving of the normal process—so if we were to half that, it would be a three-week period, which is actually a very short time. The bill may not be a large bill but it’s a complicated bill because of what it’s doing and because the benefits framework and the accommodation supplement framework is a network. That three-week period in and of itself is a very short period of time. As the member Ricardo Menéndez March pointed out, we’ve got Budget urgency coming up, we’ve got extended sittings, so when you think of the next step, which is that initial briefing—now, first of all, the first thing to note is that officials now have less time to prepare that initial briefing. So whereas previously, once the bill was introduced, they could look at what the bill does and how best to communicate that to members, they’ve got a truncated period for that and they have to squeeze it into a period where you’ve got Budget urgency next week, you’ve got recess, and, given the Government’s busy agenda, who knows when they will be able to put that in. Then, of course, once you get that out of the way, which, if you think about what’s going on—you’ve got a three-week submission period, you’ve got recesses, and you might be a month in already—then you’re going to have to try and get hearings in. Now, hearings are the centrepiece of the select committee process, and my concern is that this is going to be a rushed process, and so the select committee, which of course is dominated by Government members who will say, “We won’t listen to everyone. We haven’t really got enough time. Let’s give a few people five minutes here or 10 minutes there, and let’s cherry-pick the submissions that we hear from.” That’s not good enough, because this is everybody’s Parliament, and we want to make sure that the time for hearing submissions isn’t rushed. Certainly, in the Justice Committee, we’ve seen people who have wanted to be heard not be heard, because this Government is rushing. This is yet another thing where they’re making some substantial changes to our benefit system, and even if we supported them—which we don’t—we’d want to have a really good look at them and listen properly to the people who want to be heard. Then, of course, and this is the critical bit, there may be some real wrinkles. Even if we accepted the objectives of what the Government wants to do, there may be some real wrinkles about how it’s going to be implemented, and that’s the great benefit of the select committee process. That is when officials stand back and say, “What have we heard? What issues have been raised by members, and does this legislation properly implement the policy it intends to implement?” That’s when we see the departmental report, when those officials come back and provide a report to the select committee. That is the process, and when officials are told we want something in two weeks or three weeks, I see the sorrow in their eyes as you say that, because they want to do a good job. They actually want to come back and serve the Government. These are the public servants that are under the hammer, of course, but they’re public servants that want to do a good job and want to help the Government implement their policies, but they’re being stopped by the Government because they’re not being given enough time to do a good job. This halving the select committee process is really problematic there. Of course, the other thing that I haven’t talked about yet is what members do, because it’s important for us to read all those submissions, to listen carefully, and to think about it, because we’re doing a job not dissimilar to officials. We’re standing back, absorbing all that information, and then going forward and trying to work through how to do the best job we can. That’s when we come back together and nut it around in the select committee—the bit the public doesn’t really see, where members of the Government listen to members of the Opposition when we make good points—and sometimes we do, believe it or not—and actually engage in some meaningful interchange. Hon Mark Patterson: Jury’s out on that. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: And you know what—come on, the Hon Mark Patterson. You were in this Government once. The fact of the matter is that that interchange is important. That interchange is important, and it can’t be rushed, but this Government is rushing that interchange. Then, of course, if there are changes to be made, Parliamentary Counsel is instructed to make those changes, and it’s not a matter of just throwing a few extra words in. Parliamentary Counsel does a very good job, but it is a very technical job indeed, and it’s one which, again, there may be some simple changing of “seven days” to “14 days”—simple changes—but if you’re going to pull one bit of the string in a web, it’s going to have impacts over there, and that’s what legislation is like, and that’s what Parliamentary Counsel are experts at. Again, to truncate that period—usually, they will say any changes of anything other than minor will take at least two weeks, and sometimes they look for more. If you go back and say, “Well, it’s just a week.”, they’re not going to be able to go through their quality control, and we know what happens when legislation doesn’t have quality control and people rush back to this House saying, “Oops, I need to do an amendment bill because I forgot this bit.”, or, “We forgot about that other piece of legislation over there.” Of course, that then feeds into the final product when we see the committee reports. An important part of that report is any differing view, and I suspect there will be a differing view or two in this report, but the committee needs to be able to work through that report in detail. If you think about all of those steps, including a committee report that is a meaningful report to this House, the amount of time that the Minister for Social Development and Employment is proposing—three months and a couple of days, or one day, I think—is