Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3)

When the House was last discussing this bill, I was outlining that the bill amends the Social Security Act of 1964 so that the benefits system treats people in similar circumstances consistently—because if it is not consistent, it is not fair—and the fact that this bill brings in changes because at the moment the Act allows some people who are receiving weekly compensation to be treated differently, depending on who is paying that compensation. It also allows some students to get access to a higher rate of accommodation assistance than others.

So just dealing with that first issue, I was explaining that for one group of people, they are having their weekly compensation payments deducted dollar for dollar, and another group of people are having their weekly compensation payments treated as income, and that is not fair because if those payments were treated as income, higher benefit payments would result, as income affects the benefit by abatement. So, for example, under abatement for jobseeker support, the first $80 to $100 of other incomes does not result in any reduction of the person’s benefit at all, but for each additional dollar after that, the benefit is reduced by up to 70c. So the amendments set out in the bill make sure that no group of people who are paid weekly compensation will get a substantially higher benefit payment, for the sole reason that they have their weekly compensation paid by an accredited employer rather than ACC.

It also means that if a claim for weekly compensation fails, after the payments have been made by an accredited employer or by ACC, a benefit application can be treated as if it was received at the time of the accident. So the backdated benefit payments offset, in that case, the amount of weekly compensation that the person has to repay. The Ministry of Social Development has treated all weekly compensation payments the same, regardless of who is making the payments, but the ministry had, before the court decision, understood that payments of weekly compensation made by, or on behalf of, accredited employers ought to be treated the same as payments of weekly compensation by ACC. This bill confirms that practice. One exception to that is the person who won an appeal to the Social Security Appeal Authority. That person is protected by the provisions in the bill and will not have to repay the additional benefit money received after that decision.

The changes set out in this bill will make sure that the Social Security Act treats two groups of people—the students who are trying to access a higher rate of accommodation assistance through one door rather than the same door that most students are following, and then those people who are receiving weekly compensation no matter who is paying them that compensation—in a consistent manner, because that is only fair and right.

Can I take just a minute as I close before commending this bill to acknowledge, as I did very briefly in my answer to a question in the House today, the work of a woman whom New Zealand lost last evening, and that is Celia Lashlie. She is described as a social campaigner, but she is well known in the country through her work with the Good Man project. I actually have someone working in my office who was one of those students in the 25 boys’ schools that Celia worked with throughout the country. That formed the basis of her book He’ll Be OK: Growing Gorgeous Boys into Good Men, which is a terrific book, particularly for parents of boys. The other book that I think is probably essential reading for anyone who becomes, or has aspirations to become, the Minister of Corrections is The Journey to Prison: Who Goes and Why. It is a tough read, but, as I say, it is essential reading for anyone who has the responsibility of incarcerating New Zealand citizens.

Celia did a lot of work across the social and justice sectors. She worked for the probation services and she worked in corrections for many years. She was a woman who was not afraid to say the things that needed to be said. Sometimes we did not like to hear it, but, actually, she was fearless in standing up for New Zealanders who could not speak for themselves and for some of the New Zealanders who were at most risk in our communities. So we wish her well. We know that she has gone upwards and has gone to a far better place and will be looking down on us. She did not have much time for politicians, but we know that she will be looking down on, and listening to, us.

In conclusion, this is a good bill and I commend this bill to the House.

As I rise to speak to the second reading of the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3), I wish to echo the sentiments from the Minister Anne Tolley and also pay my respects to Celia Lashlie. Her contribution to this country will not be forgotten. Certainly, as the mother of two teenage sons, I really appreciated the contribution that she made to our discussion in this country about our boys, who are indeed gorgeous, and she provided, I guess, some level of comfort to parents who might sometimes—not me, of course, but some parents—look at their teenage boys and wonder what on earth was going on in their minds. Celia certainly was a voice of wisdom that could help us all to deal with those sorts of circumstances.

I do want, though, to spend a little time talking about the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3), which is what this debate is about. It is the second reading. It is a Government bill but it is supported by the Labour Party, as indeed we do in the majority of circumstances when there is good reason to do so in this House. In supporting this bill, though, I will just say that our disappointment is that it has taken so long to reach the second reading. This bill has languished on the Order Paper for 4 years at a time when the Government has seen fit to bring all sorts of other measures forward that we did not think were as important—measures like giving Skycity concessions on gambling laws so that problem gambling would become more of an issue in our community. Those sorts of things seem to be rushed through with indecent haste, and yet this bill—this simple bill that fixes loopholes that the Government has known about for more than 4 years—is having its second reading after languishing behind some of those other Draconian measures for 4 years.

We do support the bill. It does make sensible changes to remove some loopholes in the Social Security Act. As the Minister said, the bill will ensure that those receiving ACC payments from their employer are treated the same as those receiving ACC payments from ACC itself. The Labour Party certainly supports that form of equal treatment. In fact, I think history will show that the idea that an employer could manage their own accident compensation system, if they met certain criteria in terms of health and safety standards, was in fact a Labour Party initiative.

I think it is important just to remember the background to that, because this was an incoming Labour Government that was again fixing up the shambles that a National Government had landed on this country when it completed privatised the ACC system and tried to do it overnight. That Government did it hugely unsuccessfully, against the will of the people, did not listen, and with the arrogance that people have come to see is developing in this National Government. That outgoing National Government, in its dying months, decided to privatise the ACC system completely, without the backing of the New Zealand public.

My mother was working in the health system at the time. I remember her, in her role as a clerical worker for a general practitioner at the time, talking about the paperwork that had multiplied about 10 times because of the privatisation of ACC. One of the responses from the incoming Government—I thought you might like that story about my mother—was that we did see that there was an opportunity for some employers, if they had a good track record with health and safety and if they could prove they could manage this well themselves, to do so.

At that time there was this loophole that has come about, which this bill aims to fix up. These employers are normally in a partnership agreement. They are called accredited employers. Workers who are not necessarily going directly to ACC about their workplace accidents, but are going through a third-party insurer that has been contracted by their employer, will be the people who may have had access to this loophole and will not any longer. I say that they will not any longer, but in fact we are up to only the second reading. Goodness knows what other pieces of urgent legislation this Government will find to put in front of this bill getting its third reading. I hope it does not languish for too much longer.

The other loophole that this bill intends to close, which the Government has known about for at least 4 years, is a loophole that allows students to claim the Work and Income accommodation supplement instead of the student allowance, in instances where the accommodation supplement is in fact more generous than their student allowance.

But I have got to stand up for students a little bit in this debate because they have had a really tough time from this Government. They have had a terribly tough time from this Government. Their student allowance rates have barely increased, while the price of rental accommodation has skyrocketed. We are all too familiar with what that has meant for students living in Canterbury and in Auckland, where they have suffered the greatest rental increases. But even in student cities like Hamilton, it has made student life much more of a struggle than it needs to be.

Those student allowance rates are basically flatlining, while the cost of rental accommodation goes through the roof. Students have seen their course fees increase by up to 5 percent every year over that same period, and they have absorbed the GST increase when the National Government increased the rate to 15 percent. And still their student allowances have just flatlined. Student loans have been cut for part-time students. Student loan repayment rates have been increased by 20 percent. A new $40 annual student loan fee has been tacked on. And still the student allowance rates have flatlined.

This loophole that has existed has probably been a bit of a godsend for some of these students, quite frankly. I implore the Government, as it closes up this loophole—which we support it closing up because it is not the way it was intended to be; it is what we call in this House an unintended consequence—to recognise and understand the plight of tertiary students. It is very real, it is very pressing, and it is holding our country back. It is holding the future of this country back—that brighter future that the Government once used to talk about. It used to be built into every single speech on the other side of the House, but we do not hear it any longer. But I really hope, now that I have raised it, that perhaps the next speaker from the Government benches who gets up will actually outline what that brighter future is going to look like and how this bill is going to deliver it.

The truth of this bill is that it is a useful, small piece of legislation. It is not going to improve anyone’s life. In fact, it will make some people’s lives a bit tougher. The Labour Party is supporting the bill because these are loopholes that were not intentional, and we want to see equal treatment for people. We will support it on that basis. But look, we are still pretty much at the beginning of the parliamentary year. Nothing here is actually going to deliver that brighter future that the Government once promised. I would like to see the Government coming forward with some more challenging and exciting bills that will actually deliver on that brighter future, but I certainly do hope that it does not bring any more detrimental bills in the way of this bill that, despite its simplicity, despite how straightforward it is, and despite the Government knowing about these loopholes for 4 years, has taken 4 long years to get to just its second reading.

