Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3)

It is my pleasure to speak on the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). Labour is supporting this bill, which I would describe as, essentially, a kind of omnibus bill—and had it actually not had quite so many retrospective changes made to it, which are necessary because there have obviously been drafting issues, it may potentially have qualified as a statutes amendment bill. But there are a number of changes that we are making in this bill, some of which I do think actually point to some wider issues within the Social Security Act, and which I think deserve robust debate.

I want to start by speaking to the Short-Form Departmental Disclosure Statement, prepared, obviously, by the Ministry of Social Development to clarify whether or not any of the changes in this bill have any impact retrospectively on the freedoms, rights, or obligations of a department or an individual. Of course, Parliament has an interest if we are doing anything in this place that retrospectively takes away an individual’s rights, freedoms, or entitlements. What this departmental report demonstrates is that, obviously, this bill is correcting a number of errors, because most frequently you see retrospective legislation when we are amending policy intent to fit with what the Government wanted to do but did not quite draft correctly.

When we look at that departmental report we can see, for instance, that clause 5A clarifies that new section 79 applies only to a person who, with regard to a period of overseas employment, had tax deducted or withheld under New Zealand’s PAYE rules. Clause 5A is coming into effect retrospectively. Clause 6A amends schedule 6 of the Social Security Act, and clarifies that “the $20 personal earnings exemption only applies to beneficiaries granted Supported Living Payment”—a very recent amendment, obviously, to the Social Security Act—“due to total blindness or permanent and severe restriction in capacity for work …”. And that, again, is also coming in retrospectively—obviously, clear drafting errors. We come then to clause 6B. It amends schedule 18 of the Social Security Act to “reinstate the income threshold for non-beneficiary sole parents receiving Accommodation Supplement …”. That comes into effect retrospectively. The report goes on. There are a few other errors. But you take my point that these are obviously the things that the Government intended to do in the original drafting but did not.

One of the other things that the disclosure statement states is that the provisions do not result in the retrospective creation of a criminal offence. Obviously, there is the chance here that someone who may not have been entitled to something within the Social Security Act may have been because this legislation was not drafted correctly—and the Government has been very explicit, obviously, to point out here that the provisions do not result in a criminal offence. Why would you need to point that out? Well, probably because there has been a tendency in the way this Government has treated the Social Security Act since it came into Government to be quick to criminalise—very quick to criminalise. In fact, some might argue that it is quicker to criminalise under this Act than it would be under tax fraud or any other form of what could be considered theft under tax law. We have only ever argued that the Government treat those two groups equitably, and it is a point I just wanted to make.

The piece that I wanted to speak to specifically, though, in my first contribution, relates to Part 1 of the bill. Overall, the bill is, basically, trying to ensure that people—as it itself proclaims—in similar circumstances are treated equitably. I would argue, though, that the amendment we are making in Part 1 does not necessarily fit with that purpose. Clause 4 in Part 1 relates to the accommodation supplement. Section 61EA(4) is amended by inserting the following new paragraph. New paragraph (ab) states: “would be eligible to receive a basic grant or an independent circumstances grant under the Student Allowances Regulations 1998, if he or she were to apply for the grant;”. In and of itself, that does not sound like it is saying much particularly. What that amendment does, basically, is say that a young person—presumably a young person—or any person who has applied for the accommodation supplement through the student accommodation support system is not then eligible to go through Work and Income to apply for an accommodation supplement. The reason that is important is that those two things are set at quite different rates.

What the bill is trying to amend is the fact that it therefore implies that if you are a student and you have not applied for accommodation support as a student, then you could go to Work and Income and make an application for the accommodation supplement just because you have not made any other application. I think what the Government’s intention here is, is that, basically, if you are eligible for accommodation support as a student, regardless of whether you have applied or not, you are not eligible to then go to Work and Income at all. That is obviously meaningful from the Government’s perspective—because, of course, why would you seek to access accommodation support under Work and Income? Because, actually, it is attached much more closely to the actual cost of accommodation. It looks at where you might be based, it takes into account that costs are higher, for instance, in Auckland, and it does not have the same caps as accommodation support as a student.

One might then ask the question: would a better way to deal with this not be simply to bring the two accommodation support entitlements into alignment? It is a very fair question, and something that obviously rang true with the Government for one particular set of beneficiaries—and that is those who are on sole-parent support. We had the ridiculous situation, after the welfare reforms, where those who are on sole-parent support—they might have had a child who was aged, say, 5—and who might have been studying, might have been told by Work and Income: “Well, you’ve now got to seek part-time work.” And the parent might have been in nurse training, for instance—and this is a genuine case I had. Work and Income, then, because its focus was on ensuring that person was seeking work in a part-time capacity, told that sole parent when a dishwashing job came up, even though it clashed with that individual’s study, to quit their study and be a dishwasher.

Anyone in this House, I am sure, would say that that is a ridiculous set of circumstances. Why would you have someone remove themselves from study, which means that in the longer term they will withdraw from their need to access Government support, in order to go and take a part-time job as a dishwasher, where they will need their income supplemented? It is a very good question. Well, the reason she was on sole-parent support was that the accommodation supplement was more generous. If, as a student, she had transferred, her payment as a sole parent would stay the same but her accommodation support would change because students do not get the same accommodation support. That meant that she was, basically, in a rut where she ended up being faced with the position of quitting her nursing in order to fulfil the obligations for Work and Income.

Thankfully, the Government saw that this was a crazy situation and brought more equity into the systems for accommodation support so that you could get a sole parent transferring over to the student scheme—which also means, thankfully, that you bring down your benefit statistics, which is obviously one of the goals that the Government had. It has done that for one group but it has not done it for anyone else. That is what raises questions, and I have serious questions about this amendment. If we are saying that, actually, for sole parents it made sense to create equity between accommodation support and accommodation supplement, why can it not be the same for, say, a job seeker? What is the difference between a job seeker who is given a 16-week training course by Work and Income and a job seeker who actually goes into full-time training and transfers over to student support but is not eligible for that same level of accommodation support? I think it is a really relevant question, and it is one that I think the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations is right to raise. Why is it that we are using two different schemes to assess the kind of support that someone is eligible for?

I would really seek a view—and thankfully, and, actually, helpfully, it is the Minister for Social Development, the Hon Anne Tolley, who is in the chair. Minister, I really would welcome hearing from you about the policy rationale for that differentiation, because in the departmental report on this, the ministry, actually, really remains pretty silent on why we can have these differentiated schemes, and I would be interested to hear from her on that.

Thank you, Mr Chair—a good choice.

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Yes, great—thank you. I rise to take a call on the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3)—an innocuous name for a bill that does, as my colleague Jacinda Ardern suggests, tidy up a few bits and pieces that are probably related to drafting errors that were made when the original legislation was drawn up.

