Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I want to reiterate the Government’s consistent and longstanding position on benefits and stand-down periods. The current stand down provisions in section 80BA of the Social Security Act first came into force in 1997. These provisions were based on the policy agreed in 1996 that benefits commence on the day after a stand-down period ends. This policy has never changed. The legislative error created on 3 June 1998 is a technical mistake, not a policy change. However, the result is that it provides for people to have an additional day of benefit payment that they were never intended to have. So the legislation needs to be changed to avoid unintended Crown costs, but, in effect, that is costs to the taxpayer.

We need to avoid unintended costs to the taxpayer, but we are attempting to do this in a fair way. There are three separate provisions protecting people who have been able to receive this additional day or who want to lodge a review to receive it. This is a very reasonable compromise that provides a balance between clients’ interests and the financial costs of the error.

I would like to take the opportunity to outline to the House the process that clients can now expect if this legislation comes into effect. Clients who have already lodged a review request—and I understand there are between 8,000 and 10,000 of those to date—will continue to have it processed in the normal way. These reviews can relate to a benefit granted back to 1998, when the legislation was amended. Those who have been granted a benefit after a stand down since the operational practice changed on 29 September 2015 will also be protected by this bill. This bill will also enable people who have been granted a benefit since the Ministry for Social Development was made aware of the error to seek a review. These reviews, if my Supplementary Order Paper—Supplementary Order Paper 141, tabled in the House today—is passed by the House, must be lodged by 8 January, giving people 7 weeks to do so. Review forms are currently available online and at all Work and Income sites. They can be posted, they can be faxed, or they can be emailed. In addition to this, the Ministry for Social Development has created an online form that can be submitted electronically, and this will be available once the legislation has passed.

I want to make it clear that these protection provisions are a measure of the Government’s good faith. They do not negate the original policy intent that a benefit should commence on a day after a stand down finish period ends. As I said earlier, those seeking a review will have 7 weeks to submit their request for review, and I think that this strikes a balance between what is fair to them and what is fair to the taxpayer. I commend this bill to the House.

I want to reiterate some of what I said in my first speech and then also just elaborate a little bit more on that. We have concerns about this bill because of the fact that it takes away the rights of those who would have been eligible for an additional day paid out of their benefit from 1998 to May 2014. The Government, in terms of the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister was just talking about, is trying to make allowances so that those who would have been eligible between May 2014 and September 2015—so that there is a window of time for them to actually put in a claim, but she is ignoring everyone from before 20 May 2014.

I can understand the Government’s immediate concern with that group that it is accounting for in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. I guess there is a sense of urgency there for the Government and probably some legal obligations and possibly legal ramifications if it does not do it. That is pointed out in the departmental disclosure statement where it is made very clear in section 4.9, where any other unusual provisions or features are discussed, and it states: “To acknowledge that the Ministry of Social Development’s operational practice should have been amended when the error was discovered on 20 May 2014, clients whose benefits were commenced on or after 20 May 2014 may apply for a review of decision of that commencement date in the 6 weeks after the legislative correction is made and the retrospective amendment will not apply to their decisions.”

So legally the Government should have done something immediately, but it did not. And today we have heard National Government members stand up and say that there is a sense of urgency in respect of introducing this bill, when there actually should have been a sense of urgency on 20 May 2014 when this error was discovered.

So many members across the House have said that this is really just correcting a technical error in that the intent of the bill is being corrected and that that was always there. But actually none of us were there at that select committee. None of us, or very few of us in this House, were in Government at the time that the bill was going through, so I find it really interesting that so many new members of Parliament—as new as me or even newer—are saying that the intent of the bill was clear. It would be interesting during the Committee stage to hear from the two members who are still in the House who, I believe, were on the Social Services Committee at the time in 1998, when this bill was passed, and they are Gerry Brownlee, who was deputy chair then, and Annette King. We are looking forward to her contribution at the Committee stage.

💬 Chris Bishop: We all are.

She is holding herself back. She really wanted to speak in the second reading, but we have allowed Poto and Iain Lees-Galloway to take the next two speeches, and Annette will make a contribution in the Committee stage.

💬 Chris Bishop: What about Ruth?

Ruth was not on the select committee at that time. So that is our concern, that those people are being denied the right to make a claim, but also there are issues with this particular bill. We are disappointed that there is no regulatory impact statement for this bill.

The Government’s secrecy around the retrospective removal of natural justice for those who are owed arrears between 1998 and 2014 is highlighted in the lack of a regulatory impact statement to accompany the bill. I know that there are situations where a regulatory impact statement is not required, but given that even from the outside, even for a person who is not necessarily that actively involved in politics, there is a huge impact to this bill you would think that the Government would do the responsible thing and provide us with a regulatory impact statement. The impact really is that this bill will ignore the thousands of people who had stand-down periods between 1998 and 2014 and were denied at least 1 day’s pay, and for those who were in and out of work, they were denied multiple days of pay. So it is disappointing that there is not a regulatory impact statement.

We have heard from the Minister about the fact that there was some attempt to negotiate around this. I want to acknowledge, if I have not done already in the House, that this error—yes, it may have occurred when the legislation was drafted back in 1998, but the technical error continued under both National and Labour Governments. So, of course, out of good faith we did contact the Government to see whether or not we could work on this together to come up with a solution. A couple of the things that the Government did do were good; I will not deny it that. It took this out of the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill and has done it separately. That needed to be done. The Government has also made sure that there is a window of opportunity for anyone who was affected by this during the time that the Government was aware of it, so from May 2014 to September 2015. That is a good thing.