First of all, this is my first speech in the House for 2015, so can I say happy New Year to you, Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard. Can I also acknowledge your marriage during the break, and wish you well. I also want to take time to acknowledge that although it has been a great start to the year, there has also been a tinge of sadness. I just want to acknowledge my friend and colleague Mike Sabin, who is no longer with us. He will be a loss to the House, to the electorate, and also, I believe, to the country for the work and effort that he has put in for Northland as well.

Also, it is a sad loss—and I know there have been tributes to Celia Lashlie. Can I just briefly acknowledge her work, the work that she has put into the community. I have been a part of some of those initiatives, particularly when she was in Nelson, and the work she did in particular with Nelson College. It was called the Good Man project—working with young male students. I also did quite a bit of work with fathers and sons in that work there, and I know that the work that Celia had put through influenced a lot of that. When I met her she came across as quite a tough cookie—took no prisoners in the work that she did. But really she was well respected for that. I think she was a great New Zealander, and I want to take just a moment to acknowledge the significant contribution that she has made to New Zealand as well.

We are talking about the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). The previous speaker, Sue Moroney, talked about a brighter future, and she is absolutely right. I am glad she is saying those words, while wearing her bright green jacket—saying that New Zealanders and our students do have a bright future in New Zealand. We hear it all the time. We are seeing it all the time. I know that because my two youngest sons are currently in tertiary study. They are seeing it all the time, too. They are seeing students who are seeing the opportunities that are coming to them, not only to complete their tertiary studies. If we talk about the completion rate for tertiary studies, we can see that—and Kris Faafoi will also know this—for Pasifika we have got the highest rate of completion, which is continuing to grow, around tertiary studies for young Pasifika students. That is a great future for both Māori and Pasifika students who are coming through, which has not happened under previous Governments. So it is definitely a brighter future that we are seeing, and students are giving that feedback to us. That is really important as well. So we do keep saying it. We do believe in it.

We believe that this Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3)—the previous speaker Mrs Moroney was absolutely correct—was introduced back in the 49th Parliament. During that time, during the select committee process, it was not a huge bill. It is a bill that, as was rightly said, is closing a loophole, and I think that is really important. In that loophole there are some technical issues there that need to be remedied. That recommendation came through. I think there were two submissions that were put forward, and only one of those was an oral submission, and the New Zealand University Students’ Association made that submission as well. The thing that the submitters wanted to put forward in the bill, which also came through in the regulatory impact report, was around ensuring that there was fairness and equity around this, and that is what this bill is about. It is about fairness, it is about equity, and it closes a loophole that allows some students and beneficiaries to receive varying levels of income support inside this.

One of the things that is also important in the provisions of the bill is that it clarifies weekly compensation, which includes weekly compensation whether it is paid by ACC or an accredited employer. We think that is important because the deductions should apply equally to compensation, whether it is paid by ACC or an accredited employer. It is inequitable that claimants in essentially the same circumstances are treated differently as well. Just to give you one example: if a DPB recipient is paid $100 in weekly compensation with no other income but the DPB, they would have their benefit reduced by $100 if the compensation is from ACC. And if the compensation is paid by an accredited employer their benefit will not be reduced at all. These are just some of the examples that I know of that came through the select committee, which talked about some of the inconsistencies that it was seeing as well.

I just want to briefly talk about the student allowance component of this bill. This bill does not have many parts to it, but there are parts that are important, I think, to people who are listening and also to students. The accommodation supplement is intended to assist low to middle income people who do not receive a student allowance or a loan with their accommodation costs. A loophole in the Social Security Act 1964 allows students to access the accommodation supplement if they choose to not receive a student allowance. We believe that, for example, for a solo parent with two children in Auckland, the maximum amount that can be paid in accommodation supplement is around about $225 a week compared with $60 for the accommodation benefit for students on a student allowance. The returns from study accrue to individuals as well as to society, so the clear policy behind the student loan and allowance system is to share the costs with students.

💬 Phil Twyford: Are you reading that?

It is important to get those little details right, Mr Twyford—who sometimes does not get those details right—because it is important to the people who are listening. They need to know that this is not a large bill, but it is a bill that has many little technical issues that are absolutely important to New Zealanders as well.

What is also important, we think, is a retrospective application of the amendment. By changing legislation retrospectively, we confirm previous understandings of legislative and administrative policy and practice. We believe that the changes that we are making, small as they are, to both ACC and also the student allowance will be significant in how they are impacting on our students as well.

I know that the previous speaker, Mrs Moroney, talked about students and the impact on students. Yet again, the feedback that we are getting is that although this is not a huge bill for a number of the students, what they are seeing, though, are the opportunities that are growing, through opportunities for employment and opportunities that we are seeing constantly for them to further their tertiary studies and to further their opportunities overseas as well, and that is really important.

Again, as I have said, the number of Pasifika students completing Bachelor’s degrees has increased—just to give a little bit of detail here—from 980 students in 2008 to 1,530 students in 2013. That is a 56 percent increase, and I know that Mrs Williams and also Mr Faafoi will relish that information and that little statistic as well. In 2013 over 10,000 more Māori students achieved qualifications across all levels of tertiary education than in 2008, and over 5,300 more Pasifika students did the same. That truly is an achievement that we are very proud of as well, which is making a difference.

National is committed to increasing achievement in the tertiary sector. Having more people achieving tertiary qualifications means that we are moving to a higher level of skilled people in the labour market—higher skills meaning higher-paying jobs for all New Zealanders and their families. We know that back in the 2000s, previous Governments threw more and more money at tertiary education, and the number of people achieving degrees stayed at around the 20,000 mark. With a focus on performance and results, we have lifted that now to almost 26,000 degrees, with virtually the same amount of funding right across the sector. Overall, the total number of qualifications achieved in the year by all students, both domestic and international, remained at a historically high level at around about 162,000, which is more than 20 percent higher than 5 years ago.

I want to just summarise some of the parts of my speech and my contribution to this bill, the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). Just finally, on ACC, this Government is reducing ACC levies. By 1 July next year we will have put back around $1.5 billion into New Zealand families’ pockets.

💬 Hon Member: How much?

$1.5 billion. Mr Twyford might be interested in that. It is a detail. I know that he might not be interested in the details, but $1.5 billion is going back into the hands of families—into their pockets.

💬 Tracey Martin: Not students.

All families, Mrs Martin. This includes reducing the average motor vehicles levy from 1 July this year from around $330 to $195 a year, as well, leaving more money in your family’s pocket.

We believe that this bill, though small in nature, is significant, and we know that it receives support. It is a pity that the rest of the speech from the previous speaker did not continue to be positive about the direction that the Government is taking. It truly is making a difference. We think that the Government is in a great space. It is actually making a brighter future for all students, and in particular I want to speak out for Māori and Pasifika students, who are really important—I know that Mr Ball, being part Kiribati, will appreciate that as well—and we are seeing the difference that it is making.

The Opposition might not celebrate those results. I do not hear those members talking about and celebrating those numbers, but we do because they are making a difference. If those members are serious about those students, Māori and Pasifika in particular, then why are they not putting out press releases and celebrating not only what the Government is doing but, more important, the achievement and the results of these students as well? That would be great.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this contribution. I commend this bill to the House.

To the member who has just resumed his seat, here is a number about students: 4,600. That is approximately the number of places in our universities that have been denied this academic year by a Government that, without proper consultation with students or parents, raised the bar for university entrance from National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 to NCEA level 3. Furthermore, it tightened the prerequisites in a number of ways that have left universities like Waikato University and others gasping because they were not consulted and they did not have input. What we have seen now is a gross overreaction by the Government.

This party believes in high standards, but it also believes that tertiary education is a must-have for all New Zealanders who are able and willing to access it. It is crucial for our economy, it is crucial for building a positive future for New Zealand, and it is absolutely crucial to ensuring that every Kiwi kid—the kid of a doctor, the kid of a driver—can grow up to be the best that they can be.

Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard, this is also, I think, my first contribution since the summer break. I would like to congratulate you on your nuptials and also on your role in the Chair. I would like to say that it has been a great summer for New Zealanders, or most New Zealanders, although we recognise those who have been doing it tough. It is great weather, which is tough for the farmers, and great now that we are back at work. We do so with a heavy heart today. We acknowledge the passing of Api Mahuika, the rangatira of Ngati Porou rūnanga, who has made a marked contribution to the progress of that iwi and who has been a tremendous kaitiaki for his rohe and his people. I always enjoyed “Uncle Api’s” company. He was a hard doer—never shy about saying what his iwi needed—but always honourable and always a great participant. So we remember him and his whānau today.