simply not enough. The final deliberation, when the committee comes together and says, “Do we support this? Do we support the amendments? Do we support the report?”, is also an important part of the process. I’m not going to talk about the substance of this bill, but I want to point out that the good work that select committees do here is being fundamentally undermined and that there is a reason why six months is the default period and why many times there’s a request for extensions of time on that six months. That’s because it’s an important deliberative part of our democracy that this Government is time and again ignoring, which means we’re having lower quality legislation, less trust in our Government, and less trust in this democracy, and that is a real worry. We clearly will be voting against this motion, and select committees should be respected and given the time that they need to make a good job. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:06): I also want to speak to this referral motion. I want to touch on something that both of my colleagues—Ricardo Menéndez March and the Hon Dr Duncan Webb—haven’t quite touched on, and I think this is one of those instances where we have seen a referral motion of this nature in the House previously. Usually, it’s for something that is one or two months long, and they’re not great, but considering the standard is, as the previous speaker the Hon Dr Duncan Webb said, six months, we often do see that the referral motion is not needed if the report back date is in four months and a day. Often we do see that the referral motion of this nature is something that has to be done within a month or two. Again, I’m not saying it’s great, but the drastic shortening or truncation of the period makes sense for a referral motion. However, I don’t think, at least not in my recollection, that, this term, we’ve had a bill—maybe except for, I think, the climate emissions forestry one, which was three months and which, to be honest, we could have just had for four months as opposed to three months. There are potentially a couple of reasons, and I’ve been listening to the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s first reading speech as well as what she said in her referral motion, but none of them really touched on the practical and procedural chronology when we’re looking at the remainder of sitting days of the House and also in connection to this referral motion. I also just want to seek your guidance, Madam Speaker. What I meant to say, sorry, at the beginning of my speech, and it might be too late—I was maybe seeking some advice from the Clerk—is: I move, That the motion be amended to replace the words “20 August 2026” with “20 September 2026”. I’ll speak to my amendment shortly. But on to the date of 20 August. Now, presumably the reason we have that date is because of the dissolution of Parliament, which is on 1 October. Potentially, what we’re seeing is that, between 20 August and 1 October, there are only four sitting weeks. In some ways, I guess that makes sense, but there are two catches with that, I guess—the first one being that the commencement date of this bill is 1 April 2027. The Regulatory Impact Statement date is, I believe, 10 September 2025. Now, my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March briefly touched on the fact that this was something that has been signalled to the Government earlier and the Government could have put it on their legislative agenda a lot earlier. That allows for the proper democratic process of having the full select committee stage, but that’s not what we’re seeing here. If the commencement date is 1 April 2027—and presumably the Government want this bill to be passed by the end of this term before the dissolution of Parliament—the question that then remains is that if the Government have any confidence in being re-elected, they could have done it in December or January or February and still made it in time for their 1 April commencement date. So I think that’s an interesting observation. I’m not presuming anything from the Government’s side in terms of what they consider to be their outlook in any sort of election—but that is interesting. Now on to my Amendment Paper. The reason I proposed 20 September 2026 is it allows for that minimum four-month select committee period. Again—not great; understandable. As we heard from the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, the standard period is six months, but it allows for that minimum four, which means we can open the submissions and, normally, proportionally the submissions will be open for four weeks, as opposed to what we’re seeing currently with three weeks. But that also meant that we are left with one week for which the bill can be heard, and presumably there will be some form of urgency on that final week before the dissolution of Parliament that we can actually do a lot of these then. There might be other things happening that week. Again, I think these are the questions that the Minister, in her referral motion, could actually elucidate for this House and therefore we don’t have to take a call to actually try and get the response to some of the questions we have. Now, on to the select committee part. In terms of the timing when we’re looking at the select committee—you know, if we’re looking at a proportional three-week submission and then going into hearing, considering we now have a report-back date of three months, that then goes into 9 June 2026, which is a non-sitting week and that is standard. But the week after that we’re heading into scrutiny week. It is important to note that the committee that this is going to—the Social Services and Community Committee—although it may not have all that many bills going through it, it has the most number of agencies when you are looking at scrutiny week. So when you’re looking at a combination of scrutiny week as well as all of the follow-ups, it actually does put, as the previous speaker said, a lot of