I want to make a couple of comments in this call. My first comment, I guess, relates to how long it has taken for this piece of work to come before the House and to reach this stage. I understand that it has taken about 4 years. If this bill were a 4-year-old child, under the reforms of the welfare system this child would probably have been in day care for the past 3 years. So it is interesting that it has taken this long to get this piece of work before the House. And I wonder why now. Why is this piece of legislation before the Committee now? I would suggest that it is because the Government is kind of running out of ideas on what to do next. I would suggest that this Government actually lacks any vision, inspiration, or aspiration for our people, so it is casting around through its work programmes for bits of work to do. So this 4-year-old child has come to the House to finally have those drafting errors corrected.

I just want to make a comment about some of the specific cases or scenarios that this bill will affect. One of the issues that was raised by submitters and by people working on this legislation was about ensuring that our students get the kind of support that was designed for them and their circumstances. What I mean by that is around the student allowance, and as my colleague has already pointed out, the scenario that has been suggested is that students will forgo their student allowance and will opt for the accommodation supplement because it may give them a little extra. We all know about students. I am sure that those of you with young people in your homes know that students are very canny at finding ways to maximise their advantage. I would suggest that that is a little cynical, and that this bill is a little cynical in this regard.

It also speaks to student allowances and to how we support our young people at university, technical institutes, and the like, and to whether we are actually doing enough in that regard to support them. I would suggest that you are right, Ms Sepuloni. I do not believe that we are. So perhaps another option, rather than trying to align these two pieces of legislation, may be to actually look at how we support our students better.

In this particular call, and I hope to take more later this evening, I also want to talk about the ACC programmes that are leading us to look at equal treatment—at aligning some equity between those people who receive ACC payments through the normal ACC programme and those whose ACC payments come through an employer-accredited programme. The employer-accredited programmes came out of a piece of work that happened in, I think, the mid-1990s, from memory, when private ACC programmes could be developed by employers, and it has taken an awfully long time for the realisation that when employees access their ACC payments, they may actually receive more under the ACC-accredited programmes delivered by their employer. There are some major employers still employing those programmes. [Bell rung] There are employers who employ up to—[Interruption] Sorry, Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I call Poto Williams.

Thank you. Yes, I did call but—

💬 Hon Member: Quietly.

Yes, it was quietly. I will try to be louder next time. There are some large employers who still continue with those ACC-accredited programmes, and it could work out to be quite significant for them that we have finally realised that there is a level of inequity in those payments to employees.

I also want to comment—if you will just bear with me, Mr Chairman; I will just have a look at my notes—specifically with regard to clauses 5 and 6. I am just taking some reference from the regulatory impact statement—I refer back to that inequitable treatment. ACC-accredited programmes were really designed to encourage employers to take responsibility for their employees, but if we look at the broader issue around ACC, there have obviously been some comments in this Chamber in recent weeks on the ACC levies that are currently being charged to employers, on the impact of the overtaxing of employers by ACC, and on the use of those funds to bolster what it has actually become quite apparent is a bit of a sham, really, in the Government’s surplus. It has actually all been around the overcharging of employers for their ACC levies, and I think it is about time that the Government recognised this and spoke to employers about why it is continuing to do this. Employers are now actually starting to realise that the Government should not be doing this and should be reducing levies to employees.

Back to the regulatory impact statement: this legislation will actually look to make some changes retrospectively, and if we do not change this legislation retrospectively, there will be some windfall gains of additional benefit payments to those people whose employers have agreed to manage their own ACC compensation. But it has taken 4 years, as I have said, to get to this point. Four years is a significant cost to those employers. Will we look at how we may compensate those employers for this? I do not think that this is something we are looking at, but it certainly is a case to be held up for them.

In summing up in this particular call, there are two major scenarios that are playing out in this amendment bill. It would be good to hear from the Minister—firstly, as to why it has taken so long to get this bill to the House to ensure that these drafting errors are taken care of. While the Minister is in the chair, I would welcome hearing the answers to the questions that my colleague Ms Ardern put to her too. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in the Committee stage of the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). May I say first that we will not be supporting this bill, not because of what is in the entire bill but because of one specific clause. We understand that the intent of the bill, in so far as what the Minister Anne Tolley has explained, is that it is the tightening up of loopholes. But what we are concerned with is the ramifications of tightening up those loopholes—what effects they have on certain members of the public. At this stage what we see from the Government is that those ramifications have not been taken into account.

The specific clause that I am talking about is in Part 1, clauses 4(1) and 4(2), which have to do with accommodation supplement issues and student allowances. In the explanatory note of the bill it tries to explain what the purpose of clause 4 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 at the moment what is happening, and the loophole that the Government is trying to fix, is that students get a certain amount when they get the student allowance, but if they choose not to get the student allowance, they will receive more if they went for the accommodation supplement. So what the Government is trying to do is close that loophole so that even if the student was not taking the student allowance but was eligible, they could not take the accommodation supplement. To be able to put that into some sort of context, I would like to refer to the departmental report and look at the specific submissions.

The first thing I would like to say is that there were only two written submissions for this bill, and that begs the question. Looking at the submission period, when those submissions were allowed, it was only approximately 2 weeks. That seems like a very fast turn-round for submissions to be heard. The two submissions were from the Dunedin Community Law Centre and the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations. Both of those submissions, funnily enough, were on that clause itself and they were against the changes. Their reasoning behind that was because of the ramifications down the track for the students and the concerns that they had for that, and that is the exact same position that New Zealand First is taking with this clause.

With the submissions, and reading from the departmental report, both the centre and the union expressed concern about the adequacy of accommodation assistance provided to students through the student support system. That is the issue that they are facing, and the closing of this loophole has consequences. The centre actually suggests that “thought should be given as to why students seek to access Accommodation Supplement and whether or not the accommodation component of the Student Allowance meets the basic needs of students.” What is interesting is the Ministry of Social Development comment, over the page. It states that “The level or adequacy of assistance provided within the student support system is outside the scope of the bill.” What it looks like from New Zealand First’s perspective is that that is being used as an excuse to ignore that issue.

So what we have here in the Chamber are the lawmakers and this legislation, but outside where we hear these submissions in the select committee stage are the people who are affected by this legislation and by the law that we change in here. What is concerning for New Zealand First is that—

I thank the members for the comments that they have made, particularly around the accommodation supplement and the changes that we are making on that. I want to take just a short call and perhaps explain, as requested, the policy behind it. I think it is very important that we understand there is actually a major difference between the support that we give to students in tertiary education and the support that we give through the accommodation supplement to largely low and middle income people, mainly families.