I also wish to join with other colleagues in acknowledging the passing today of Celia Lashlie, the famous author, amongst other things, of a book about enabling gorgeous boys to become great young men. As a dad of two gorgeous boys, Celia, I thank you for your contribution. We mourn your passing, and we sit with your whānau today, as well.

There is something of a paradox in this Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) being brought to the House in one of the first weeks of the sitting session this year. Here is a Government that in its opening Address in Reply debate has been full of sound and fury. Now we see the legislative programme, and we realise, indeed, as Shakespeare would say, it signifies nothing, because this top-priority bill—and it is, frankly, a pretty trivial little bill that just takes out two minor loopholes in the social security legislation, one on ACC and the other on student allowances, which I will comment on shortly—really is just a tidy-up, housekeeping piece of legislation.

What it really tells New Zealand is this Government has run out of ideas. It is so beset with shambles—the shambles of Skycity. Remember that too-good-to-be-true conference centre that was not going to cost anybody a penny and was going to employ 10,000 builders all over Auckland? They will not need social security, because the Government was going to have them building casinos, but now, of course, we find out that was all a chimera. The Government rolled the dice and came up short, and if it were not for the pressure from the Opposition and the thousands of New Zealanders who petitioned on that matter, the Government would have sold us out by another $140 million - odd.

Then, of course, there is the cover-up on Mike Sabin, and the great State house sell-off. What a terrible crisis affecting so many—yes, come back to the bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member has now gone for nearly half his speech. Can we get through the introduction and on to the bill.

May I turn to the part of the bill that seeks to close a loophole that allows students to claim the Work and Income accommodation supplement instead of the student allowance in instances where it is more generous.

I would like to join with my colleague Sue Moroney in saying that it is very hard to blame students for taking advantage of the law as it currently stands. That is because student allowance rates have barely increased, while the prices of rental accommodation have skyrocketed, particularly in Auckland and in Christchurch. Students have seen course fees raised consistently by the maximum 4 percent per annum, and they have also had to absorb a hike in GST. Student loans have been cut for part-time students, and, of course, the eligibility for student loans has been capped to exclude postgraduate students completing their degrees. The student loan repayment rate minimum has been increased by 20 percent, and a new $40 annual student loan fee has been tacked on.

All of that goes to show one thing: this Government is out of touch with the reality faced by most New Zealand students today. Students are having to borrow more, sweat more, and spend more time away from their studies, and they are doing it because this Government is making it tougher. This bill does not help. Instead of legislation that could have undertaken the kind of review that the Labour Opposition has promised students, a ground up review of student allowances, this Government is fiddling while Rome burns—fiddling while Rome burns. As I say, what it should be talking about is its mishandling of measures, which has seen 4,500 students excluded from our universities this year by its bungled implementation of the shift to NCEA level 3.

That is covered in section 61EA of the Act, and I must say I have very mixed feelings about that part of it. That is going to be something we will cover when in Government, in our ground up review of student allowances and budgets. The rest of it amends section 71 of the principal Act to allow Work and Income to backdate benefit payments to applicants who previously received ACC from an accredited employer as well as from ACC itself. This we do support, because it harmonises the way that ACC recipients are treated, whether they apply directly to the corporation or through their employers. That makes sense.

We are not going to oppose the bill, notwithstanding the reservations we have on the student component, because, frankly, these kinds of tidy-ups are things that should happen routinely. But New Zealanders are going to be very well aware that in this, the second sitting week of the House, the Government has come up empty-handed. The Government is so beset with shambles of its own making, and so embarrassed about the Prime Minister pirouetting on the head of a pin with every statement he makes, looking slipperier and slipperier in the eyes of New Zealanders. It is beset with the shambles on Skycity, the Sabin affair, the State house sell-off, and a general malaise that sees members opposite studying their shoelaces instead of concentrating on the issues that matter to New Zealanders.

This legislation is sad because it shows a Government that is out of ideas, a Government that has stopped caring, a Government that has got way, way too used to the baubles of office, and one that has entered, in very flaccid style, its third and final term.

Matt Doocey. I was going to call you Tom. I am sorry.

They say I look like him, too. It is a privilege to take this call for the second reading of the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3), and a privilege to rise and speak to such a necessary bill. For the many listeners and viewers at home, let me set the scene of this very important bill. This bill amends the Social Security Act 1964. This bill is about consistency, this bill is about fairness, and this bill is about equity. They are very similar to the values of this National Government: the values of consistency and better public services, the values of fairness and honesty, and the Government values of equity and equal opportunity.

Can I acknowledge the hard work of this bill’s sponsor, the Minister for Social Development, the Hon Anne Tolley. She is committed to protecting the vulnerable. I must say, last Tuesday I attended the launch of the state of the nation report by the Salvation Army. I went down and what a great report that was. It is the eighth annual report, and it is called A Mountain All Can Climb. Yes, it is a big mountain to climb, but what a great start. Let me see: child poverty—lower; number of children at risk—lower; teenage pregnancies—falling; overall crime—down; imprisonment rate—down; criminal recidivism—down. Employment is up, unemployment is down, and incomes are rising faster than the cost of living. Could I remind the Opposition that in its last state of the nation report in 2008, it said for all its increased spending and expenditure, it did not increase social progress by 1 percent. The Government is clearly working for New Zealand. The Government is focusing on investing in better public services for New Zealanders. So, as I was saying, the Hon Anne Tolley, the Minister for Social Development, is committed to protecting the vulnerable. She is committed to ensuring their voice is heard in policy and legislation, and she is committed to delivering services that improve lives.

So what is this bill about? Well, it is about closing loopholes. At the moment, we have some students and beneficiaries who are receiving differing levels of income support. So this National Government is amending this legislation, because we take the responsibility of managing our country’s finances on behalf of taxpayers seriously. I was not on the Social Services Committee at the time, but my understanding is that it did have two submissions. The Social Services Committee did make recommendations for this bill to be passed. Can I also pay tribute to our Social Services Committee chair, Alfred Ngaro. My colleague’s collegial approach, my colleague’s firm hand, and my colleague’s empathy to the issues of focus in this select committee have contributed to a productive committee to date, a select committee that is intent on making good law, and a select committee that is making a difference.

What is the background to this bill? Well, very much it is in two parts, and the first one is around students. The nub of it is we do have some students who are forgoing student allowance, which entitles them to an accommodation supplement of higher value. We were all students once, or most of us were, and we know that it is entrepreneurial when you are a student. Young people like pushing boundaries, but, at the end of the day, although this is legal or pretty legal or fairly legal, it was not the intended outcome of the Social Security Act. I must say how proud I am to live in a country with a Social Security Act and social welfare provision. We all know about the welfare provision post-World War II and the Bretton Woods agreements, and with the baby boomers we cannot sustain that level of social welfare, but we can provide targeted social welfare support to the vulnerable.

It reminds me that I had the opportunity to travel into Zimbabwe in 2003, and its economy had just collapsed. Pretty much, you would go to a supermarket and the tellers were scooping money into rubbish bags. Their money was worth nothing. To go out for dinner you had to fill up your backpack full of money to go and buy a meal. And the people were desperate; they were really on edge. They did not have the social welfare provision we have in New Zealand, and it just goes to show that for the well-being of people you need strong economic management, and this is what the National Government is providing.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to interrupt the member, as I interrupted the previous speaker. The member did take about 3 minutes of introduction, and then spoke on the bill for about 90 seconds. I am now going to advise him to get back on to the bill that is before the House.

What is the aim of the bill? The aim of the bill is to exclude students who are eligible under the Student Allowances Regulations 1998 from receiving the accommodation supplement. The amendments make it clear that students are not eligible for the accommodation supplement if they can receive assistance under the Student Allowances Regulations 1998. What about the amendment for beneficiaries? What we do know is that some beneficiaries can receive accident compensation payments. Under the Social Security Act, compensation payments are deducted dollar for dollar from their benefit, and this is very much for ACC payments, but does not include compensation paid for by accredited employers. That is very much the argument and the amendment of this legislation. It is closing a current loophole that results in deductions not being equally applied to compensation paid for by ACC or accredited employers, which is not a very good incentive to work. I must say in today’s environment we need everyone to work and to get back to work. The Ministry of Social Development is currently deducting payments from both ACC and accredited employers and this bill validates the present and past practice. The total cost of this loophole is $700,000 per annum, and retrospectively applied is $3.261 million.

In conclusion, this bill is about consistency. It is about fairness. It is about equity. I acknowledge the hard work of the social development Minister, Anne Tolley, and the Social Services Committee chair, Alfred Ngaro. This bill closes loopholes that allow some students and beneficiaries to receive differing levels of income. This bill will save millions of dollars, as our National Government takes seriously its responsibility of managing the country’s finances on behalf of the taxpayer. I commend this bill to the House.