pressure not just simply on the select committee in terms of the hearing of the bill but also in terms of the indicative plan of the select committee as well. So, that is something that I think, if any Government makes a decision to have such a referral motion or to shorten a select committee, these are the things that should also be in consideration. For one thing, it is a sign of good faith and understanding the needs and also the workload and work that Parliament and select committees are doing. What’s also really important is that the last time this House has not had either an extended sitting or an urgency on a sitting week, either on Wednesday or Thursday—or both—was the week starting 16 February. And I have been counting. This is also important because often we see, like what we’re seeing this very week where we have an extended sitting going from Tuesday into Wednesday morning, meaning that the normal operations and agenda of the select committee will not be able to take place during that time. Of course, we do have the exemption from Standing Orders 196 as part of that, which I will mention, but it also means that it places those select committees and those members, depending on what bill is also going through the extended sitting or urgency at the time, in the awkward position of having to potentially be in two places at once. I know this is something that we’ve discussed in the Standing Orders Committee, but even then the discussion is always going to be around the fact that we are going to do our best to avoid a member who is in charge of a bill—either they are in the Government or in Opposition—with a particular select committee that’s happening at the same time. Even if, let’s say, we have the exemption around Standing Order 196, I think it’s possibly important maybe for the Government, for the Minister, and for the Business Committee etc., to consider that, during those periods, Standing Order 196 will need to be waived and the select committee is able to sit on a Wednesday morning during an extended sitting or urgency, and we at least we don’t have a bill going through the House at the same time and the legislative agenda is done in a way that we’re not overlapping or duplicating a bill that’s going through the House with a hearing of the select committee at the same time. Finally, I just want to talk about the three particular Standing Orders that are being waived, and that’s Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196. Again, in the context of Standing Orders 193 and 196, it makes sense to be meeting on Fridays and meeting within the Wellington area on sitting days, but I’m always surprised at why Standing Order 195 needs to actually be waived, because Standing Order 195 is about meeting outside of the Wellington area during a sitting, whether it is during the sitting day or even on a Monday or Friday of the sitting week. By waiving that, there must be some form of indication by the Government that that is a possibility. In which case, I think other people who are on the select committee may want to tease that out a little bit more. What are some of the considerations when we’re looking at sitting during a sitting outside of Wellington? Is that something that is on the cards for this Government, for that particular Standing Order to be exempted? So, overall, I think there are three areas that we would like some clarification on around the practical and procedural aspects of the chronology of this bill, but, at this stage, I will be keen to hear from others regarding my amendment. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (16:16): Thank you. Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this motion. I agree with the comments that were made by the member, Lawrence Xu-Nan, about the—while not ideal—reduction from the default six months down to his proposed amendment four months. If we can’t convince the Government to go with the default six months, then we would support the member’s amendment to at least extend it out to four months for all the reasons that he gave. I would also like to add additional reasons to support why we believe it should be six months, or even four months. That’s because it’s clear from the regulatory impact statement and from the information we had that there was very limited consultation that was done in the development of this legislation. When we know that this is going to impact over 4,300 young people in terms of the proposed changes to the 18 and 19-year-olds, and that even less consultation was done: no stakeholders; only with Government departments in terms of the accommodation supplement changes due to Budget sensitivity. I believe that the comments that I’m making now apply to both. When I turned to the parental assistance test—and like I said, it’s going to affect more than 4,300 young people who, along with their families, are already struggling and this is going to make it worse—I think it’s very important that we hear from organisations like Ara Taiohi—and I want to recognise them, it being Youth Week this week, and I know that they are busy doing that this week so they are probably missing that this is even happening in the House as they are celebrating Youth Week. They kicked it off in Tai Tokerau and Waitangi, and here we are discussing something that is going to affect our rangatahi. We’ve also got, for example, Social Service Providers Aotearoa, the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, and a number of community services that work at the coalface with our young people, supporting them and their families, who I know, speaking to a number of those organisations, are struggling with the limited funding that they have to be able to support and deliver those supports to our young people. We heard, for example, from Mayors Taskforce for Jobs, who have had changes to their funding and where the expectation is that they focus on the older jobseekers versus those other younger people that they provided for and who