New Zealand actually has a very generous support system for students. We did not always have that, but now, I would think, about 74 percent of the fees are funded by the taxpayer, and that is right and proper. We know as a nation that it is critical to our development that we have highly educated, skilled people living in New Zealand, and it is of benefit to the whole community. There is also an individual benefit from tertiary education. There is plenty of research that backs that up and shows the advantages that someone who has been through tertiary education can earn over their lifetime.

What you are doing by providing support to students is creating a shared form of assistance. It is shared between the taxpayers in the country, the individual students, and their families. So the policy intent is quite clear that that is a different level of assistance from that given to those whom the Government supports through the accommodation supplement who are getting no other form of Government support and who may not be getting any other type of Government support, and recognising that they have needs. Of course, we had a debate in this Chamber earlier about housing. People in the country do actually need help from the community to help them with those housing needs.

That is the policy behind why we have two different types of support, and what we are doing in the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) is saying that, actually, we have got some very smart students out there who have worked this out and they are coming off the student allowance in order to be eligible for the accommodation allowance. They quite rightly under the policy guidelines should be receiving their support as a student rather than through the accommodation allowance. The question that that member from New Zealand First raised about the adequacy, then, of the support that we give to students is completely beyond the scope of this bill. It is a completely different debate and that is a right and proper debate to have at that time. I have been a Minister for Tertiary Education, and students never think they get enough support. And that is right. That is their ability to argue that, but, as I say, the taxpayer does support them very generously because it is recognised that—

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: And then they go on to be taxpayers.

That is right. They go on to be taxpayers. There is a community benefit and that is why we do it. But there is a very distinct policy difference between the support for the two different groups.

Can I thank the Minister for Social Development for that clarification. She made it very clear in her comments that there is a difference in Government support between what we give to students and what we give to predominantly low and middle income people through the form of the accommodation supplement. I want to make it clear that that is the issue, because the changes that are being made here potentially discourage people from studying. I disagree with the Minister’s statement that, in fact, student support is more generous than what someone would be getting if they were in some other form of State assistance. In fact, they would probably be getting more if they were on jobseeker support than if they were on a student allowance. I have not got the figures exactly to hand but I am absolutely confident in saying that jobseeker support is probably worth more dollars in the hand per week than a student allowance is.

So, we actually financially penalise people who are doing the very things that the Minister talked about that have a value to New Zealand long term, because they do result in their being more employable, earning higher incomes, and therefore paying more tax. And by making this particular change—potentially reducing the level of accommodation support to a student or a prospective student—what we are saying to them is that they would be better off to stay on a benefit. That is not what we should be doing. We should actually be encouraging people to get into tertiary education and tertiary study.

But it is abundantly clear that this is one of a package of measures, and they are all interconnected, that are designed to do what Steven Joyce referred to as “dampening demand” for tertiary education—in other words, making it more difficult for students to get into tertiary study and to support themselves financially whilst they do so. So this particular change is removing, yes, what was a bit of a loophole, but a loophole that, if it provided some support to a group of students who otherwise would not be able to engage in tertiary study, then potentially it was one we should actually be looking at going the other way with. I know that talks about additional funding, but I do not think we can do what the Government and even the select committee have argued and completely separate out the policy issue that is in question here. The policy issue that is in question in this very amendment is, in fact, whether or not the level of funding that we are giving to tertiary students is sufficient.

At the moment there are clear arguments that it is not, because if students are resorting to this loophole in order to support their studies and to cover the cost of their accommodation whilst they are undertaking tertiary study, there is a reason for that. It is because they may not be able to do their tertiary study without it, and so the policy issues are absolutely intricately linked. Just drawing this distinction that says we are going to close this loophole and pretend that there is no issue there and that we can just wander away from it is not actually right. If people are exploiting the loophole, the first question we should be asking from a policy perspective is whether we should be closing the loophole to bring everybody down, or whether we should be looking at increasing the level of financial support so there are no financial incentives to exploit the loophole in the first place. That is a legitimate policy question that the Government has simply washed its hands of.

Actually, it should have had that debate first. If Government members were coming to the House and saying: “We think students get enough. We do not think they should be exploiting this loophole because they get too much if they go through this loophole.”, I would have some respect for them taking that position. I would disagree with it, but I would have some respect for the position. But if somebody is saying: “Oh, we’re closing the loophole and we think that there’s a legitimate question to be asked about whether students are getting insufficient accommodation support, but we will deal with that some other time.”, and then tomorrow never comes, that is actually not right and not fair.

I think the fair thing to do is have that policy discussion from the outset, because when you look at the situation that tertiary students are facing, the price of their accommodation—like the accommodation of just about every other New Zealander—has gone up whilst the rates of students’ financial support in the form of student allowances have remained relatively static. Their fees continue to go up whilst their rates of allowance and other financial support have remained relatively static. They have been hit by increases in GST. Students who are on very low incomes, of course, suffer from increases in GST. They have no way to offset the increase in GST and, of course, they probably did not benefit from any of the tax cuts that were introduced at the same period of time.

All of these things are increasing the cost of tertiary education and making it less and less accessible and less and less affordable to greater numbers of New Zealand students or prospective New Zealand students. If we want to get serious about the knowledge economy and upskilling the workforce, we should be looking for ways to increase support.

I rise to take my first call on the Committee stage of the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). The Greens are opposing this legislation because it seeks to make things just that much harder for people who are trying to get ahead through study, people on ACC who are also on a benefit, and people who are caring for family members who would otherwise be in care. To put it as simply as I can, this legislation, specifically clauses 4 and 5 and Supplementary Order Paper 56, runs counter to the well-being of our society as a whole. To be honest, they come across as just mean-spirited. In this contribution I would like to specifically address the changes for students, and we will, hopefully, get the opportunity later to address other concerns, with Mr Chair’s permission.

This legislation closes a loophole for students who are currently eligible for a student allowance but who choose not to apply for it because the accommodation supplement will offer them a higher income. This legislation will remove that option and prevent them from applying for the accommodation supplement, so it will prevent them accessing a higher income. The Green Party wants a well-educated and a well-paid society, and we believe that it is up to us collectively to support students, especially students without much in the way of financial resources. This is pretty essential when it comes to that concept of social mobility. If we are serious about addressing our crisis of inequality, we need to be doing a lot more, not less, to support people on lower incomes to get through tertiary education, to get higher qualifications, and to be able to get ahead in life.

The adequacy of student support, we are told, is separate to the accommodation allowance because that has a different purpose. We have heard that just now from the Minister for Social Development. To me, that seems a pretty arbitrary distinction and strange packaging of policy parameters. The accommodation allowance is available to some low-income workers and it is available to those who are out of paid employment and on a benefit. Why exclude people in the same or even greater financial stress just because they are trying to get ahead through tertiary education? I have heard the policy rationale is that that is a different issue. I do not see why that is a different issue if our concern is our population and the well-being of people as a whole.