I would like to join in other comments this evening in acknowledging significant passings in recent times, both of Celia Lashlie and also Robin Duff, who was the Vice-President of the Post Primary Teachers’ Association and an extraordinary advocate for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex communities and students. Celia, obviously, I think, has helped expand our understanding of the world and how it functions and also helped us understand and see the best that is possible in our boys and how to bring that out in them. We are poorer for the loss of both of them.

I move on to this bill, and it is hard not to want to jump in and respond to the hyperbole of the previous speech, which bordered on one of those speeches you give at school to prove you can extend 5 minutes talking about nothing. But the Green Party will be opposing this, the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). The bill was first introduced into the House by Paula Bennett way back on 16 November 2010. Yes, that is over 4 years ago. It finished in the select committee in that same term of Parliament. We did not hear one word of it—well, at least I did not—in the last term. There was not one mention, to my knowledge.

I am left wondering why we did not hear about it then, and why the apparent urgency that it has jumped up so high on the Order Paper in this term of Parliament. I do not have any definitive answers to that, but I do suspect it is possible that the possibility of saving a few dollars from the Government Budget lines when the looming Budget deficit is pending—maybe it has got that desperate that it needs to claw back $700,000 here from people on ACC and a few hundred thousand here from students struggling to get by. This Government is going to stoop to taking money from people retrospectively and clawing back from students trying to get by just to do whatever it can to edge closer to that possibility of surplus that seems to be becoming increasingly unlikely. It really is just a shame that in all too many instances we are seeing in Government policy and legislation that the money put towards achieving that or hoping to get towards that surplus seems to be coming from everyday New Zealanders who are struggling to get by or get ahead.

The Government has framed this bill as being about consistency, fairness, honesty, and equity. It sounds good. How could you not support those things? We certainly support those values in the Green Party, but I do just want to point out that it depends where your starting point is. Part of the reason for our opposing this is for those very same values, which we do not believe what is happening in this legislation is consistent with. It is not fair, it is not honest, and it is not promoting equity, so we are opposing it for those same reasons.

What this bill will do is ensure that students eligible for student allowances—whether or not they access them—are not eligible for an accommodation supplement through Work and Income. So a student may say: “OK, I’m not going to apply for a student allowance, even though I am eligible for it, but I will apply for an accommodation supplement, because that is worth more and that will help me stay in study and be able to cover my basic costs.” There is a loophole there at the moment, so that students who may be eligible for the student allowance but choose not to apply can access that. So this is looking at saying: “OK, now you can’t access that. Although that may make you a little bit better off, you can’t do it.” The Government is saying it is about fairness, whereas we would say actually the fairness is around the ability to access a reasonable amount of money. That is the first part—to be actually able to cover your daily living costs. And we want students. We want people to be studying. We want students to be supported in studying. Actually, collectively as a country, we have enough resource to be able to do that a bit better than we are at the moment.

A previous speaker, I think, pointed out an example in Auckland where if you were on income support, you may be able to access $225 for accommodation, I think I heard, whereas if you were getting the student allowance, it would be $65 in accommodation support. That is not encouraging people to be in study, and that does not seem equitable or fair. We were just seeing stories in the New Zealand Herald just about a week ago of students queueing up now with hundreds of people in the queues to get into a flat that is in any way close to their tertiary institutions. They are turning up with CVs with photos of themselves on them, to prove that they are going to be desirable tenants. They are turning up with parents. They are offering more money that what is actually being asked for these places. There is so much competition for housing in Auckland, and that is something that is echoed in different ways in other parts of the country.

Our position is that the fair response to that situation would be for a Government to look at our resources and look at how we can better support students and other New Zealanders into good accommodation and affordable accommodation. The easiest way of doing that in the meantime is to be able to increase the support for people to be able to pay for their accommodation in the short term, until we get more housing. And yet this Government’s response to that is to say that it actually thinks these people are accessing a little bit too much money, so it is going to close that gap and to make sure that less money is being distributed to help address this problem. So that does not seem fair, equitable, or consistent, and I call the Government out on its own rhetoric on that point. Really, again, it seems to be the Government choosing to ignore the actual real hardship, rather than using our shared resources to ensure the protection and empowerment of everyone equally in this country, and I think it is a real shame.

I would like to point out another aspect of this bill, and speak to the point around ACC, which is part of the bill that we do support—the concept in it of the difference between the State-funded ACC provision versus the private schemes. It does not seem to make sense that there would be a difference there. At present benefit payments are deducted from weekly ACC compensation payments on a dollar by dollar basis. However, a loophole was discovered through a case in the Social Security Appeal Authority, which revealed that in law weekly compensation paid directly by employers accredited with ACC should be treated as income and deducted from benefits at a different, more favourable ratio. So the current practice, which this bill is seeking to retrospectively validate—and I really do need to point out again that if we are talking about consistency, equity, and fairness, retrospectively validating a practice is not consistent, fair, or equitable, and is repugnant to good legislative practice, actually. That will be able to result in someone who has been on a benefit while working part-time suddenly having their benefit reduced to zero after an injury.

We have heard that—what is it—$3.2 million is going to be recovered from doing that, and it is going to be $700,000 going forward. So there will be a retrospective factoring in of those costs to help reach the Government’s surplus, in a way that is completely inconsistent and unfair, I would suggest. The Green Party does not support people being able to double-dip. The dollar for dollar deduction is fair enough if someone’s eligibility for weekly compensation is caused by the same event as his or her eligibility for welfare. But that was not factored into this legislation, and, in fact, when someone is receiving, say, a sickness benefit in respect of a chronic illness or any other reason, but is working part-time, it is completely unfair to exclude that and to suggest that that is double-dipping, which is what this legislation does in part. So, therefore, again we find that we are unable to support that aspect of it because, again, it is not fair, it is not consistent, and it is not equitable, and it is not about helping to create a society where everyone has a fair go, where everyone has an equal chance of participating and achieving, when we know that that vision of a society is not far-fetched; it is entirely possible. But we need to have the attention to detail in our legislation to ensure that that is what we are providing. Kia ora.

It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to talk on the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). However, I would like to join others and acknowledge the passing of Celia Lashlie. She was a mighty social campaigner, and had good works with the Good Man project and, obviously, a book, He’ll Be OK. She has had many positive effects on many young families, especially with young boys, and I know personally as a father of a 12-year-old, who will shortly be going through the wonderful period of teenage years, it will certainly help me out as well.

💬 Phil Twyford: Get ready!

Yes. First thing, I would just like to say and acknowledge what Sue Moroney also said—the fact that coming to the second reading has been a while in the making. In 2011 it was first read. In fact not only was I not in Parliament but New Zealand First was not in Parliament at that stage. So it has given me a good opportunity to put some fresh eyes on the bill and have a look at it, and there are many questions that have come out of that and some concerns and partly some confusion, and, contrary to popular belief, I do not easily get confused.

So the first thing I did was to look at the bill and the intent of the bill in its entirety. Obviously, it is to tighten up a few loopholes in two areas, one of them being the ACC payments and how they are received, and also the loophole for students seeking assistance for accommodation costs. When addressing this bill it is important to remember that for the part of the students, or closing the loophole for the student seeking assistance, the overall and underlying intent of the bill should really be that it is for the students, and for the benefit of those students, and not just to tighten up a loophole. But that, unfortunately, seems to be what is trying to be achieved here by lumping those two very different, separate, juxtaposed issues together under one umbrella. And, on the face of things, obviously it is always good to increase efficiency and equitability within legislation, and that is what this bill is attempting to do here and that is what the public will likely see this bill as being.

But it seems that, by putting these very separate issues of ACC and student accommodation issues together, it is somewhat designed to lessen the need to look further and in the much greater detail that is needed at the fallout and unintended consequences from such a tightening of those loopholes, and the issues that I have highlighted in the process—to the point where, if you have a look at the bill, we believe that the bill should really have been submitted in two separate submissions. In fact, the two distinct, separate issues are not even in two different parts within the bill itself.

So I would like to concentrate my comments on one issue, in particular, that we do not think is fair or equitable, and that is the part of the attempt to close the loophole on the student accommodation supplement, which is clause 4(1) and (2) in Part 1. The explanatory note sums up what it is: “The bill also amends the Social Security Act 1964 to clarify the provisions that exclude students who are eligible for assistance under the Student Allowances Regulations 1998 from receiving the accommodation supplement. The amendment makes it clear that students are not eligible for the accommodation supplement if they could receive assistance under the Student Allowances Regulations 1998 but choose not to apply for it, or if they could receive this assistance but for their own income or the income of their parents, spouse, or partner.” So there are a few questions that popped out immediately for me, and perhaps the Minister could address those in time.

