The Social Services and Community Committee has examined the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill and recommends by majority that it be passed with the amendments shown.

The bill would amend the Social Security Act 2018 and the Social Security Regulations 2018 to remove the subsequent child policy.

The bill includes transitional provisions related to the removal of the policy. The bill would come into force on 11 October 2021. This would allow a 28-day transition period prior to the policy’s removal on 8 November 2021, as well as a 28-day period after its removal. This is to ensure that the policy would not be applied to people who had an application in progress, or a relevant change in circumstances, immediately before or after the law change. This would reduce complexity and ensure fairness in the treatment of different cases.

As part of our consideration of the bill, we have examined its consistency with principles of legislative quality. We have no issues regarding the legislation’s design to bring to the attention of the House.

We recommend making four minor and technical amendments to the bill:

• The first would delete clause 16, which would amend regulation 179B(2)(d) of the Social Security Regulations 2018. This clause is no longer needed because regulation 179B was revoked on 25 July 2021.

• The second would amend clause 17 to simplify and update the amending language that inserts a new Part 7 in Schedule 1 of the Act.

• The third would renumber clauses 86 to 89 as clauses 89 to 92 of new Part 7, which would be inserted into Schedule 1 of the Act. This would reflect the recent changes to the Act made by the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Act 2021.

• The fourth amendment would replace “transitional period” with the correct term, “transition period”, in clauses 90 and 92 of new Part 7 in Schedule 1 of the Act.

The majority of submitters (81 percent) supported the bill. They gave several reasons for supporting the policy’s removal. Those most commonly cited are listed below:

• They considered the policy harmful to children’s development. This is because the policy does not prioritise the first 1,000 days of a child’s life, which are vital to a child’s physical and emotional development, and their attachment with parents or caregivers.

• They said that the policy does not reflect parents’ caring responsibilities. Because the policy decreases the scope for parents to stay at home with a subsequent child, they feel it devalues the role of parenting as unpaid work.

• They said that the policy has a negative effect on the mental health and wellbeing of parents, caregivers, and children.

• They believed that the policy disproportionately affects Māori and women. The Ministry of Social Development told us that about 56 percent of those affected by the policy are Māori, and 86 percent are women.

• They said that the policy creates inequities in the welfare system. This is because the policy implies that subsequent children need less parenting time and care than their older siblings.

• They told us that the policy adds complexity to the welfare system. Some submitters told us that removing the policy would simplify the welfare system by ensuring that the eligibility for sole parent support and the setting of work or work-preparation obligations is based on the youngest child in all cases.

A minority of submissions (13 percent) opposed the bill.⁵ Some submitters told us that the bill would lead to an increase in child poverty due to parents and caregivers being on a benefit for longer without expectations to look for or take up work. Other submitters told us that if the policy is removed, more children would be born into poverty.

Analysis by the Ministry of Social Development showed no strong evidence to suggest that the policy has reduced the time people are on a benefit, or improved financial and social outcomes. It compared the amount that two groups of sole parents received in benefits over a period of time.⁶ One group were parents affected by the policy and the other were under general work-preparation obligations. The analysis suggests that removing the policy is not expected to affect what an individual is paid in benefit over a period of time. The analysis also suggests that the policy has not increased the number of parents returning to work; nor has it affected how soon they return to work, irrespective of what work obligations they have.

The ministry told us that there is no evidence to suggest that removing the policy would have a negative effect on the employment outcomes of parents and caregivers affected by the policy. Therefore, we do not recommend any substantive amendments to the bill.

Some submissions we received made broader comments about the Government’s work to overhaul the welfare system and the recent report by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG).⁷ These submissions supported the bill, saying it would be a small step forward in addressing the WEAG’s recommendations. (Removing the policy was set out as one aspect of recommendation 11 in the WEAG’s report.) Generally, these submitters wanted the welfare overhaul to progress faster.

We note that the scope of the bill is very narrow as it removes the subsequent child policy and manages the transition period. For this reason, we consider that broad issues raised by submitters about the welfare overhaul are not within the bill’s scope. Therefore, we have not proposed any amendments that address these wider issues. We look forward to following the Government’s progress on addressing the WEAG’s recommendations.

National Party members support the retention of the subsequent child policy and therefore do not support this bill.

The National-led Government introduced the subsequent child policy and members remain concerned about long-term benefit dependency and the impact that this has on children.

The ACT Party opposes this bill as we believe, in a time when child poverty and hardship has been in the spotlight as a major issue in this country, removing policies that were put in place to help tackle this seems to go against what we as a Parliament are trying to achieve.