We have had advice from the New Zealand University Students’ Association, which has told us a bit about the situation for students in New Zealand at the moment. It estimates that as many as one in six students would be better off turning down the student allowance and applying for the accommodation supplement instead. This is because their allowance has been abated due to parental income, and the support available for the accommodation supplement is so much better than support targeted to students—again, students who are trying to get ahead or who are trying to gain more knowledge to be able to contribute to our society.

If you live in Auckland and are on a low income and pay the average student rent of $220 a week, then you would be entitled to $118 a week in the accommodation supplement. The New Zealand University Students’ Association survey of students’ income and expenditure in 2014 showed that almost one-quarter of Auckland students currently getting an allowance receive less than that due to the abatement regime. It needs to be pointed out again: these are not privileged people. If you are privileged and you come from a family with a lot of financial resources, you do not get anywhere near a student allowance. So we are talking about the group of people who are coming along, who are wanting to get ahead, and whose parents do not have the resources to be able to support them through. And here in this piece of legislation we are saying: “Well, there was an option where you could support yourself a little bit better to get ahead and we’re going to take that away. We’re going to remove that option and restrict you to an even meaner existence, make it harder to be able to feed yourself, to get to your course, and to be able to pay your rent.” To me, that is not good policy.

The New Zealand Union of Students’ Association also raised, I thought, a really interesting point by saying that the need to close this legislation loophole came to the Government’s attention over 4 years ago, which means that there has been the potential for those people to access a higher level of entitlement for 4 years. It also questioned how many of those students had been informed of that option, because the number of students in 2010—when this legislation was first introduced—who were taking advantage of the so-called loophole was only two. If there are not that many students who have managed to find out about this loophole and who have been able to be told about the option, then, actually, if we have a system of entitlements, there is something wrong with our system—again, if the department was aware of it and it was not informing them.

I would just like to point out too that students who are receiving the allowance are by definition unable to support themselves, and their parents are not in a position to support them. Even ignoring the levels of parental income that are currently part of the regime of means testing, which takes place until students are 24 years of age—which to me is ludicrous when you think of youth development processes—they can get a maximum of $40 a week of accommodation assistance called the accommodation benefit. Think of that in Auckland where the average student rent is $220. That is a maximum of $40 for the people whom we really want to help get ahead, the people whose families really want their kids to be better off than they were. I have said recently in this House that we need to be acknowledging this. We are being told that this is the first generation post-colonisation where our young people are likely to be worse off than their parents. Here we are discussing that very group who is trying to fight against the odds to get ahead, to be able to push ahead from their parents, and we are taking away from them options to be able to support them through that process. I have said it seems mean-spirited. It runs counter to our concept of collective good.

The Greens will certainly not be supporting this bill. We hope that the Government will see and listen to the arguments on this side of the Chamber around our collective good and around supporting the mobility of young people and change its mind on this point.

I must say what a pleasure it is to see the Minister in the chair, the Hon Anne Tolley, actually answering some questions. It is helpful. I am going to take this call in order to seek some clarity for New Zealand First around Supplementary Order Paper 56. I am looking also at Supplementary Order Paper 64, which my colleague Darroch Ball is getting me a copy of. My question to the Minister is for the purpose of clarity so that we can better understand precisely what these Supplementary Order Papers seek to do, and to raise our question around Supplementary Order Paper 56. That proposes that “for the purpose of satisfying the residential qualification for any benefit after the return to New Zealand, the residence status of persons (and their spouses and children) who were liable for and paid income tax on earnings while employed overseas” are to be treated as resident and present in New Zealand. These specific Supplementary Order Papers refer specifically to veterans. Once again, I am not particularly clear, Minister, as to whether this seeks to aid and assist. I know that the explanatory note that has been provided says that this does not seek to change the law; it seeks to make it clearer. But I would really appreciate some explanation from you on those lines, because it is not that clear to me.

I am looking at the Supplementary Order Papers and the clauses that they refer to. There are a couple of things that stand out to me. Firstly, Supplementary Order Paper 56 refers to people being “treated under section 79(3)(a)”. I can find no section 79(3)(a). I can find section 79(1)(a) and paragraphs (b) and (c), and a section 79(2), but I do not see a section 79(3)(a) at all in the legislation. So is that a typo or is that me not reading it correctly? Is there a piece of paper that I am missing? Supplementary Order Paper 56 clearly says in big, bold, black lettering: “was treated under section 79(3)(a) of the Social Security Act 1964 …”. I have a copy of page 69 of that and there is no section 79(3)(a) that I can find, but some guidance may be helpful.

The next thing is that the Supplementary Order Paper also refers to—I am just jumping from one piece of paper, because we have got two pieces of legislation here that I am trying to look across at. I guess one of the first questions I have is about when we talk of persons who have paid tax. I am assuming that that is about paying tax in New Zealand, because we have many former service personnel—and, in fact, we could talk about missionary workers; we could talk about a range of people whom this legislation does cover off—who have served outside of New Zealand, employed by other agencies such as the United Nations and whoever, who have paid tax. I just need some clarity. Are we saying that to fit within these criteria they would have paid tax in New Zealand? I want to understand what that means.

Really, Minister, our concern is whether this disadvantages any of our veterans who are serving offshore. How will this impact on those when they come back? I tried to get answers on the previous piece of legislation, the Taxation (KiwiSaver HomeStart and Remedial Matters) Bill, which went through this Committee. Unfortunately, the Minister in the chair then, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, did not feel the need to explain himself. That is not going to be helpful in the long run. I really would appreciate answers, and my sense is that this Minister in the chair is a different Minister. I really would like some help around those clauses, Minister Tolley. Thank you.

I am happy to answer that question for the benefit of the member Ron Mark on the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). He will know that to qualify for New Zealand superannuation there is a residency qualification. It is very unfair if you might not be living here but you are paying tax here in New Zealand on your earnings but that is not counted towards your residency. So, if you are a serviceman serving overseas and you are being paid a wage or a salary in New Zealand and paying tax on that, then nothing changes—that counts for you. That is what that does. I hope that satisfies the member.

The Minister for Social Development spoke to an issue that I am quite interested in as well and that I want to delve into a little bit further—that is, speaking to the amendments to the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) that are made in Supplementary Order Paper 56. This, I note interestingly, is actually longer than the bill itself that we are debating, so it seems that the Supplementary Order Paper is obviously of reasonable importance. It also seems like it reads like a bit of an afterthought—an opportunity to make some amendments where errors were, again, made.