So the first is: why has it taken since 2011 for this bill to get through to second reading? Why is this currently a problem for students? If the students are using this loophole, why are students in need of more assistance? Why is there such a difference between the two amounts of how much a student would receive in a student allowance and how much they would receive in an accommodation supplement? And if this change does go through, how will this benefit help, support, and enable our current students looking for assistance? The fact is that it does not and it will not. In fact, what this bill succeeds in doing is highlighting the very real and current financial struggles that our students face, and the issues that our students have in being able to afford not only accommodation but even just the bare essentials. It is New Zealand First’s view that we need to invest in our students and ensure that they are given every opportunity to succeed and every ability to afford a quality education. It is not just education itself that is important but the environment and the ability to live without the need of bare essential items.

This proposed change unfortunately highlights the current issues we have with what our students are currently getting. The changes are proposing, when it boils down to it, that if you are eligible for a student allowance, you are not eligible to receive the accommodation supplement, even if you do not take the allowance. That may sound fair and equitable to a National Government, but what members opposite quite obviously do not see is that there is a need for some students to have to do that in the first instance. If a student can gain more assistance by not taking their student allowance, then why are we going down a path where we will ensure they are eligible only for the least amount of assistance instead of maximising it for them? The truth is that these students need all of the assistance that they can get. This bill undermines students and will potentially make it harder for students to afford a tertiary education.

To back up what I have been saying, I would just like to read out a couple of quotes from an article that came out as recently as September last year. There was a survey that showed that nearly half of all full-time students are in significant financial distress. Two years ago that was one in six final-year students who was living in significant financial distress, meaning they did not have enough money for their basic accommodation, clothing, or food requirements. An even more recent study of 5,000 students from both a polytechnic and a university showed that the situation was actually even worse, and 44 percent reported that they did not have enough to meet their basic needs. This shows the urgent need to increase support, including an increase in student allowance rates and expansion of allowances to those excluded by parental means tests and properly paid summer employment. So Mr Ngaro and Mr Doocey may stand over there and say that everything is peachy for students, but these are the actual facts.

If we are looking specifically at accommodation costs in particular, which this bill is affecting, we are looking at experts predicting rents will continue to rapidly rise this year. Auckland’s big tenant influx—when 50,000 students start looking for accommodation—is not expected to get into full force until later this month, but demand is already outstripping supply in many areas. Students are finding it hard to find affordable accommodation. This bill is going to ensure that students get only the least amount of assistance that is available. New Zealand First does not find that acceptable.

One of the words that the Minister used was “equitability”. We need to stop looking at the equitability process as stopping at the bounds of being a student and instead look realistically at the costs that our students incur and how that compares with every other low or middle-income person and how our Government addresses that issue. Instead of looking immediately at the options that stop the students receiving the highest amount of assistance, we need to look at the reasons why the students are needing this in the first instance. This bill should show support to our students by fixing the loophole in their favour, not against them. This is why New Zealand First does not support this bill.

It is an absolute privilege for me to stand up here and give what is, essentially, my first speech, if you exclude the 90 seconds that I was allotted for the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill, which is, of course, a very important bill that is in front of the Social Services Committee. I very much look forward to having the report back of that after we listen to the submitters in the next couple of weeks. So with the exception of those 90 seconds and my maiden speech, this is the very first time that I have had the opportunity to get up and say a few words to the House in respect of this particular bill—and, in fact, on any particular bill.

Firstly, can I wish you all a very good New Year. I know that for some of you, particularly across the other side of the House, you are probably looking forward to Christmas already. But, look, it was a fantastic break. Certainly, it was for me, and I hope it was for you, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch. I understand that you occasionally holiday in the beautiful Bay of Plenty. You have been known to do so over the last 65 years and I hope that your last holiday was very enjoyable.

On a more sombre note, however, I do want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the passing of a couple of very special New Zealanders—if I could start particularly with Dr Api Mahuika. I appreciate that there were many in this House probably more qualified than me to talk last week to his contribution to New Zealand and Ngati Porou, but I would like to add my small voice to that acclaim. I had the privilege over the last 6 years to be sitting on the Waikato University council with Api. He was an extraordinary person to sit alongside in a governance context. He was a great leader, a thoughtful and quite passionate man, obviously, for Ngati Porou. He will be sadly missed in terms of the representation and leadership that he has given not only his iwi but the wider country.

I also want to acknowledge Celia Lashlie. I had met her a couple of times. I was very impressed with both her stature and her forthrightness in what boys in particular look for in good, solid family relationships. I am the eldest of four boys. It would be fair to say that I think my parents took a leaf out of her book, and perhaps, in a small way, I am a contribution to her outlook on life.

It is very enjoyable to be actually standing up here and talking to this particular piece of legislation, the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). When I look at legislation like this—and I note the comments before of fellow MP Darroch Ball being new here and looking at it for the first time. I think his comments around bringing fresh eyes to the debate is one that resonates for me, as someone who is brand new to this place. Although we have different eyes, Darroch, I tried to do the same. Essentially, I asked myself three questions. The first is whether this is targeting a demonstrated need. I asked whether it is fair for the applicant and for the taxpayer—those thousands of hard-working New Zealanders, whose taxes we have the responsibility to spend effectively and appropriately. I guess, ultimately, I asked whether it is delivering an improved outcome. In my view, I think this bill delivers on all those three thresholds.

It is important that we provide assistance to those who need it most. I think everyone understands that that is a key component of who we are as a country. It has underpinned our social services framework for many, many decades. But it is just as important that we can give assurances to taxpayers in particular that assistance is being distributed fairly and that any loopholes identified where inequitable disparities can occur are closed. So at the fundamental core of this legislation is a view that we need to do the right thing by those who are seeking to have support from the Government, and to do the right thing also by those who are paying taxes to ensure that that tax is being well and effectively spent.

It is appropriate in my view that we have a framework that prevents students who are eligible for a student allowance from applying for and receiving the accommodation supplement. So I have found it interesting just listening to the debate over the last 20 or 30 minutes, particularly from the Green Party members. I would have to say that I did not quite get at the end, really, whether they are for it or against it. They spoke on both sides of the argument. I appreciate that when we brought this to the House the first time—and, obviously, subsequently it then went away through to the select committee process—I was not here and neither were a number of others. But I understood that it had a broad cross-section of party support. So I thought the Green Party members would be able to see this through rational eyes, particularly when you consider the sartorial elegance of at least one of them who is sitting over on the other side. I appreciate your choice of tie, sir. It is just where it needs to be. I honestly thought that the Green Party, when you strip away the rhetoric, would have actually said that this is something that deserved its support. I am disappointed that, apparently, if I heard them correctly, it perhaps still does not.

The accommodation supplement is intended to assist low to middle income people with accommodation costs, not for those who are seeking to lift their skills at a tertiary or vocational institute and who can receive the student benefit. There may well be a debate—

💬 Darroch Ball: That’s not equitable.

I understand you are shaking your head and that is fair enough. It is interesting that when you have a debate around student allowances, immediately it goes to saying, particularly on the other side, that it is not enough and it needs to be improved—it needs to be lifted. There never seems to be an acknowledgment that, actually, there is a benefit that accrues to the student by going to university. This is a very, very generous scheme and it has resulted in more students being involved in tertiary and vocational institutions than ever before. But it is still not good enough. It is still not good enough for members on the other side. Everything should be free. It does not matter how we earn it in this country, it should be free.

💬 Tracey Martin: Did you get a free education?

No, I did not. And for New Zealanders who work to be able to pay taxes I find it a remarkable, remarkable—

💬 Tracey Martin: Silent—there you go.

Well, it was not silence—I was talking. I was trying to talk over your constant questioning. Look, at this rate I am going to have to sit down before I have got to the main points, which would be quite extraordinary.

💬 Kris Faafoi: Have you got one?

I have got a number. So, for example, for a sole parent in Auckland with two children, the maximum amount they can be paid in an accommodation supplement is $225—

💬 Tracey Martin: It’s not about them.

You might learn something if you listen, seriously. That is $225 per week, compared with $60—[Interruption] oh, they have woken up—for an accommodation benefit on the student allowance. The returns from study—as I have said before to members on the other side of the House, particularly to New Zealand First members—accrue to individuals as well as to society. So the clear policy behind the student loan and allowance system is to share the cost between students and the Government. Students should not be reliant on other benefits and grants that result in the Government paying a greater share of student support.