are, unfortunately, moving towards the age group that would be captured by this legislation. Organisations like Youthline and organisations like Kick Back, who we have heard from, who do phenomenal advocacy work—they are busy advocating for things like their concerns around the Government’s move-on orders around youth homelessness and work that they’ve been doing in that space. Now they have to turn to writing submissions and presenting in front of our select committee on the impact that these policies will have. Having visited Kick Back, I met with young people who desperately want work, who have been applying for jobs—numerous job applications submitted—with not even a response back to their job applications. They are struggling not only with their homelessness but without being able to find employment either. So we are asking organisations who are struggling to meet the increasing demand in their communities with limited funding, increased need, to take time out from that work to write submissions and present to our Social Services and Community Committee on issues that are really, really important to our young people and to those organisations. I also note the limited or non-existent consultation with Māori. We know that Māori, sadly, are disproportionately impacted and affected by these benefits and low socio-economic circumstances. In my contribution earlier I spoke about the challenge facing a community like Kaikohe, where there are thousands on jobseeker benefits and only 15 advertised jobs at that time. I think about the fact that we would like to hear from organisations like the Iwi Chairs Forum, who do a lot of work in their Pou Tangata grouping, but they are busy in front of the Waitangi Tribunal, in looking at the changes that are being made to the Conservation Act, in looking at the recent decision from the Government to now make changes to 19 Treaty provisions within various statutes. These organisations are, due to other Government decisions, having to spread themselves across so many different things that this Government is doing, and the Minister for Social Development and Employment didn’t really give us any real justification as to why there’s such a truncated process on a change that is going to impact on our tamariki, our taitamariki, our rangatahi, and their whānau. So, the Iwi Chairs Forum, who I’m sure would appreciate more time to be able to advocate for their rangatahi, but, unfortunately, due to other Government actions, are so busy doing those other things. I think about the city missions, who we would like to hear from in this—again, meeting that increasing demand that we are seeing. More New Zealanders are experiencing food insecurity, and they are coming through places like city missions and food banks. So they are all busy doing that front-line work, and we are asking them to divert some of their important time and attention and resources to writing submissions and making themselves available to our select committee so that our select committee can have the benefit of good information about what the impact of this Government policy will be on those people, in a truncated period of time. Others have said: there was more time available to the Government; they chose not to do it and now come to the House and ask for three months instead of the standard six months. What about the employment services that we need to hear from? These are the people who, actually, the officials’ advice said—more money should be put in; this money, and the options that the Minister should be going for are actually those around more support in training, more support in education, and more support in employment. Now, we need to hear from these employment services—once again, a very truncated amount of time for them to be able to divert their attention and their resources from working with those young people and families who are struggling with high levels of unemployment: as we heard today in the House, the fewer jobs that we have since this Government came into office—you know, many leaving their regions and leaving for Australia. So we need to hear from those employment services as well. As I have outlined, this is just a short list of stakeholders who I believe we need to hear from. There will be many more who can speak to the changes that the accommodation supplement, which, again, I noted from the—it wasn’t a regulatory impact statement; it was some other kind of— Ricardo Menéndez March: Supplementary advice. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Oh, supplementary advice. In that supplementary advice, it points out that due to its budget sensitivity, there was only consultation within Government departments—and I think they only mentioned about three Government departments; it might’ve been the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, I think there was the Ministry of Education, and one other. So with that particular proposal, which, again, is going to impact 9,300 households from 1 April 2027, targeted consultation was only done within the—basically, the Government talking to itself; not talking to any external stakeholders about how it will impact on those people. These are families who are low and middle income who are already struggling with the cost of living crisis, who are going to be impacted by the increase in the percentage to receive the subsidy. As we said, the numbers are 9,300, and the Government only talked to itself and claims that because of budget sensitivity it couldn’t talk to any external stakeholders, then turns around and says, “Sorry, truncated process—we can only have three months.”, not your typical six-month process that we would have for a select committee process. That is not fair on such important issues that are going to impact thousands and thousands of low to middle income households and over 4,300 young people and their families. They deserve a full and proper select committee process to ensure that we understand what this law is going to do, that we explore all options and any possibilities of improving the legislation. So we do not support the Government’s proposal. If we had to compromise, I would be happy to support that of Lawrence Xu-Nan, who said maybe we could look at the four months instead of the six months. Thank you, Madam Speaker. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can I just clarify—I’m going to call Ricardo Menéndez March, but to clarify that you’re speaking to the amendment. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (16:26): That is correct. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): OK. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Yeah, thank you. Yeah, so I really appreciate having a second call to speak on the amendment that my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan moved in this referral motion debate, as per the rules. There is a reason I wanted to speak and advocate for my colleague’s amendment, and one of them is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan adequately talked about the timing of when Parliament rises and the election date as a potential reasoning—it may not have been given by the Minister for Social Development and Employment but kind of does stack up as to why they did a three-month referral motion. The other reason why I think a four-month referral motion would be preferable is that, you know, I put the challenge to the Government members that if they’re so confident that they are going to win the election and come back to power, then I don’t think that actually affects their ability to keep progressing with this bill. I think the other component of it is that because of the commencement date of the bill, which is in April next year, if the Government are so confident that they’ll be winning the election, I don’t see a reason why we can’t just come back, finish the select committee process, and actually go through the motions of the second reading, committee of the whole House stage, and third reading debate. I think this amendment by my colleague allows for the Government to say, well, let’s give it a bit more scrutiny. Perhaps maybe they don’t feel so confident that they’ll win the election. They’ll still get to do the second and third reading debates before the House fully rises, but I guess I do have the question as to whether, you know, if they’re not confident about winning it, they would get behind supporting my colleague’s amendment. The reason why I think four months as well would be preferable to three months is because—we talked a little about whether people would be able to have an opportunity to submit altogether because of their busy lives. Four months: what it also gives us is an additional time for people to prepare their oral submissions. Sometimes, people in organisations, for the written submission deadline, may only be able to, for example, provide a very short written submission. If we extend it by another month, what we get to do is also give a bit more grace for people to prepare supplementary evidence, as is often the case in select committee submissions. That additional month that would be granted by my colleague’s amendment would allow people who may not have a lot of time to prepare their written submission to present additional supplementary evidence, and I think this extra month would allow people to engage more constructively with the debate. I have noted that in other debates where the referral motions are quite short, some of the feedback that we get from stakeholders, from members of the community, is that they just didn’t have enough time to prepare contributions on, for example, potential amendments to mitigate perceived harms or to enhance the legislation. That additional month gives people additional time to be able to prepare proposed amendments. We know that, often, Ministers or Opposition members may propose amendments themselves that may be inspired by amendments proposed by submitters. The additional month that is put forward in the amendment of Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, in my view, would give submitters the ability to be able to more constructively think of amendments. I would hope that is something the Government can get behind. Especially in the type of legislation that we’re speaking to, one of the issues that I have with the current timeline is that the organisations at the front line who would be submitting are often organisations who themselves have little resources. They may have one policy staffer or no policy staffer. Perhaps the person in charge of submitting is also the person in charge of receiving the community at the door. That additional month, as proposed by Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, in my view, is critical to it. Now, I may just ask my colleague to go to the Business Committee while I finish my contribution, if he wouldn’t mind filling in, if he’s got the chance. Just to finish that off, what I would add to this call would be that the additional month would, as I said, also allow, for example, parties to have more caucus meetings—for example, to engage on proposed amendments by the Opposition or by submitters themselves. One of the challenges that we often have with engaging in a cross-partisan matter when the referral motions are quite short—three months as opposed to four months—is, for example, that there are very limited caucus meetings, particularly for the Government side, to constructively engage on amendments that are proposed by the Opposition or by stakeholders themselves. I think adding that additional month adds additional caucus meetings, where we can, in a cross-party way, engage with amendments. For example, if, in the select committee stage, we realise there are going to be unintended consequences, it gives us additional time to actually mitigate those. If I think of one of the bills that I engaged in recently in that select committee, around the interactions of ACC and MSD and payments, etc., well, for example, we did end up voting