Just to clarify though—and I not sure whether or not the Minister really spoke to this point—I think the point that Ron Mark raised, obviously, was that if you read section 79(1) of the original Social Security Act 1964, it already does point out that “Where any person has been employed outside New Zealand and while so employed was liable for the payment of income tax on earnings from that employment, then, for the purposes of satisfying the residential qualification …” is deemed to have been in New Zealand for benefits purposes. The way I read that though is that a person was employed outside New Zealand and while so employed was liable for payment of income tax on earnings from that employment. So it is quite specific. It is almost saying it applies if you are employed outside New Zealand but those earnings from that employment that takes you outside New Zealand are liable for income tax in New Zealand. One could assume a number of roles where that might be the case. For instance, if you were in a New Zealand Trade and Enterprise role, perhaps, or something like that—for those purposes you are considered to be paying tax in New Zealand, obviously, and therefore would still qualify upon return for New Zealand benefits. That seems pretty straightforward.

The change that we have in this Supplementary Order Paper replaces section 79 in the Act and is titled “Persons who have had income tax deducted or withheld on earnings from employment overseas to be treated as resident and present in New Zealand”. It says: “This section applies to any person who was employed outside New Zealand if, with respect to the person’s period of employment, the person’s employer (or other relevant person) makes—(a) PAYE income payments … from which the person, employer, or other relevant person must withhold an amount of tax under the PAYE rules as defined in that Act;”. It seems to me that these two provisions are doing very similar things. I would be interested as to why it is there is specificity around PAYE—is that simply to bring it into alignment with the Income Tax Act 2007? Is that the main purpose? Or is there a functional change to the type of income that is deemed to be relevant by having this change? Because it seems to me that the original legislation seems to me like a broader catch-all than the subsequent amendment that we are making, which is very specific towards PAYE. So I would be interested in the Minister’s comment as to why that change was deemed necessary.

I am also interested that in these Supplementary Order Papers we are making an amendment that alters the qualification of someone for a relevant benefit in New Zealand. We can assume that the most likely benefit that will be covered by these provisions will be New Zealand superannuation. That is probably the thing that is going to be covered because of the qualification test around residency in New Zealand: you basically have to have been an income earner in New Zealand for a specified period of time, and then 5 years before the date of your retirement. So, basically, you have to have been resident in New Zealand, earning an income and paying tax, or living here 5 years before the point at which you retire. If not, then you have to stay here for an extra 5 years before you are eligible. That is, basically, the rule in a nutshell. However, your eligibility is also affected by other forms of pension entitlement that you might have. So, for instance, say under section 79, you were one of these individuals who went overseas, paid income tax in New Zealand, but whilst you were overseas you may have also been eligible to pay into an overseas pension scheme. If that were the case, even if you qualify for a New Zealand superannuation when you return because you qualify even under the amended section 79, in new clause 5A, under the current rules in New Zealand—Mr Chair, I have 3 seconds to go and I will be seeking another call. [Bell rung] Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Jacinda Ardern.

Even if you do come back at that point, you have qualified for all intents and purposes and you have been paying income tax, if you come back with an overseas pension, then section 70 of the Social Security Act will apply to you.

Section 70 is a very controversial section of the Social Security Act. Most members of this House who conduct any form of constituency work will be familiar with this section of the Act. It allows the Ministry of Social Development, if you have an overseas pension that is considered to be equitable or similar to New Zealand superannuation, to deduct dollar for dollar from that overseas scheme—dollar for dollar. We have been doing this direct deduction policy since 1938. That is the time period in which it has been happening. At that time probably there were not so many people who were eligible for overseas pensions—

💬 Stuart Nash: Great Minister of Finance then.

But since that great Minister of Finance—that is right, at the time—12 percent now of our superannuitants are eligible for an overseas pension and I would wager that that will continue to grow. Some would say: “OK it’s fair. No one should really—if they have spent, obviously, enough time overseas to be eligible for an overseas pension—double dip, come home, be eligible for New Zealand superannuation, collect the overseas superannuation, and get that double whammy. If they are going to collect that, and it is similar to the New Zealand scheme, let us just deduct until they end up getting the same amount that everyone else in a pension scheme would.” The issue with this policy is about making a judgment over what overseas pension schemes are similar to ours and what are not. And that is where there seems to be real injustice in the way that the direct deduction policy works.

I have seen countless cases of pension schemes that have been contributory, where someone has put in their own money into a scheme, come back to New Zealand, assumed that they are going to be able to draw down that scheme, which they have contributed to, only to then have that deducted from their New Zealand superannuation entitlement. You can argue the rights and wrongs of a scheme like that. What you cannot argue, in my mind, is that under that policy, if they deduct right down to zero, such is the generosity of that alternative scheme, the ministry will then start deducting from your partner’s entitlement—someone who may not have even lived overseas, may have known you for only the last 10 years. They will have their pension deducted as well as yours because you have reached full entitlement. That cost, from memory, saves the New Zealand Government roughly $5 million a year, that specific provision, but it is totally unfair. In my mind, it is a human rights violation because it predominantly affects women who have their entitlement deducted. Their entitlement is their entitlement. It should never be affected by anyone else’s.

So the point that I raise for the Minister is this: if we are looking at eligibility criteria, if we are looking at who is eligible for a New Zealand pension and has been overseas, why not look at the big stuff? Why not look at whether or not in this changing globalised environment, where more and more New Zealanders are working offshore, where more and more are contributing to an overseas pension scheme—I have one—our scheme is equitable anymore? New Zealand First has a policy on this and Labour before the last election tried to get the select committee to review this issue because it was so difficult to navigate for so many people. That was turned down by the select committee—unfortunately, voted down by National. But we have given our commitment that we will review the direct deduction policy with a view to removing the unfairness of this scheme—the fact that it is antiquated and no longer caters to the modern environment and the fact that so many schemes actually are not similar to New Zealand schemes and yet are being treated as such. So, Minister, I would have hoped that alongside Supplementary Order Paper 56 there would be a prime opportunity, alongside reviewing section 79, to review section 70, to at the very least acknowledge the point that has been raised by the Human Rights Commission over the deduction of a partner’s pension, or at least commit to reviewing the rest of the inequity that exists in our scheme currently.

It is an honour to rise and take a brief call on the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). I would very much like to take the time to focus on the nub of the debate around the student allowance versus the accommodation supplement. But first I would like to take a step back and say that I am proud to live in a country that has a Social Security Act, and it is right that we are putting the right provisions around beneficiaries and students—obviously, they need very different support, and we can expand on that further.

Clause 4 relates to the accommodation supplement. It amends the principal Act by clarifying that students are ineligible for the supplement if they may receive grants under the Student Allowances Regulations 1998. My fellow Canterbury MP across the Chamber Poto Williams described this bill as a 4-year-old child after taking 4 years to come into the House. But considering that a child develops 95 percent of their brain in the first 4 years of development, you could say that this bill is at a very good developmental stage.