This is a very fine piece of legislation and one that deserves our support. I would just like to finish—because it is remarkable how fast the time goes when you are having fun—with some comments in respect of ACC. Again, in my view, there is a principle at stake here. Any payment received by an ACC recipient should then be deducted dollar for dollar from any benefit they receive. This deduction needs to occur whether the payments are made by ACC or any accredited employer. I think I heard from the other side that there is a general acknowledgment that that is a sound piece of public policy. It is, therefore, a piece of legislation that should get, hopefully, pretty universal support. It is inequitable that claimants in essentially the same circumstances can be treated differently.

This bill is about getting the incentives right. It is about removing the opportunity to game the system. It is about fairness, it is about equity, and, above all, it is about ensuring we have the collective confidence in our social services and compensation frameworks. It is a sound bill. I do want to acknowledge those who have gone before in the Social Services Committee and who have brought this bill to this place. I want to acknowledge the Minister for Social Development. I think that she provides great leadership in this space and I commend the bill to the House.

I understand that the next call is a split call. Gareth Hughes—5 minutes.

Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is an honour to follow Todd Muller in his first contribution in the House. I want to say it loudly, I want to say it clearly—because the member was confused where the Green Party stands—that the Green Party is opposed to this legislation. We are opposed because it is mean, because it is unfair, and because it ignores the real hardship that students are under. There are two big points. We see with the ACC changes that they are positive and we have talked about that. Jan Logie talked about that. When it comes to the student changes we cannot vote for a law that is targeting students in such a mean, unfair way, ignoring their hardship.

When you look at this bill, in a nutshell what it attempts to do is to clean up what the Government calls a loophole. This is not a loophole at all. What we are seeing is that at the moment in New Zealand there is a huge gap between what you can earn as an accommodation supplement depending on whether you are on a student allowance or you are on a benefit. What the Government is trying to do through this change, which was first introduced into Parliament in 2010—all those years ago—is make sure that the loophole by which those students who are eligible for a student allowance but do not actually access it can get an accommodation supplement instead of an allowance is closed.

I know that is a lot of bureaucratic jargon but the fact is that if you are a student in—let us say—Auckland, there the rents have risen $50 a week for the average student over the time National has been in Government. That is 50 bucks a week extra. So if you are on a benefit, you would be entitled to $125 a week in accommodation supplement. That is fair because we know how high the housing costs are. We think it is important that people have enough to live on and that kids are raised in appropriate housing. However, if you are a student, the cap for the accommodation supplement—the cap, the maximum a student can earn for the accommodation supplement—was hit 13 years ago. The $40 cap was hit 13 years ago. So the students in, let us say, Nikki Kaye’s Auckland Central electorate hit their cap 13 years ago and can receive only $40 a week in a supplement, yet the fact is that 50 bucks has been the average increase in rent over the last 5 years.

That is why I say that it is mean. It is targeting those students on the accommodation allowance, those students who do not hit the parental income thresholds. They are obviously not earning a significant amount, because of the rules. These are the students who are suffering in real hardship according to the studies and the surveys, yet these are the students who are not getting the help they need, which other New Zealanders are receiving, because of unfair rule change. The fact is—and I have not hear a single National member address this fact—that when this law was introduced in 2010, advice was received that two people—two people—in the country were taking advantage of it. But do you know what? The New Zealand University Students’ Association data shows that one in six students would be better off not getting the student allowance so they can get the maximum accommodation supplement—one in six students. The poorest students are better off not getting what they are entitled to because of the unfair way we treat students vis-à-vis other people receiving support.

I know that I do not have much time, but I want to share a story of a whole bunch of young mums I met in Palmerston North last year. These were young mums who were trying to get ahead. Some of them had got out of bad relationships. They were raising young kids. All of them were studying at university to get ahead. However, because of the housing costs in Palmerston North and the limited financial support available, these mothers were not on the accommodation allowance. They were on the benefit—the DPB—raising their kids. It was inspirational seeing how these mums pulled together, but they feel ignored by the Government.

All across the country in various cities the cap was reached many, many years ago—13 years ago in Auckland, which is many years ago. So I think New Zealanders are suffering real hardship, and particularly students, who are seeing their fees go up and their average student loan amount increase massively. They want to see real solutions, not this mean, unfair, ignoring of the real hardship that they are in. They want to see equity. They want to see a fair accommodation supplement that actually reflects the costs of living, not just an arbitrary cap that this Government has failed to raise and now is doing its darnedest to close this loophole for any other student. Kia ora.

I call Su’a William Sio—5 minutes.

I want to join with others, firstly, to acknowledge the passing of Dr Apirana Mahuika as well as Celia Lashlie and others. I also want to acknowledge a local resident of my electorate, Mrs Tavu’i, a matriarch of the community who passed away last week. Her family service is tonight and she will be buried tomorrow. She has been around a long, long time. She was a long-time teacher at Viscount School, a founding member of the Presbyterian Church in Māngere, and a staunch supporter of the Labour Party, I might add. She has contributed significantly to our community and we will miss her. Ia manuia lau malaga, Tavu’i.

I want to say that this bill was introduced in November 2010 and given to the Social Services Committee to work on. That committee then reported back to the House with a one-page report right here—a one-page report with a recommendation in 2011 that this House pass this bill. There were no minority views expressed in that report and Labour said then that we would support it, and we maintain that we will support it now. It was for a simple reason: the bill was minor, with technical changes.

There were just a couple of loopholes that the bill was intended to fix up. One was regarding the payment of ACC payments from the employer to ensure that those who were receiving ACC from the employer would be treated the same as those receiving ACC payments from ACC itself. The other loophole is to ensure that students eligible for assistance under the Student Allowances Regulations 1998 but who choose not to apply for that would also be excluded from receiving the accommodation supplement. That is what the bill is about, and for those technical reasons we said we would support it, and we maintain that we ought to support it as well.

In the select committee, there were two submitters. They did not give oral submissions but they gave two general submissions regarding what they considered as the issues of the adequacy of the accommodation assistance provided to students throughout the student support system. They expressed the view that the student accommodation rates are inequitable, and we agree. The bill does not address that, however. I agree with my colleagues in the Green Party and New Zealand First that those are issues that this Government should have focused on and should have at least included in another bill, if not in this one.

The bill was introduced in 2011 with a recommendation that Parliament pass it. It has taken 4 years. It is a simple, minor bill that should have been put out of the way in order to allow this Government to focus on the more meaty issues that my colleagues have raised. I am angry about that, because that is a sign that this Government is inadequate. You could say that it has been totally incompetent with the way it has arranged these particular bills. This bill now stays on the Order Paper after its second reading. We do not know when it will go through the Committee stage or when it will go through the third reading. There are more important issues that have been raised by my colleagues that this Government should have been focused on, but instead it has been mired in these allegations of corruption surrounding its deals with Skycity.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

I do not say that lightly.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! It is not appropriate to bring words like “corruption” into this debate. [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. I ask the member to come back to the content of this debate. It is a very narrow debate and I ask the member to come back to it.

The bill is very narrow. It focuses on those two loopholes that it was intended to fix up, but the broader issues that I am raising were raised by submitters during the submissions process. Those broader issues are the ones that New Zealanders are asking about. They are asking why this piece of legislation, minor, small, and technical as it is, is languishing on the Order Paper when this Government should be focusing on the meatier and more important issues like jobs and incomes and addressing the national housing crisis that this Government is presiding over. And why is that? It is because of the incompetence of this Government.

It gives me pleasure to rise and speak in support of the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). This bill about the treatment of weekly compensation payments and assistance for students’ accommodation costs makes the legislation sturdy, so that we treat people the same way. I do recognise that all Government spending is attached to some form of social value, but this is about balance. The bill dictates the closing of loopholes in the Social Security Act, which people can use to receive an unfair increase or different levels of support even when they are in exactly the same kinds of circumstances. The passing of this bill will allow for students and beneficiaries in similar circumstances to receive equal levels of monetary support. This is vital, as it will allow everyone an equal opportunity, and not provide unintentional benefits to those who knowingly or unknowingly see fit to slip through any apparent loopholes. It is vital that this is looked at, as a loophole does mean the Act is flawed. We are striving to correct the issue of students and beneficiaries garnering unequal monetary support. As one can imagine, this is coming at an extra expense to the taxpayer, which is something we should try to minimise.

The loophole regarding student payments in the Social Security Act allows students to access the accommodation supplement if they choose not to receive a student allowance. The returns from study accrue to individuals as well as to society, so the clear policy behind the student loan and allowance system is to share the cost between students and the Government. Students should not be reliant on any other benefits and grants that result in the Government paying a greater share of student support.

