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 — First Reading · Full day report

First Reading Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (14:59): I move, That the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the 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. The Government believes that the welfare system should be a safety net for those who need it most. Our Government is concerned about welfare dependency, particularly among young New Zealanders who should be in work or study, rather than being on a benefit. The Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill amends the Social Security Act 2018 to support fiscal sustainability in the welfare system by better targeting financial assistance…
Read full Hansard debate
First Reading Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (14:59): I move, That the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the 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. The Government believes that the welfare system should be a safety net for those who need it most. Our Government is concerned about welfare dependency, particularly among young New Zealanders who should be in work or study, rather than being on a benefit. The Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill amends the Social Security Act 2018 to support fiscal sustainability in the welfare system by better targeting financial assistance to those most in need. This is the key goal of the bill. It reflects our Government’s commitment to reduce benefit dependency and support long-term fiscal discipline in the welfare system. To achieve this goal, the bill introduces two key policy amendments that were part of Budget 2025 announcements. I would like to take this opportunity to touch on each of the two proposals. Firstly, the bill tightens the eligibility criteria for jobseeker support and the equivalent emergency benefit for 18- and 19-year-olds by introducing a parental assistance test. This means that when this initiative is implemented, young people will need to meet the parental assistance test criteria before they can access or continue to access one of these benefits. To meet the parental assistance test criteria, a young person will need to demonstrate that they have a support gap with their parents, meaning that they can’t reasonably be expected to rely on their parents for financial support and/or that their parents earn under the parental income limit. If a young person has a support gap with all their parents, then they will be considered to meet the parental assistance test. Modelling indicates that jobseeker support clients aged 18 and 19 are estimated to spend, on average, 21 future years supported by main benefit. Our Government has far greater aspirations for young New Zealanders than a life spent on welfare, and that’s why, through this initiative, I’m committed to reducing welfare dependency amongst young people, by encouraging them to enter employment, education, or training as the best options for their future. This initiative will set our young people up on a path to future success. It will reduce benefit dependency, and target welfare assistance to young people who have no other means of support. Young people who don’t study or work and who can’t support themselves financially should be supported by their parents, rather than taxpayers. This initiative is proposed to be implemented from 2 November this year. Young people already receiving jobseeker support will be required to complete a parental assistance test at their next 26-week application for jobseeker support after the go-live date, or their next application for the equivalent emergency benefit. If a client has already received a notice to reapply from the Ministry of Social Development before the go-live date, then they will not be required to complete the parental assistance test at their next reapplication, but at the reapplication after that. This change will not apply to 18- and 19-year-olds with dependent children, or to those applying for other benefit types such as the young parent payment or the supported living payment. This initiative builds on a range of measures that I have already introduced to encourage young people into work, such as phone-based employment case management and more places for young people to get community job-coaching. The second amendment I am proposing through this bill is targeting the accommodation supplement more tightly to some homeowners with high weekly qualifying accommodation costs relative to their income and assets. From April next year, the entry threshold, or the minimum weekly contribution that some homeowners must make towards their housing costs, will increase from 30 percent to 40 percent of their income. The entry threshold settings have not been changed since the accommodation supplement was introduced more than 30 years ago. As the proportion of income commonly spent by households on accommodation costs has increased over the last three decades, there is a need to align the homeowner entry threshold with a higher accommodation cost in the current housing environment, particularly as these homeowners are being supported by the taxpayer to acquire a significant personal asset. This change will not apply to renters or boarders. Homeowners who are receiving New Zealand Superannuation, the veteran’s pension, the supported living payment, or the emergency benefit that is equivalent to supported living payment will not be impacted by this change, as they are likely to require longer-term social assistance. Any partner or spouse of a recipient of one of these benefits will also