What I would like to focus on are the issues concerning students. Being a student is very much another interesting developmental stage. As we know, students take risks and push boundaries, and I think that is probably what this is all about. It is about students gaming the system. Obviously, there are some students out there who are quite bright and quite intelligent, and they have realised that if they decline the allowance, then they can qualify for the accommodation supplement. This is why this bill, in clause 4, looks to close down this loophole, this gaming. You could just imagine students at the local university meeting over at the Back Bencher and sharing the secret of what they had learnt about claiming a larger allowance. I think, if I look at my notes, that for a sole parent in Auckland with two children the maximum amount that can be paid as an accommodation supplement is $225 a week, compared with $60 for an accommodation benefit on a student allowance. I think that says a lot in itself.

I would also like to raise the plight of the poor old case manager who is administering this process. We all know in business that if we do not have consistent business rules and one rule for everyone, it pretty much turns into a fiasco. It is very appropriate and right that we put together clear legislation that will be implemented and clear business rules for case managers to apply in this case. Thank you very much.

I do like it when National members stand up and they praise things like the Social Security Act 1938. Either they do not know their history or they are truly appreciative of what the first Labour Government did. What a great Government that was; there is no doubt about that. This bill for me has been quite confusing. I am just a simple man from the provinces. What I do here is I take a look at the bill and I read through it. Now we are at the Committee stage and the bill is being taken as a whole. I look at points that we can talk about—because we are supporting this, but every bill has its discussion points—and then I get to, as Ms Ardern alluded to, Supplementary Order Paper 56, and the Supplementary Order Paper is longer than the bill itself. And then there is another Supplementary Order Paper—

💬 Kris Faafoi: Amending the Supplementary Order Paper.

—yes—for that Supplementary Order Paper, and I scratch my head and go: “Where do I start on this?”.

Again, I go back to something that—

💬 Kris Faafoi: The very beginning.

—yes, the very beginning—Ron Mark talked about. Supplementary Order Paper 64 talks about the Veterans’ Support Act 2014, which has been in place for less than 6 months, if I am right. In fact, the last bill we talked about, the Taxation (KiwiSaver HomeStart and Remedial Matters) Bill, amended the Veterans’ Support Act as well. Those poor veterans. Things change hugely for these guys. [Interruption] It is. And this Supplementary Order Paper talks about how there is a difference here. The wording is changed. The Government is omitting or getting rid of the term “deemed to have been resident in New Zealand” and replacing it with “treated under section 79(3)(a) of the Social Security Act 1964 as being resident and present in New Zealand”.

As Mr Mark alluded to, and as Jacinda Ardern and I tried to figure out, we wanted to see what section 79(3)(a) actually looked like. We looked online, which is what you do, because that is supposed to be the most up-to-date version and this is the 21st century, and we could not find it. Yet again, I do not know how MPs are supposed to do their job when we go to the source of these documents and we cannot even find the piece of legislation that is being referenced. Again, I am not too sure whether this is a typing error or, in fact, the legislation itself just has not been updated from last time it was amended. We deserve better than this; there is no doubt about that. It seems a little bit sloppy to me, because this bill has been to the Social Services Committee, and the select committee went through it. There were experts who looked at it. MPs cannot be experts in everything. Yet we end up with this level of Supplementary Order Paper. Again, the cynic in me says that what this is is a Minister sneaking stuff under the radar that they did not want discussed in the select committee. But I am not cynical. I think this is just—

💬 Poto Williams: You’re bigger than that.

I am bigger than that. I suspect that this was just an error. The Minister for Social Development realised that there was a whole lot more stuff, after the bill had been through the select committee process and all that sort of carry-on, so she needed to put in a substantial Supplementary Order Paper.

There are a couple of things I would like to talk about here. New clause 6A amends an item. The explanatory note of Supplementary Order Paper 56 says: “item 1 of Schedule 6 of the principal Act to prevent the income disregards provisions in that clause from applying unintentionally to supported living payments …”. These are for people who are looking after patients who require care full time. I do not know how you can apply unintentionally or how it can be applied unintentionally, and what if it is applied unintentionally? As with these things, people who look after ill people do not earn a lot of money. In fact, they are usually on the minimum wage and they do it out of the goodness of their heart, and, man, they are exploited. But the thing is, what happens if they actually do end up with more money than they are supposed to? Do they have to pay it back? It is just a sort of insidious situation that is the last thing we want some of the most disadvantaged but well-meaning people in our society ending up doing.

The other thing that I note as well—and this is most interesting—is that “New clause 6B amends clause 2(b) of Part 1 of Schedule 18 of the principal Act to restore the pre-15 July 2013 calculation of the rate of non-beneficiary accommodation supplement for sole parents.” The reason I say that this is interesting is that this existed less than 2 years ago. For some reason it was withdrawn and now it is back. I wonder whether it is because the Minister is a little bit more benevolent than the previous one and she has talked to officials and she has talked to members of the public and she has found out that, actually, something that this Government had done to beneficiaries was unfair and so it is restoring it. I am not too sure why. You can understand if you restore something from 2007 or 2008, but to restore something that was taken away less than 2 years ago, again that seems like either rushed legislation in 2013 or rushed legislation now. It is just very hard to actually figure it out.

In this contribution I would like to speak to the changes in relation to ACC compensation payments, which are in clause 5 of the bill, and also specifically to Supplementary Order Paper 56 and some of our concerns around that. In relation to ACC, at present, weekly ACC compensation payments are deducted from benefit payments on a dollar for dollar basis. However, a loophole was discovered through a case that went in front of the Social Security Appeal Authority that revealed that, in law, weekly compensation paid directly by employers accredited with ACC should be treated as income, and therefore deducted from benefits at a different and more favourable rate. So this bill is seeking to remove that anomaly and bring the compensation abatements back to a dollar for dollar basis—on a retrospective basis. It is seeking to retrospectively validate Work and Income’s misapplication of the law.

This will result in someone who has been on a benefit while working part-time suddenly having their benefit reduced to zero after an injury that entitles them to access ACC. I would just like this Committee to dwell on that for a moment and—I am sure there are a number of stories and letters that you get into your office, or people coming into your office to talk to you about the struggles they are having with ACC or the struggles they are having to be able to survive on a benefit or negotiate between those two systems—and reflect again that this legislation will result in somebody who has been on a benefit while working part-time suddenly having their benefit reduced to zero if they find they are entitled to ACC compensation after an injury. I would suggest to this Committee that this is, again, mean-spirited and cruel, and is increasing the level of hardship for some of the most vulnerable people in this country.