The Social Security Act states that accident compensation payments from ACC should be deducted dollar for dollar from any benefit that a person receives. A loophole in the Act means that it does not include weekly payments coming from an accredited employer. This bill will validate the past and current practices of deducting payments dollar for dollar from benefit payments. For example, if a DPB recipient is paid $150 per week in compensation with no other income but the DPB, they will have their benefit reduced by $150 if the compensation is from ACC. If the compensation is paid by an accredited employer, their benefit will not be reduced at all. The deduction should apply equally to compensation, whether it is paid by ACC or by an accredited employer. It would be unfair that a person who receives compensation from an accredited employer would be better off than a person who receives weekly compensation from ACC. That simply would not be fair. So the overall purpose of the bill is to ensure that people in similar circumstances are treated equally.

This is also about responsibly managing the Government’s finances, so taxes are spent wisely on the services families need. The Ministry of Social Development has estimated the total cost of this loophole at $700,000 per annum, and a ministry report states that a legislative fix is the only option to maintain the intention of the policy and avoid increased fiscal cost that adds to unequal monetary gain for people in exactly the same situations. The existing provision may reduce the financial incentive to return to work—this is another drawback of this loophole—since the combined income from the benefit and compensation can be higher in some cases. As a Government we are always looking at ways to get people into employment. This is, and has been, a major goal of ours. The drawbacks of unemployment were made glaringly evident during the recession we had in 2008. The fact that we as a nation have reached an unemployment percentage of 5.6 percent shows the amount of work we have put in and its positive effects on our economy.

An increased percentage of people choosing to receive a benefit instead of getting into a job is not good for our nation and our nation’s growth. It is not ideal, as the taxpayer becomes responsible for these funds and their money is not able to be used in an efficient and effective manner, especially when there is a large number of people on benefits. As well as this, those who are unemployed are unable to help better their communities and our country. Their skills and talents are not being used or recognised in a positive manner. Dependence on a benefit creates a decline in the social quality of a person’s life. It does not allow them to make the money they should be earning to adequately provide for themselves and their family, let alone any debatable luxuries. The lack of money coming to people in the community also leads to a possible drop in living standards, and can hinder the chances of future generations having access to the best possible health-care, education, and recreational facilities. This can prove to become a great disadvantage to our country in the future.

All these things can obviously affect spending habits in a negative manner. We need to avoid the factors that can contribute to this happening at all costs. It is a very gloomy perspective, but this is the real possibility of people deciding to be on a benefit by choice.

Talking about education, students rely on this loophole for monetary gain or monetary support. The National-led Government is focused on improving tertiary education, lifting achievement, increasing skills, and focusing on better outcomes for students and taxpayers. National wants to help students get the qualifications they need to succeed and play their part in growing our economy. Data from the Ministry of Education shows that New Zealand students completed a record number of undergraduate degree qualifications in 2013. In 2013, 25,800 domestic students completed Bachelor’s degrees, an increase of around 400 on the 25,400 who completed degrees in 2012. This is 24 percent higher than the 20,800 who graduated in 2008.

💬 Hon Member: How much percent higher?

Twenty-four percent higher. It shows National’s focus on achieving results. It also reflects the emphasis we are placing on students achieving qualifications at higher levels that provide them with a stronger financial return on their study. Overall, the total number of qualifications achieved in the year by all students—this is including domestic and international—remained at a very high level, at 162,000, and more than 20 percent higher than 5 years ago. The number of Māori and Pasifika students completing degrees has also climbed. The number of Māori students completing Bachelor’s degrees has increased from 1,960 back in 2008 to 3,180 in 2013—a 62 percent increase. The number of Pasifika students completing Bachelor’s degrees has increased from 918 in 2008 to 1,530 in 2013—a 56 percent increase. In 2013 over 10,000 more Māori students achieved qualifications across all levels of tertiary education than in 2008, and over 5,300 more Pasifika students did the same.

National is committed to increasing achievement in the tertiary sector. Having more people achieving tertiary qualifications means a more highly skilled labour market. Higher skills mean higher-paying jobs for all New Zealanders and their families. Back in the 2000s the previous Government threw more and more money at tertiary education, and the number of people achieving degrees stayed around the 20,000 mark. With a focus on performance and results, we have lifted that number to almost 26,000 degrees with virtually the same amount of funding across the sector. So this shows that students are not relying on this loophole and this monetary gain to achieve education. I was not part of the Social Services Committee when the bill was discussed. I thank the current and past Ministers for this bill, and also thank the select committee for the work it has put into this bill, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

I want to join with my parliamentary colleagues from across the House in acknowledging the passing of Celia Lashlie. As a mother of two sons, I can say that I have been given that book, the book that she wrote about raising sons. Unfortunately, it is maybe 16 years too late, but it is good for the 2-year-old whom I have, and the 17-year-old I can say is OK despite the fact I did not get the book until much later. But she was an amazing woman. She has contributed a lot to New Zealand and I think that is shown by the number of people who today have stood to acknowledge her before they have launched into their speeches.

Following on from the previous speaker, I just want to point out something that was said—that was Parmjeet Parmar. One of the comments she made was in respect of people choosing to be on benefits. She said that those people are on benefits by choice. There is just a general attitude from so many people on that side of the House—including the Minister for Social Development herself, who recently said that those people on the East Coast are getting a little bit of dole, a little bit of kai moana, and living off their cash crop and actually have quite a good life. That reflects a general attitude from that side of the House in respect of beneficiaries and those who are experiencing hardship. It is not a healthy attitude. To say that someone would choose to be on a benefit or that that lifestyle is in some way a desirable lifestyle is incredibly arrogant of that side of the House, because we know that living off $200 or $300 a week is not an easy task. There are a lot of families out there that are living on a minimum amount of money like that, trying to raise children, not by choice, actually—I aim that at the previous speaker—but because of the fact that they cannot find work, or because of the fact that their family circumstances do not allow them to go and work. So perhaps that previous National Party speaker needs to rethink some of the lines from its research centre that she reads out before standing up in the House and sharing them with the rest of the country.

I say that, but actually, in going back to the bill, it is one of those bills that we agree on with the National Party. We do support this bill, just not the general attitude towards beneficiaries and towards New Zealanders experiencing hardship. But we do support the bill. We support this bill, as it makes some minor but sensible changes to remove loopholes in the Social Security Act. This bill will ensure that those receiving ACC payments from their employer are treated the same as those receiving ACC payments from ACC itself. Labour supports equal treatment, so we do support this bill. As the law stands, those people receiving an ACC payment from their employer could also challenge Work and Income to provide them with a full benefit payment.

What we do wonder on this side of the House is how many times, if any, this has occurred in the 4 years this bill has languished on the Order Paper. Similarly, how much extra has been paid out in accommodation supplements to students over the last 4 years as a result of the loophole this bill intends to close? I point out the 4-year period because, as has been mentioned by several of our colleagues today, this bill was actually introduced in the House in November 2010. Looking at the National Government, how many times during the last 6 or 7 years that it has been in power have we heard National members talking about the need to have a tighter welfare system and to look for ways in which to cut costs across our public sector with regard to all public spending? And yet here we have loopholes that would have cost the country money in some way, but they have been allowed to continue for the last 4 years despite the fact that the National Government knew this was happening, and despite the fact that this bill was introduced in the House in 2010. I just want to point out the fact that, despite that Government’s rhetoric around wanting to save the taxpayer money, wanting to cut costs, and wanting to protect public spending and everything else, there are so many instances like this one where it has allowed things to continue—for 4 years, in this instance—which has actually cost the taxpayer money.

So, going back to the bill, we do support the bill. We are disappointed that it has been allowed to languish for the last 4 years, but we do support the bill. This may be a small bill, but the fact that such easily fixed loopholes have been left unattended for so long does show the ineptitude of this Government.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Good things take time.

It is a Government that has lost its way, caught up in MP scandals and casino deals gone wrong instead of doing the basic job of governing. Mr Bridges said that it is a Government that takes its time. Well, unfortunately it takes too much time with things that matter and tries to speed through on things that New Zealanders are actually concerned about and that should actually have some time spent on them. As submitters alluded to in the select committee sessions, it is a Government that has lost its way—it was the submitters who alluded to that—on support for students and tertiary education.

This bill closes a loophole that allows students to claim the Work and Income accommodation supplement instead of the student allowance in instances where it is more generous, but frankly, who can blame students for looking for a little extra wherever they can, as this Government has put the squeeze on this already low-income group over the past 6 years? There are a few instances where I can point out where the squeeze is being put on students in this country—students whom some of the National MPs have been celebrating the successes of, but at the same time National has actually made it a lot harder for them to be able to achieve those successes over the last 6 years that National has been in Government.