not be impacted by this change. This initiative will target the accommodation supplement to homeowners with the greatest need, while continuing to support some of the most vulnerable groups. It is crucial that we have a welfare system that supports those who have no other resources to rely on, while also encouraging those who can support themselves to take reasonable steps to do so. It reflects the expectations of most hard-working New Zealanders whose taxes go towards welfare payments. These legislative changes are critical components of the Government's efforts to appropriately tighten access to welfare assistance and to ensure long-term fiscal discipline in the welfare system. These reforms will ensure that our welfare system continues to be a safety net for those who need it, while also encouraging young people to move into work, study, or training and requiring homeowners to contribute more towards their home ownership costs before they can receive taxpayers support to accumulate a personal asset. We will continue to support those who genuinely need State support, but our expectation will be that those who can support themselves will be supported by their parents and should be taking reasonable steps to do so. I commend this bill to the House. SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:06): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We do not agree to this bill. I want to start by making it very clear that this Government is making it worse for our young people, not better. The proposals in this legislation are going to make it even harder for our young people and their whānau, who are already struggling in this cost of living crisis. Christopher Luxon promised to make the cost of living better, but things are getting worse. Everything costs more, the economy is weaker, and people are worse off. At this time when families are struggling with the cost of living crisis, this Government is making things worse for our rangatahi. Under this Government, we have seen 11,000 more young people on jobseeker support. We have seen more than 32,000 fewer jobs since National took office, and there are more than 100,000 young people not in education, training, or employment. This Government decides to kick those rangatahi while they are down and make it harder for them and their whānau. I want to bring to your attention a story recently on Radio New Zealand where it was reported that there are thousands of those who are unemployed, who are on jobseeker benefit, who are looking for work in Te Tai Tokerau—in Northland, in the far North, where thousands of people are out of jobs, out of work; and yet in Kaikohe, only 15 jobs advertised. What hope is there for our rangatahi when this Government is saying to those young people, “We want you to get a job”, but— Grant McCallum: They’re welcome to go and prune kiwifruit. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: —but Grant McCallum, member for Northland—there are no jobs there for them. “So what will we do? We will punish those young people.” Grant McCallum: Why don’t they go and prune kiwifruit? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Yeah, but you don't have the jobs yet. And yet you're going to take away their supports. You're going to make it harder for those young people and their families—telling them to simply “Go and find a job.” when the member knows those jobs do not exist. The debate across the House proves my point: where the other side of the House believe that these young people should simply get a job, when those jobs do not exist. I will remind the House: recent reporting from Radio New Zealand— Grant McCallum: Ha, ha! Rely on them? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Are they wrong? Are they wrong? Oh, I look forward to your contribution. Fifteen jobs were advertised on online—[Interruption] Mr Speaker, I look forward to them making their calls and their contributions. So we have young people who the regulatory impact statement says—this was not their preferred option. What they recommended the Government do is actually invest in more programmes around employment, around education, around training; that this is going to come at a significant cost to these young people and their families, and that it is going to have potential detrimental effects on them further in life. The things that the Minister has said in her opening statement are what officials warn could be the result of this policy, and so this Government is doing the opposite of what the officials advised. It has also cut funding to the Apprenticeship Boost, it has slashed Māori trades training, and it has recently broken yet another promise to young people by cutting the fees-free scheme. All of these things were in place to help our young people. Our young people need a plan and they need action to support them at this really important time in their life. Instead, we’re going to punish these young people and their families. It was also pointed out that the cost of these policies was going to increase compliance burdens and potentially increase hardship and mental health issues. There is one other small issue that is covered in this bill, which is around the accommodation supplement, and what I will simply say again there is that it is going to make it harder for people who are already struggling in the middle of a cost of living crisis, with this Government increasing the percentage. These people are going to be worse off under what this Government is proposing to change in terms of the accommodation supplement. When people are struggling in a cost of living crisis, this Government continues to kick them while they are struggling, instead of looking at things to support families in a cost of living crisis. We do not support this bill. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:11): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is yet another example of how this Government’s priorities are to punch down on those who need our support while quite happily spending billions of dollars on landlords and on military equipment and telling low-income families that there’s not enough for them. The changes in this bill will leave thousands of families worse off and, potentially, in hardship and struggling to afford their basic essentials. I’d love to know what $59 a week means for the Minister. Maybe for someone on her salary and wealth, it may not mean a lot, but $59 a week is a lifeline. It’s a lifeline for low and middle income families who are affected by the changes to the eligibility of the accommodation supplement in this bill. It is literally what could prevent a family from being able to meet the costs of their bills or to put food on the table. This is just so typical of the Minister because this is what she omitted in her speech. Of course she omitted the types of families that are going to be impacted by this because I don’t think she wants the public to know. She doesn’t want the public to know that 68 percent of the families affected by her changes to the accommodation supplement are families with children and that more than half of the families affected by her changes to the accommodation supplement are families on low incomes. A huge proportion are people on jobseeker support—people who are already struggling to make ends meet—and for the families with children whom she is leaving worse off, she’s leaving them worse off by $42 a week. Perhaps for a Minister on that salary it may just mean a couple of Uber Eats orders, but for a low-income family, it’s literally their ability to make ends meet. She does not care. Next time that this Government talks about mum and dad homeowners, this is a reminder that this Government seems to hate those very same homeowners—often first-time homeowners on low incomes—that this bill is negatively affecting. When it comes to the welfare changes, once again we have a Government that refuses to acknowledge that under no Government over the past hundred-plus years has there been enough jobs for every unemployed person out there. The system is built with unemployment at its core. That is how it is supposed to work, and if the Minister doesn’t believe me, she can try and point to a period where there’s been enough jobs compared to the amount of unemployed people out there. It’s of course telling, as well, that during the previous contribution, in relationship to comments around how there’s a high rate of unemployment up north, the New Zealand First Party resorted to, basically, blaming it on migrants, once again. It is as though they seem to claim that now they don’t support the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme, which is just incredibly baffling. I dare them to actually come out and say that they’ll cancel it, since that seems to be their problem when it comes to youth unemployment. Stripping young people of support and leaving their parents worse off will not lead to better outcomes. The Government’s own officials recognised that, if anything, it would lead to more costs in people needing hardship assistance to make ends meet. That seems to be the solution. If this was a Government that wanted to invest in our young people, they would not be cutting graduate programmes, so that people who go into education have a job to go to. If they were serious about young people going into education and then being able to find a job in the field they trained in, they wouldn’t be cutting thousands of jobs in the public sector. If this was a Government that was serious about supporting young people into employment, they would be investing in apprenticeship schemes, as opposed to leaving young people without opportunities. It is no wonder so many people see Australia across the ditch, removed from many of their support networks, as often the only viable means of survival. It doesn’t have to be this way. This bill is a piece of rubbish, and it’s really telling that this Minister doesn’t want it to have adequate scrutiny by giving it only three months at the select committee stage. Why are they in such a rush? Are they worried that experts and community members will come and trash it, as they rightfully will, or is that they’re just in a rush to desperately save money, taking it from the families who are struggling the most so that they can claim that they are now investing in military equipment, in landlords, and fossil fuel companies. This is a Government that has its priorities upside down. For all their talk about how fossil fuels will lead to more jobs, I dare them to look at the evidence that shows that this will simply not happen, because we haven’t found fossil fuels offshore in decades. Anyway, we will look forward to scrutinising this bill as it deserves, and the Green Party will not be supporting it and will take the first opportunity to get rid of it. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) (15:16): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of the ACT Party to support the first reading of the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill. Listening to that previous speech, clearly it shows that they don’t respect taxpayers’ contributions, that people work really, really hard to make in the form of tax. On this side, we think this bill basically is about spending taxpayers’ money in a fair and responsible manner. That is what this bill does. Yes, it does tighten eligibility for a couple of criteria for which people receive support from welfare. That should be done time to time when we see the circumstances are changing and the way our communities operate are changing, and we need to change our systems as well. Moreover, it’s really important to note that the welfare system is to provide a safety net, and that is how it should be seen. We also want to make sure that the welfare system remains sustainable for people who really need it. The two changes that this bill makes—one change of course, that the Minister has already talked about, is about teenagers. When they turn 18 and 19, they receive jobseeker support. Bringing in the parental assistance test is actually a really good thing we have seen so many families continue to support children in their families when they turn 18 and 19 to get into employment or to continue their education or to get into training. People should not expect that welfare should support them when they have the support available from their family. That’s why this change is a good change. The second change about strengthening the threshold or changing the threshold for the accommodation supplement for homeowners is another good approach here, which basically shows that, yes, we take spending through the welfare system very responsibly. I hear members on the other side, the Opposition, saying that this is a very harsh approach, and I would say to these members that a policy should not be judged by how much we are spending but it should be judged on the basis of how targeted it is. What this bill does is it is bringing a targeted approach, because it’s quite clear, in this bill, that support for young people—those who turn 18 and 19—will be available if their family circumstances are such that they don’t have the support from their family, but where the support is there, then, yes, they should not be expecting support from taxpayers. I’m sure these young people will respect that too, and their families will respect that too. Overall, this bill strikes the right balance, and the ACT Party is supporting this bill. Thank you. JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) (15:19): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill. As we’ve heard, there are two aspects to this bill. Firstly, there is the tightening of the eligibility for jobseeker support for young people aged between 18 and 19 and, in specific cases, between 16 and 17 years. Last night, I had the honour of representing the New Zealand First Party at the start of Youth Week here in Parliament. I actually stood there, while I was on stage, and looked across at all the young people in that event, and thought, “We don’t want our young people on jobseeker”, and that should be the first thing from any Government and from any person in this House. We should be having three aspirations, and one of them is a young person going into employment. As the Minister on my right here correctly said during another speech, those opportunities, especially in our primary industries and our orchards—there are an abundance of jobs there and opportunities. If they can’t get into employment, into training and education is where they need to be heading, and where we need to be encouraging our young people. We do not want to have young people going on jobseeker and having decades of dependence on benefits, and we’re seeing, over time, how that is a waste of their time, a waste of resources. We have, in this, a parental assistance test to make sure that there is a back block to understand the test that will be put in place. New Zealand First has always championed a welfare state umbrella to meet the general and deserving needs of people, but we can’t have human and economic waste—what is a blight on the nation’s productivity, our youngest people on jobseeker—so we want greater parental responsibility. The second aspect is the accommodation supplement for student homeowners, and it’s around that qualifying income. Homeowners, there’s that entry threshold for the accommodation supplement, and, currently, that sits at 30 percent. Through this bill, it looks like it’s being reviewed, and it hasn’t been reviewed since 1993, so looking at reviewing that from that 30 percent to 40 percent of the current housing costs. What that does is try to make sure it remains—that it’s targeted, and New Zealand First is really happy that it’s not targeting specified persons. In the bill, we’re talking about New Zealand people on superannuation or veterans’ pensions; they’re specified people in that they won’t have their qualifying income tested. As you know, also, New Zealand First, we have a top-line, as our leader says—a top-line for superannuation at 65. It’s something that is non-negotiable. It’s a bedrock for our policy, so keeping that superannuation at 65 in a policy like this, that’s written in legislation, is really important for people that are receiving superannuation. New Zealand First will be very interested in the submissions along this. We do understand around hardship—that may be cause for lower income earners, that 30 to 40 percent step that I’ve mentioned, through submissions, I think we, as a committee, can give that a lot of thought, understand the impact on those people, and I look forward to the select committee process. I commend this bill to the House. ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (15:23): E te Pīka, tēnā koe. I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori as the member for Tāmaki Makaurau, and in solidarity with all our Māori electorates from Muriwhenua to Murihiku, because this bill is going to hit hapori Māori the hardest. It will push whānau already suffering further into the margins and it targets our rangatahi. There are 263,620 rangatahi aged between 16 and 19 here in Aotearoa. Around 92,000 are Māori, and a majority of those rangatahi Māori reside in my rohe of Tāmaki Makaurau. These aren’t mere numbers; they are future leaders, and the future of our future leaders is being risked by this Government. This bill is testament to that. Introducing a parental assistance test for 16- to 19-year-olds seeking jobseeker support assumes that all rangatahi have parents who can support them, that every home is safe, and that every whānau has spare money. Well, that’s not the reality, and that is not the case in every Māori electorate. It’s tough in Tāmaki Makaurau. The cost of living is brutal. Homelessness is beyond crisis point. Access to tertiary education has been narrowed even more by this Government, and yet its solution is to blame and then burden parents—parents who are often working multiple jobs. This bill weaponises bureaucracy against our whānau. It tells our rangatahi to go back home and prove your hardship before we will help you. In Te Tai Tokerau, youth unemployment is high and housing is precarious. Forcing rangatahi to rely on parents who may themselves be on benefits or in unstable work will push them further into unreported hardship, into unsafe homes, or simply out of the system altogether. In Hauraki-Waikato, intergenerational poverty and low wages mean many whānau are already stretched. This bill demands that parents carry even more while their tamariki are denied direct access to support unless they can prove that their parents’ income and circumstances are valid. In Waiariki, seasonal and tourism-based work means income rises and falls. Rangatahi often rely on jobseeker support between jobs on training. Tightening access will push them into debt and desperation, not into stable employment. In Te Tai Hauāuru, many of our young people must leave their rohe to study or to work. This bill punishes that move by insisting that they still rely on parental support even when distance, cost, or whānau circumstances makes that unrealistic. In Te Tai Tonga, from Porirua to the deep South, the cost of living and housing is rising while incomes lag behind. Rangatahi Māori there will face yet another barrier to accessing the basic support—basic support—that they need to stand on their own feet. Across all seven Māori electorates, the pattern is the same. This bill makes survival harder for rangatahi and then it blames them for struggling. If this Government truly wanted more rangatahi in education, then why repeal fees-free? Why keep the parental income threshold for student allowances frozen? Why make it harder to live and then lecture them about personal responsibility? The bill also raises the accommodation supplement threshold from 30 to 40 percent of income, which will force some homeowners to spend almost half of their income on housing before they can even qualify for any help. Mortgages and rates are sky-high across the country, but not more so than in my rohe of Tāmaki Makaurau. Raising that threshold—the threshold rates—is going to raise hardship rates. It’s going to push whānau closer to arrears and foreclosures. It’s going to force the whānau in Te Tai Hauāuru to choose between heating and kai, and it pushes the people of Te Wai Pounamu, who are most vulnerable and exposed to the realities of winter, and winter is coming. Remember, Māori are underrepresented among homeowners precisely because of land loss, precisely because of discriminatory policy and economic exclusion. This bill does nothing to fix that, it simply tightens the screws on those who have managed to hold on. Who is that? The wealthy few. Kei taku iwi Māori, anei taku kōrero ki a koutou. [To my Māori people, this is my comment to you.] This bill does not target support; it strips it away. It does not encourage independence; it punishes poverty. It does not ensure sustainability; it entrenches inequity. It goes without saying that Te Pāti Māori does not support this bill or any bill that keeps kicking our people while they’re down instead of lifting them into position for prosperity. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) (15:28): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I just thought it might be time to add a little bit of balance into this, perhaps. What I think that the Opposition has forgotten in debating this bill is that there’s a thing called the student allowance and there’s a thing called training and there is a thing called responsibility and accountability. What we want to see is young people in training or in work. If you go to work and you’re on the minimum wage, you can earn up to about $950 a week—that’s a lot of money. If you want to go do some training, which sets you up, gives you some skills, creates some networks and some opportunities, you will get paid a student allowance, which will help you and will help pay your bills. Let’s just be very clear that it’s not about stripping away every cent that somebody is able to get from the Government. We are here to help but we want young people to aspire to work or training and I commend the bill to the House. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (15:29): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just remember, when there was the last election on, how much talk there was of how people could expect support from a National Government: they were going to get a better life. How’s it going? Actually, something like this matters to people. It matters to people who’ve got a couple of kids and are on the median income. Do you know how much the median income is? It is, I think, $69,000— Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Here you go, Helen. HELEN WHITE: Thank you. He’s just lending me his glasses, and I should use them. There is an issue with those kinds of incomes in this country. People actually don’t have a lot of money. That’s the median income. It’s not the low incomes that a lot of people will be on; it is right in the middle. We are sitting in a situation where this Government has created greater unemployment, and those numbers of unemployed sit in the youth sector. There are huge amounts of our kids who are not getting jobs, because this Government has decided to run the economy in a certain way. It has decided that its priority is not employment. I hear it—I hear it a lot. I hear the Government say, “Don’t worry, trickle down, we’ll get there in the end.” Well, it’s still waiting. They say, “It’s all right. It’s the last factor that’s going to come right.” Well, we’re still waiting, and crickets. It’s not the last factor that comes right for me; it’s the first. It’s the first thing I care about: whether people can get jobs. Instead of making sure that people can get jobs in this area, we are going out on some sort of parental criticism, where people have to be responsible for their own children. Twenty-five percent unemployment, and it’s all the parents’ fault! They can’t possibly be accommodated, even though they are actually finding it hard to make ends meet! Why shouldn’t we help this group of people? Why shouldn’t we help this group of youth, and why shouldn’t we help their parents? Why have we got into this blaming culture, where the Prime Minister talks about how they could take a Marmite sandwich to school, and Dana Kirkpatrick gets up and tells us about self-responsibility? Well, I actually think it is time for a change of Government, because I want to see a Government that actually gets it—that understands that, if you are on $69,000 to $70,000, it’s pretty tough. We’re not on that. In here, we’re not on that. We are on a lot more money than that in Parliament. It’s really important we never lose sight of the fact that, if you’ve got a couple of kids at school and a couple of teenagers and you’re on that kind of money, it’s incredibly tough. It isn’t a case of self-responsibility or self-discipline, or winners or losers. It’s none of those things. It’s to do with the decision that was made by this Government to make sure that the unemployment issue was just not one that was prioritised. Do you remember, when there was first a change in Government, one of the first things this Government did was get rid of that measure from the Reserve Bank’s decision-making. They weren’t allowed to look at employment any more. That turned out to be something that was not prioritised by this Government, who said—promised people—that they were going to be better off and looked after. Well, they’re not. They are not back on track. They are actually in a much worse financial position, and when a fuel crisis comes rolling along, they’ve got no savings and now they’re being told, “Self-responsibility”, “Look after your children”—who, by the way, are unemployed, when they wouldn’t have been under a Labour Government—“Look after your children when they are that age.” Actually, I’d rather see some efforts, some real efforts, going into getting those people employed and into prioritising employment. This is coming to my select committee, and I will be asking as many questions as I can during this process, because I think this kind of patronising, judgmental, completely out-of-touch Government needs to go, and this piece of legislation needs to go to. Thank you. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) (15:34): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The Government is strengthening the fiscal sustainability of the welfare system by better targeting support to those in need. These changes reflect our firm, fair, and simple approach to welfare. That last speech kind of sums up the difference between the left and the right. The last speaker, Helen White, is a lovely lady, she’s well intentioned, but parents need to be responsible for their own children. The left thinks that the State should be responsible for everyone—that they should be the parent for everyone. That is not how our country will be successful. When I was a young 17-year-old looking at who I was going to vote for in the first MMP election, which was three days after my 18th birthday, I was a young guy who came from a hard background, no money sometimes, no food sometimes. We had things pretty tough. I was working my butt off to try to get out of those difficult situations. I looked through all the election manifestos of the different parties to try to figure out who I was going to vote for in my very first election. Why did I go with the centre right? Limited Government. I knew, from my background, that the Government doesn’t help poor people. I needed every cent I could get to try to get out of that. Lower taxes: I wanted every cent I could get to try to help lift myself up—not think that the Government was going to do it for me. Self-responsibility: I knew I needed to take responsibility for myself, and I needed to work to try to change my reality, not expect a Government to do it for me, because I knew that would not realistically happen. Reward for achievement: why? I wanted to be rewarded for the work I did, and