I doubt that any of us would want to be in their situation. In some ways that is possibly a test in terms of legislation. If we were in the place of the people whom this legislation is applying to, would we want to be in their situation? Would we feel that we were able to manage in their situation? I would suggest to this Committee that we would not and that we possibly, most probably, could not manage in those situations. So the Greens are certainly opposing these amendments.

To speak specifically to Supplementary Order Paper 56, we also find it quite problematic, because what it will do is provide a less generous residential qualification for New Zealand superannuation and welfare benefits than is provided under the current interpretation of the legislation, and it will do so retrospectively, dating back to 23 June 1987. This is in response to another Social Security Appeal Authority decision, which interpreted the current section 79 of the Social Security Act in a more generous manner than had been and is Ministry of Social Development practice. The proposed new section 79, inserted by clause 5A, reflects past and current Ministry of Social Development practice and will apply retrospectively except in the case of people who had filed proceedings before 6 July 2013. The only person in this category is likely to be the successful applicant in the Social Security Appeal Authority case that this amendment is in response to. So that is quite a bizarre situation, really, and another example, it would seem to me, of this House spending time fixing up some degree of incompetence and also penalising the people in the most vulnerable situations in this country. Supplementary Order Paper 56 also amends schedule 6.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Tēnā tātou katoa. I am happy to take a short call on the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). I was not a member of the select committee but, probably more important, as a mother of two teenage sons about to enter university next year I feel it is appropriate that I get up and make a contribution.

I would like to talk specifically around—I have papers for Africa here—section 61EA of the principal Act, which ensures that students who would be eligible for assistance from the student allowance scheme, including its extra accommodation component, but who choose not to apply for that assistance will be excluded from receiving the accommodation supplement.

I am a firm believer that investing in our young people in this country is definitely the role of the State. There is plenty of research around showing that our student population across the country is struggling. This is an opportunity to address that and I am rather disappointed, from listening to all the contributions tonight, that the benchmark has been set at the student allowance rate rather than at the accommodation supplement. I would be keen to hear from the Minister herself as to why the benchmark has been set low rather than high.

I understand that there have been two contributions to the select committee, from the Dunedin Community Law Centre and from the New Zealand University Students’ Association, which I am sure many of us in this Chamber have been members of. They do a fine job and they clearly have got recent research that shows there is hardship faced by many of our students around the country. Again, I would be really interested to hear the Minister’s response as to why an organisation with the history of the New Zealand University Students’ Association was not consulted on amending this Act. Clearly the association probably had a major contribution to offer, and it would have meant that we would probably have a more robust bill brought before the House to be discussed.

From reading this bill, like many of the previous speakers, I am still of the view of wanting to hear the rationale behind incentivising our students to stay in tertiary education as opposed to opting out because they can get more from the accommodation supplement. I support that the bill is trying to address some of the loopholes, but given the 4 years since it has been brought to the Government’s attention I would also be keen to hear how many students have been caught up in the loophole. I guess, given that this is retrospective legislation, there are also the unintended consequences of passing retrospective legislation. I would be keen to hear from the Minister herself on what would happen to those students. I am interested to know how many students are caught up and what will actually happen to those who have received the accommodation supplement, as opposed to the student allowance.

Yes, I support the contributions of this bill, but I caution the Minister and the Government around ensuring we are investing in our students perhaps more than what I see with this bill before the Committee, given the pressures that students are under, not in terms of completing study but with having a very low student allowance, the cost of fees rising out of proportion to other supplements that may assist them, and also in terms of GST, which has risen.

I stand to take another call on behalf of New Zealand First just to clarify the issues, having finally got my head around, Minister, the stray, the phantom new sections 79(3)(a) and 79(3)(b). I am pleased that I persevered, because it was just vexing me somewhat. I guess, in summary, what I now understand about this bill—and my colleague Darroch Ball has ably articulated this in his opening comments, but I need to go through these steps, because it helps me understand what has happened here. This bill came to the House in 2011. It was referred to the Social Services Committee on 6 April 2011. As Darroch Ball has said, there were a couple of submissions heard and the submissions closed on 28 April. A few submissions were heard, and it was reported back to the House. It is now very clear to me that it sat and languished in the House from that point.

On 17 March 2015 we had presented to us Supplementary Order Paper 56. On 24 March—what is that? Two days ago? Two days ago we were presented with Supplementary Order Paper 64. Supplementary Order Paper 64 seeks to amend Supplementary Order Paper 56. It is within Supplementary Order Paper 56 that the phantom new sections that my people could not find, 79(3)(a) and 79(3)(b), reside. It is those provisions that Supplementary Order Paper 64 seeks to amend. It is like the amendment to the amended amendment, and so the story goes on. What I have got to say is that it is quite astonishing because collectively, between them, Supplementary Order Papers 56 and 64 are bigger than the original bill. How bizarre is that? So—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Say that again. Say that again.

I am holding two pieces of paper here. If I look at Supplementary Order Paper 56 and Supplementary Order Paper 64, and I hold up the original bill, they are bigger than the original bill. Yet Parliament and the Government saw fit to send the original bill to the Social Services Committee to be examined. One would have thought that, with such considerable amendments and then amendments to the amendments, the Government might well say: “Well, let us refer this bill back to the select committee 4 years later—4 years later—just to ensure that we had everything correct.”

What we now know from the debate tonight—and my colleague Darroch Ball has raised New Zealand First’s concerns about student loans and the impacts on them, and we have heard countless speakers from the Labour team once again raising their concerns—everybody agrees, and this is the nonsense of it all. Please, Government, please, Minister, after Sunday let us reflect on how this House should be run. It is time to consult and talk to all the members of the House. If one does that, then we can iron out these things, and where we agree on stuff, we can move it through the House and save the taxpayer a hell of a lot of money. That is something that I hear a lot of Government members banging on about: wanting to save taxpayers’ money, reduce compliance, reduce costs, and reduce red tape. What we have right now is we are moving through the Committee two amendments to the bill, which appear to be larger than the original bill, without having put them to a select committee. Here this evening, getting close to half past 9 at night, we are having to answer questions that we could have answered in the select committee and progressed this bill a lot more smoothly.

I am comfortable with the Minister’s explanation, and I thank the Minister very much for that. I would have liked to see a better response from the previous Minister on the other issues pertaining to veterans’ affairs and adjustments to that KiwiSaver legislation that went through. I do not think that is the end of the matter, because there are those of us who are always going to be conscious and wary about any legislation that is, first, retrospective—first, retrospective—and, secondly, that impacts on veterans, particularly at a time when we are creating new veterans by dispatching more people off to war zones around the world.