The first example of where the National Government has made it difficult for these students has been where student allowance rates have barely increased while the price of rental accommodation has skyrocketed. We really see that in places like Auckland, where the student allowance is almost exactly the same as what it was 6 or 7 years ago, but rentals have just gone through the roof. How can these students possibly be expected to pay their rent and to pay all of their expenses when their actual allowance has not increased at all? Another example is students have seen course fees increase by up to 5 percent every year and they have had to absorb that hike. Student loans have been cut for part-time students. We have seen that student loan repayment rates have been increased by 20 percent. A new $40 annual student fee has been tacked on, and Steven Joyce has professed his desire as the tertiary education Minister to dampen demand for university—so actually the Government wants to put people off going to university. That is a dismal and short-sighted view for the future and is symptomatic of a Government that has lost its way. That is what the submitters pointed out when they came to the select committee.

I want to add just another couple of examples where that Government has not been supportive of students being able to achieve the successes that it wanted to talk about celebrating earlier, and that is in respect of students over 55 who have been denied access to living costs or course-related costs. And to be quite frank, I actually think that is discrimination. It is discrimination based on age. The Government is saying there that, actually, once you get to a certain age, you do not deserve to learn and you have no further contribution to be able to make to this society. It is actually quite sad because before Labour left office, there was a focus—a general focus—around the importance of adult learning and lifetime learning, but once National took office, that was gone.

Another example of where the Government has shown itself to be unsupportive of students is in respect of the time limits it has now placed on how long you can access student allowances for. I want to point that out because the ones who are really affected by that are actually students who come from low-income families. They are the ones who actually cannot afford to pay for their living costs and everything else. Perhaps they want to go on to postgraduate studies after they have finished those undergraduate degrees, but because of the time limits that that Government has put on, they are no longer given the opportunity to do so. I have heard National MPs point out the fact that “Well, they can go and get scholarships. They can go and get all these other things.” Well, actually, scholarships and access to funding outside the State are not as available as some of those National MPs might think.

So we do support this bill, but I wanted to take the opportunity to point out that it has not been easy being a student under the National Government over the last 6 or 7 years. Here it is at the moment closing a loophole, but what we would really like to see—and I am sure students across New Zealand who are aspirational and trying to get to a better place would like to see—is the National Government actually demonstrate that not only is it supportive of those students once they reach that aspirational level but it is supportive of those students along the journey to becoming successful. That is what that National Government has not shown today. Thank you.

I too would like to start my speech off by joining with my parliamentary colleagues from right across this House in acknowledging today the passing of Celia Lashlie. I was privileged to work alongside Celia when I was a part of the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs, and she was a really critical component to a lot of the work we did around the country. She did some great work in assisting mayors around New Zealand in the way we were working with young people. She did some great work in so many other fields that others have talked about. She was somebody who was absolutely uncompromising. It was always a challenge to be in a room with her because she challenged the way you were thinking and she challenged the way things were being done. I think she inspired us all to do a better job in New Zealand to decrease the number of young people who find their way into prisons and to decrease the number of families who were having to live in a state of dysfunction. And she was somebody who, I think, in her own way brought a great deal of encouragement alongside the challenges that she brought as well. New Zealand will be not as good a place for her passing, so I think it is fitting that we do acknowledge that. As I said, I want to join with my parliamentary colleagues in acknowledging that great work she has done.

I want to turn my attention to the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). Of course, it is in two major parts, which we have been talking about: the student accommodation allowance and the loopholes there, and also accident compensation payments. I want to address each of those in turn. Starting with the area around student accommodation allowances, as a parent of two tertiary students, part of me thinks it would be great if I could find a loophole so they would be able to generate more money, because, frankly, that would mean that I would be better off because I would not be having to pay for so much. But that said, this bill is not about what is good for me; this is about what is good for the whole of New Zealand. This is about what is fair. That is what this bill is about—it is about fairness. So from that perspective, I want to address the issue of fairness—what is fair and what is not fair with regard to students in relation to this bill.

It is absolutely fair that we have accommodation supplements for people in New Zealand. It is absolutely important that when some people who, through whatever circumstances, find themselves in a challenging position and unable to pay their rent or pay the costs associated with their accommodation, our social security system provides for them. So it is fair that we have accommodation supplements. It is fair that students, whether they be from my household, where they qualify for loans because of the generosity of the State in providing me with the salary it does—my kids, irrelevant—

💬 Chris Bishop: Money well spent.

Very well spent, I think. Anyway, my kids do qualify for loans, and that is appropriate so that they are able to get the kind of finance they need to find their way through their studies. It is appropriate for other students who perhaps come from a less fortunate background to access student allowances. The numbers who are able to access them are essentially even and essentially fair, and I think that that is good. It is fair that students in this country have access to tertiary education, which is, to a large part, subsidised by the Government. It is a good investment by the Government that we invest in subsidising fees so that New Zealand students can get the education that is going to help them and help our country move forward.

What is not fair—what is not fair—is when we have loopholes in our system that some students are able to exploit. We know that it has been a low number, but it is not fair when they are using our system to gain an unfair advantage over their peers, to be able to qualify for more money. So it has been great to hear the support from most of the other side of the House—[Interruption]—apart from a particular voice, which seems to be yelling constantly and not listening to a word I am saying. It is not fair when we have a system in place that ensures that we are not getting fairness in terms of what is happening here.

As we move forward with this bill, I just want to acknowledge a couple of things that have been said from the other side of the House. It has been interesting that I have heard accusations this afternoon that we do not care about tertiary students. Well, we do care about tertiary students, and we have managed to ensure that there are still loans and allowances available to students. If students in New Zealand are in such a bad state, as has been said by members opposite, why is it, as my colleagues have outlined today, that we are seeing the completion rates of degrees going through the roof? Why is it is that Māori and Pasifika are getting better and better qualifications in this country? If this Government is so bad for students, why is it that we are seeing better achievement?

This is a minor technical bill, and it has been asserted from the other side of the House that we have let it languish for 4 years. But there has been important work for us to do over the last 6 years that this Government has been in place. You simply do not undo the work of 9 long years of a Labour Government in 5 minutes. This Government has been working hard—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I actually would like to hear what is being said.

I would be keen to hear what I was saying myself, to be fair. I thought it was great. Anyway, as I said, you do not undo the work of 9 long years of a Labour Government in 5 minutes, so this Government has been working hard for New Zealand over the last 6 years to do this. We have been talking about the minor nature of this bill. Yes, it might not have had the priority that other bills have had. It is of a minor nature. It is an important bill, and it is one that we will pass and that we will progress. But we have had much more important things to deal with, and that is exactly what this Government has been getting on with.

I want to turn my attention now to the issues of the ACC payments, which have also been brought up in this bill.

💬 Kris Faafoi: Oh, we’ve been waiting for this.

You have been waiting. I do not want to disappoint members opposite who have been waiting for so long.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Members, the House has resumed. Before the dinner break, the House was debating the second reading of the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). Jono Naylor has 2 minutes 25 seconds remaining to speak, should he wish to avail himself of that opportunity.

💬 JONO NAYLOR: I was not sure whether I had 2 minutes 25 seconds or 1 minute 13 seconds, such was the confusion at the end of the last session. When we, as you said, Mr Deputy Speaker, concluded the last session before the dinner break, we were indeed talking about the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). I had been addressing primarily in my speech up to that point issues of the anomalies in the accommodation supplement and allowances, and what was proposed there. I was just about to move on, in fact, to the issues around ACC compensation.

Compensation is a very practical, logical step for us to take in terms of this bill. This is really, I think, just something that obviously when it was drafted perhaps had not been thought through. But I think it is fair, it is reasonable, and it is essentially very logical. If somebody is, in fact, receiving some sort of compensation via ACC, it really should not make any difference whatsoever whether or not they are being paid by ACC directly or by an accredited employer. So this particular change to the legislation ensures that, really, this inconsistency is put to rest.

On balance, when I look through all of the facets of this bill, all of the things that are trying to be achieved, I can quite comfortably look at it and say: “Yes, I’m happy to endorse it.” I am happy to ensure that we have a system for our students, in terms of the benefits and allowances they qualify for, that is entirely consistent across the board. I think that that is easy to support. I am also happy to support these changes around ACC and what provisions are required in terms of the rate at which benefits are abated around these ACC payments. I think this is a logical bill. I think it is a sensible bill. It is, yet again, another piece of good legislation coming through from this Government, and I am happy to endorse it. Thank you.