for amendments that would have included an additional group of people who had procedures under the Social Security Appeal Authority, right? I would have assumed, for the Government members, that would have required a caucus conversation to potentially go through those. My colleague’s amendment, in my view, also enables that cross-party work to happen in a more constructive manner. That is a point that hasn’t been raised by previous speakers. I think that’s particularly important because, as has been noted, the demographics most impacted by this bill are people on low incomes, people who are trying to survive, households that may be earning just around $65,000 a year. As a household, that’s a pretty low income when it comes to the 18- and 19-year-olds who would be affected by the changes to the tightening of the eligibility criteria for beneficiaries. That is one of the key reasons why I think four months is preferable. Again, I want to go back to the point that this still gives the Government enough time to do the second reading, committee of the whole House, and third reading should they wish to, but I don’t see why they wouldn’t be comfortable just deferring that until after the election if they’re confident of winning. Rest assured, though, the Greens will be fighting to repeal it, so I do think it kind of just raises the question of what the point of the timing is here. The other reason why I think four months would be better is so that we can have that constructive engagement between hearings, between Opposition members or just interested Government members and officials. For example, after hearings, there will often be questions that we’ll want to be putting to officials. Perhaps a submitter raised a really important point that maybe no one had thought of, or an unintended consequence of this bill that no one had thought of. That’s why we lean on expert submitters for them to contribute on this. When you have three months as opposed to, say, four or the ideal six, you also end up not being able to engage between MPs and officials, to get answers from officials on those questions that get raised in between sessions. There is often that rush, by the process of “Well, we’ve just got to get the report out. There’s just no time to actually scrutinise this bill, etc.” I mean, that’s part of the reason, in my view, and if you look at the minutes from the committee that’s in charge of scrutinising this bill, I would put the case that there’s a reason why we’re having hearings on ACC after the scrutiny of the bill, which, in my view, should have happened as part of the scrutiny of the bill, because we just did not have enough time. That’s the other rationale as to why I think we should get behind Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments. With that, I will finish this contribution, but I am sure, as I can tell, other Labour members will have more to say. Thank you, Mr Speaker. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (16:34): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to take off where Ricardo Menéndez March left off, with an experience that we had of a rushed process in our select committee and what harm it can do. That was a process over a bill that was about ACC, and it was really obvious that we absolutely had it wrong in terms of what we thought that the bill was to do. The truncation of the process impacted on the quality of the work that we were able to do. It didn’t mean that we didn’t go through that process sincerely and make a different decision—we had to go back to our caucus over that—but it was a very real example of the problem with urgently going through pieces of legislation. For the life of me, I actually don’t see why this one is so urgent. This is a piece of legislation that affects a lot of people and a lot of different portfolio holders. Part of my job, because I lead on this committee, will be to make sure I’m contacting all those different people holding portfolios where this is relevant, as the material comes forth. That’s a really important job. I take it seriously, and what I will have is a chair who’s under pressure not to hear from people and to truncate that process as much as possible. Before we say that never happens, it absolutely has been happening more this term than I have known. It is often the case of submissions being limited to “Oh, we’ll just hear from a few people here.” or “We’ll hear from the stakeholders.”, and it is truncated to the point where we lose a lot of the quality of what we would hear. For me, I’ve got that sexual and family violence prevention portfolio, so I’m having to do my job in a very different way if we truncate this process. I know that young people, who are affected by this legislation and are expecting their parents to now support them, are often subjected to violence in the home. I’m told by places like Kick Back that it is often a reason why they end up on the street. It’s really important that I get to do my job and talk to those groups and those people affected in that way. And that’s just one portfolio. This is young people. This is young people in crisis and unemployment. It is incredibly important that we go wide in this situation. Now, I just want to talk about that issue, about youth being involved in the very process of submitting and how much less likely it was with a shorter time frame. I have one school in my area where I’ve encouraged those students to make submissions, and I have told them there’s a process. I’ve said, hand on heart, this is a process where you can make a difference. You can bring something into the process that will change the minds of people. Well, that becomes a lot less likely when things are rushed. This is a piece of legislation that I want schools in my area to consider whether they make a submission on and, if they do, they’re engaged in the process in a very, very healthy way. If they see it rushed through, they’re not. I just want to give you one example, not of somebody young