One thing we know for sure as members of Parliament—and I say so across the whole of the Chamber—there is nothing more frustrating than trying to deal with officials and bureaucrats, be they at ACC or Work and Income, when trying to do the best by our veterans who may have suffered post-traumatic stress disorder or accidents that have then thrown them straight back into the ACC system or who may have lost a foot, had an injury that one cannot recover from, or had a wound. There is nothing more frustrating than having to fight the bureaucracy and the red tape as an MP. I say that on behalf of all MPs, because I know all MPs throughout the Chamber struggle with those issues in their electorate offices time and time again. But we struggle because we do not always get it right here. We struggle because often we pass retrospective legislation without thinking for 1 minute that there might be half a dozen, 10, or 12 people caught up adversely.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to take a call on the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) in its Committee stage. Previous contributions discussed wider issues around the adequacy of the accommodation assistance available to students through different student support systems. There was a view expressed that the student accommodation rate does not meet students’ needs, and there was a suggestion that the select committee should look at why students are accessing the accommodation supplement. But this bill is not about the assistance level provided to students. This bill is not about deciding whether student assistance is generous or not. This bill is to close loopholes in the existing Act.

This bill is short but very important. It is a very simple one. It has just two parts. Clause 4, in Part 1 of the bill, amends the principal Act and clarifies the eligibility criteria. It clarifies that students who choose not to apply for a student allowance under the Student Allowances Regulations 1998 are excluded from receiving the accommodation supplement. Clause 4 also clarifies that the income test will include a spouse’s or partner’s income as well as parental income.

As the Minister in charge of the bill, the Hon Anne Tolley, explained, assistance for students is designed to be through a shared approach towards their tertiary education—the Government and the student—because the Government and the student benefit from that tertiary education. Again I say that this bill is not about the level of assistance provided. It is about closing the loopholes that exist in the existing legislation, and students should receive the assistance that is designed for them. But the current wording in the Social Security Act is not clear enough, and it leaves open the loophole that allows people to claim the accommodation supplement if they give up the student allowance. The accommodation supplement is intended to assist low and middle income families who have accommodation costs and do not receive a student allowance or loan.

Part 1 also intends to ensure that the direct deduction of weekly compensation payment applies whether these payments come from ACC or an accredited employer. Clauses 5, 7, and 8 provide for consistent treatment for weekly compensation payments whether made by or on behalf of ACC or on behalf of an accredited employer. I also want to clarify what I heard before about the burden of this on employers. The fact is that this legislation will not impose any additional costs on businesses. So I support the bill as it is. Thank you.

I am going to take just a short call. I just want to talk a little bit about the submissions and the submission process. As we have heard, this bill came before the House 4 years ago, and the submission process at that time was a very short period. Two weeks were given for submitters to provide submissions to the Social Services Committee. I want to question that in terms of good process. Is it good process to allow only a couple of weeks for people to develop submissions to provide to the select committee? In this case, I would argue that there was insufficient time provided for people to make submissions—because there were only two submissions that were made. Both of those submissions relate to the impacts that this bill would have on students, and both of those submissions were deemed to be outside the scope of the bill because of that. However, this bill does impact students, and 4 years on—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Mr O’Connor, you are allowed to sit down, but it is a bit rude to have your back to the speaker like that.

Four years on, those impacts, I believe, are much more significant than they were, and I just want to spend some time talking about what that means for students. The previous speaker said that it is not necessarily the job of the Government to support students in this way. Well, actually, it is. It is absolutely the Government’s role to support students through their student life, because our future lies in the educational status and well-being of our young people. That is where our future lies. Well-educated young people and children really raise all sorts of levels for their children going forward. It is absolutely the role of the Government to support our students.

We know that in the period between when this bill came before the House and now there have been some significant changes in the lives of students. For example, we have had significant cuts to allowances for postgraduate students and training—significant cuts—and who do those cuts impact the most? Actually, postgraduate study is often study that is undertaken by women who are either returning to the workforce or retraining after a period at home caring for children. It is very significant for the ongoing well-being of our society that women are able to access good quality training and get the support to do that.

I know there has been a bit of banter across the House this evening about the lives of students. We do tend to categorise students as being a bit carefree, but let us face it. Many of our students have to—are forced to—find employment, often in not only very low-paid work but work that other people do not want to undertake, because of the level of assistance that they are able to access through Government schemes. My argument to the previous speaker is that, actually, we could look at supporting our students much more significantly. We could look at that. It is a role for the Government. It actually has good future impacts for our society, and our students would respond much more favourably. We would get much better results if they were supported well and did not have to do the kinds of hours and the types of work they have to do just to continue on at their studies. So I think that is my contribution for this evening. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for enabling me to take a last call on this bill. I would like to specifically address Supplementary Order Paper 56 and the amendment to schedule 6 of the Social Security Act 1964. The amendment will clarify that the $20 personal earnings exemption that is currently accessible to people caring full-time for people who would otherwise be in care will no longer be accessible to them. How extraordinary is that—in this week, Caregivers Week, when most of the country is spending a moment to actually thank the people in this country, most of whom are women, who are giving up so much of their lives to care for our most vulnerable people. Some of those people are in paid work, and I have had a discussion with the Minister this afternoon about the very clear exploitation of those women workers, and the gender pay gap we have in the country.

Another side to this, also, is the almost entirely unpaid workers of those family members receiving the supported living allowance to care for family members, who—through legislation that was rushed through this House under urgency after the last Budget—were denied access to a wage, denied access to the Human Rights Commission, and denied access to basic rules of justice. We get to see a pattern—and, again, this Supplementary Order Paper denies that group of people access to a $20 personal earnings exemption. For goodness’ sake! I know the Government has been desperate to try to reach a surplus, but to claw back money from people who are looking after—giving up so much, to care for—some of the most vulnerable people in our society is just beyond the pale of meanness. I really would like to hear the Minister in the chair stand up and defend that.

The Government is saying that people who themselves have total blindness or permanent and severe restrictions in their capacity to work because of sickness, injury, or disability are allowed a $20 personal earnings exemption. It is so generous—so generous! Are we all not grateful to have this wonderfully generous social security system, as we have heard from the National Party members? To deny it to people caring for some of those same people—I cannot understand a policy that would make that distinction. If we are at all interested in the well-being, fairness, and ability of people to contribute to our society, then a $20 earnings exemption—surely that is the absolute minimum. Why would you even look at that and see it as a problem, let alone a problem to come to this Committee at the last minute, and not enable any members of the public to actually put in submissions on it, and to pass it through this Committee? Again, we have seen how under Budget urgency members of the New Zealand public were denied the ability to submit on the changes around restrictions to human rights and pay for some family carers, and here we are again seeing legislation pushed through the House without the ability for people to submit, contribute, or comment on—affecting some of the very same people who were locked out of that earlier legislation. It is a shame.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 56 in the name of the Hon Anne Tolley to Part 1 be agreed to.