if I worked harder and did more, I wanted to be rewarded for that. So I chose to vote for a National Government way back in the first MMP election, and I’m here today as an MP, and I’m proud. We do not want our young people sitting on benefits. We want them to be in employment, we want them to be in education, or we want them to be in training, not sitting on a benefit. There is no hope and no opportunity for them in that. The State will not save them. They need to learn the skills to give themselves the sense of a future. That’s what we’re here for, and the opportunity New Zealanders to vote for that is in November. Thank you, Madam Speaker. GEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (15:37): At a time when the cost of living is at an all-time high, the Government decides that now is the time to cut entitlements. This bill will apply a parental assistance test—income threshold and parental gap test—to restrict the eligibility criteria for jobseeker support and the equivalent emergency benefit for young people aged 18 and 19. The Government was given a range of options—five policy options, in fact—to address how they could assist young people into work, and they chose to go with the cheapest option. They decided to go with the most cost-effective option for them, to the detriment of our young people. It doesn’t add up. Most of the burden of this cost will fall on 4,300 young people and their families, who will no longer be eligible for support. Not only will the young person miss out, but their parents will now have an additional monetary burden as well. This policy will place additional compliance requirements on young people, both in their initial application for support and reapplications. That means more compliance costs for the Ministry of Social Development and those administering the means testing. It really puts young people at risk, and the reason it does is that, if a young person is in a situation where their parents do not provide support, there is a risk they won’t have any support at all. My question is around the test for this. What constitutes when a young person cannot reasonably be expected to rely on their parents for financial support? How do we meet that test? There is a huge risk here that young people will miss out simply because their parents will not, for whatever reason, support them. Every single one of us has complicated relationships with our parents, and we are not in a position to judge how complicated that relationship is. Young people will miss out on support, at all, due to this test. This is the part that doesn’t add up for me. There are 40,000 fewer people employed than when Luxon took office. Not only are there not jobs for young people; they are also getting their entitlements cut while they’re looking for a job. Young people not in employment, education, or training is up to 60 percent. This Government is giving young people no option: there are no jobs, there are no opportunities for training, and now they don’t even get the support they need to get into those positions. The Government is kicking young people off income support just to make its books add up. It is making life harder for New Zealanders just to meet their targets. The bill is simply about saving the Government money at the expense of our young people. The Government is going against advice received from MSD on this matter. As I’ve mentioned, there were five policy options, and they went for the cheap one. MSD advised that the Government should be investing in education, training, and employment for young people, and those members were like “Nah, don’t think so—not today.”, but, instead, they’re going to cut services by the Minister. Apprenticeship Boost is gone from this Government, Māori trades training is gone from this Government, and now the fees-free scheme for university students is gone from this Government. In the midst of a cost of living crisis, this Government is making it harder to get by. People are working hard and getting nowhere. Pay doesn’t stretch, bills keep going up, and this is all happening at a time when record numbers of Kiwis are leaving the country for better opportunities overseas. If we don’t have any jobs for our young people and we’re not supporting them, they will continue to move to Australia. The Labour Party believes in having a more affordable New Zealand, right here in Aotearoa. On that basis, we cannot support this bill. KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (15:42): Look, honestly, it astounds me, or, actually, it doesn’t really surprise me at all—the difference between this side of the House, or the Government side, and the Opposition. Ultimately, as the Minister has said, this is a safety net and a backstop, not an entitlement, as the Opposition has so pointed out. Every single person that leaves high school in this country should have a promising pathway into education and further work. Actually, for those people that cannot find jobs and cannot get into education—if the Opposition thinks that it’s just happening to every single young person, which is not what I am seeing—there is still a safety net for them to be supported financially. But those people who are financially able to be supported by their families should be, and they should actually be encouraged into work and training because that is the country that we need to see. We need to see opportunities for our kids, and if we let them stay at home, then we will. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 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. Bill read a first time.

Documents and supporting material