but of somebody on the bill I just mentioned, about ACC. We got an example of somebody who’d been rushed through, told they had to come in and give us submission in this very short time frame, because we were only available in the recess. We were trying to do the right thing, but they came in and I’ll never forget how disconnected and distrustful they were, because they had been told “This is your one time.” This was on something that was critical to them. This was something where they had already lost trust. They didn’t need to lose more trust. I’ll never forget that. These things are not academic; they are real. They affect the very people who should be making submissions. I would expect some damned good reasons before we didn’t have straight playing of our timetable on this matter. We’re talking youth, and guess who is becoming more and more disaffected with Parliament? Guess who is not going to vote? This group—this very same group—and if you add that this is the group that are facing high unemployment, we are talking about people we need to engage with and need to be engaged in this particular piece of legislation, because it is impacting on them more than any other. Now, I also want to talk about some of the groups that I’ve seen recently where I would like to see submissions, and I’m afraid they’ll get cut out. One was, we had budget services in the other day who are absolutely under pressure, and guess what! They get very little, almost no Government funding, those budget services. And people in crisis—I want to hear from them about this, because it won’t necessarily just be the students or the young people, it will be their parents. Their parents are the ones who are going to be in there at budget services saying, “I want to take money out of my KiwiSaver and I have to go and I have to go and see you. That’s part of the requirements.” It’s going to be that group of people, and we need to hear from them. Sometimes, the best people that we talk to are people like Teresa White at Auckland budget services. They keep me grounded and I really, really want to hear from people like that. But if we cut the list, it’ll be those kinds of organisations that their time is cut—and we get so much good information out of them. Also, we just—look, they deserve our respect. They’re the ones actually mopping up the mess when Government doesn’t do a good job at looking after people. They’re the ones who will get those applications. We need the power of what they’ve got to say. I’d also like to put a shout-out for people like the Law Society, who we definitely do need to hear from on this piece of legislation. They’re under the pump. This is going to happen before the election, in a truncated fashion. It will actually mean we just don’t get the kinds of quality information that we rely upon from those specific groups. People like the Children’s Commissioner, I’m sure we’ll hear from them because they’re set up and they’re just totally focused. But groups like the Law Society, they’re doing a wide range of work and they’re volunteers. By the way, it’s volunteer month next month. These are volunteers that make a big difference around here. So a shout-out for them. But I want to be able to hear from those people, and I’m afraid that if we truncate this process beyond six months, we won’t be able to hear from them. It won’t happen. I wanted to talk finally in this—and I’m specifically not talking about the amendment; I’d like to do a call on the amendment, but I’m not doing that in this one. But I’d just like to talk about the reasons for urgency for a minute. Because I took the point that—Duncan Webb stood up and said he hadn’t heard the Minister give good reasons, or give reasons at all. The Minister said that she has given reasons. Well, those reasons must have been so softly spoken and so general that I just didn’t pick them up. I genuinely don’t know why this piece of legislation deserves this truncated process. I am concerned about that kind of use of the process. Why are we truncating things like this? It should be for a very good reason. We have a lot of legislation coming through here that deserves our attention. There are things that are being mentioned in the media constantly that are supposed to be absolutely urgent, and yet they don’t get this process. So why this one? Why this one, in comparison to all the other pieces of legislation where there actually might be some cross-party support? Imagine that! It’s what the public says to me every day when I go out on the doorstep, is they’d like to see a bit more of that. But no, we’re not doing it for those pieces of work that we could find some commonality in or that seem to me desperately urgent. We’re not doing it for those. We’re doing it for this, this piece of legislation which looks like it’s got a fiscal cost associated to the Government at the present time. So it’s not putting children in work, it’s not putting students in work, it’s not putting youth in work. It’s none of those things that, actually, I could see there being, if it was some sort of scheme that meant that they were actually into work, I’d be thrilled to see something like that because I know it’s desperate for these people, but it’s not. What we’re talking about here is cutting the financial support to that group. That is not something that is urgent unless you’re a Government that’s spent it all on tax cuts for the landlords—then maybe it is urgent, because you just don’t have the money to do anything that’s not free or isn’t a stunt. Thank you. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the amendment in the name of Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be amended to replace the words “20 August 2026” with “20 September 2026”. Ayes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 20 August 2026 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196. Ayes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Motion agreed to. Appointments

Documents and supporting material