The only thing that we are concerned about, as I said earlier, is the number of people, particularly those people who would have been in and out of work, who stand to lose something from not being able to make a claim. The only thing we are concerned about is that the Government is still not providing an opportunity to do that. The easy solution is Supplementary Order Paper 142 that I have put up, which delays the commencement date of the bill. It provides an opportunity for those people to be informed, to get their papers in, and to make a claim. It is only a 6-week delay that that Supplementary Order Paper is asking for, but 6 weeks is enough time for people like Kay Brereton, who has been amazing throughout this whole process—beneficiary advocates like Kay—to get the word around so that anyone who wants to make a claim is able to do so. I just want to reiterate that the chances are most people will not be bothered doing it, but it is about natural justice and it is about making sure that they are at least given the opportunity to do so.

I just want to perhaps touch on another couple of things in here—actually, no, I think I have covered everything off. I know that the Greens have put up a Supplementary Order Paper to delay the commencement date as well. Theirs is for 6 months, ours is for 6 weeks, but the intention is the same. It is to provide that window of opportunity for people to make an application and put forward a claim. I think the Greens have also got a Supplementary Order Paper that requires that the Government actually promotes or advertises it, so that people are made aware of their rights and their right to make a claim during a fair process.

I am looking to see what the Government does. I am disappointed in New Zealand First, but we will talk to some of the other members—apart from Darroch Ball—at a later stage today. Thank you very much.

We are not disappointed in Darroch Ball. I think he is a wise young man, who comes from Liston College out in the west. I actually visited Liston College not so long ago and saw the principal there, who said that they are proud that one of their old boys has become a member of Parliament, so I think they are very proud of Darroch Ball. We are proud that he is a member of the Social Services Committee and makes a great contribution to the committee as well.

Just in regard to the second reading of the bill, I think there has been a lot said about the bill. It is a technical piece of legislation that is correcting something that goes back to 1998. I will keep saying that again, because it has been some time since then. So I do not want to go over that, as I have sort of laid it out in my first speech, but I just want to talk about the issue around financial cost.

Before I do that, there was a comment by the previous speaker, Ms Carmel Sepuloni, around the regulatory impact statement. It was a good point. She asked why it is that we do not have a regulatory impact statement. In actual fact, what has happened is that this piece of legislation has come out of the current piece of legislation that is before the Social Services Committee called the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. It is inside that bill that there is a regulatory impact statement, which has the issues that have been detailed. So just to answer the question about a regulatory impact statement, that is the purpose and that is the reason why it is in there.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: What does it say? What does it say, Alfred?

So it is in there—I do not have that in front of me right now, OK, but we can get that. I am sure that throughout the night there will be opportunities to talk about the points that I want to raise in regard to the regulatory impact statement on this current bill.

I just want to touch on a couple of things that have been raised that I think are important in regard to the financial costs. Officials have estimated the total cost of backdated payments to be in the region of $3.5 million for clients whose benefits commenced on or after 20 May 2014 who lodge a review in the 6-week period after the legislative change. That may rise—we are not sure—but that is what is currently before us at the moment.

Until the legislative change takes effect the ministry will begin paying benefits consistent with current legislation. This will increase benefit expenditure. The effect of this change to current operating practice has been estimated at around about $0.4 million. So I think there was a question that was asked in some of the speeches about understanding what those costs could be. On that last point around financial cost, to put this in perspective, we reduced the expected costs of supporting current beneficiaries over their lifetime by $7.5 billion last year. That has become part of the overall package that this Government has made to provide support to those who are on benefits as well.

That is my sort of brief contribution at this stage. I look forward to the Committee stage and some of the other discussions and debates there may be, but I do commend this bill in its second reading to the House.

Firstly, I just want to make a comment on something that the previous speaker, Alfred Ngaro, mentioned. They have included the technical correction of this error as a way of saying that the Government is actually doing things for beneficiaries. I find that totally bizarre, actually. It should be doing this. This is an error that needs correcting. You should not be crowing, Mr Ngaro, that this is part of the Government’s programme to support beneficiaries; this should have been done in the first place, actually. They are completely owed what this bill intends to do.

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: Nine years of Labour didn’t pay it back, either. Nine years of a Labour Government didn’t pay it back.

Minister, must I remind you that 1998 was the date of the error. There have been many Governments since then.

💬 David Shearer: Seven long years.

Absolutely—absolutely. So let us not quibble about which Government is responsible. We know that the National Government likes to blame everything on Labour, because it takes no responsibility itself—it takes no responsibility itself. Hey, we have got broad shoulders. We are taking responsibility. When we come to the Committee stage, I want the Government MPs to take responsibility and take some calls, which they did not do on the other bill that went through today under urgency. So let us see. We will see what happens. We know that the Government has forced us into urgency on three bills, but its members are not even prepared to stand up in the Committee stage and take calls to defend the Government’s position. It has gone quiet over there. Thank you—thank you for that. I will continue with my second reading speech, thank you very much.

We all know that this bill has come out of a need and a desire to correct a technical error, but I want to ask a question, and during the Committee stage, I hope, Minister, that you will answer it. Why was this bill actually part of the Social—now, what was the name of that bill, Carmel?

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Extension of Young Persons Services.

The Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill—thank you. Why was this—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I will just remind the member to address other members properly.

Thank you. Ms Sepuloni—thank you very much. Why was this bill part of that piece of legislation? Why was that?

I think it is amazing, and it is great that that significant piece of work was actually taken out of the original bill so that we can actually discuss this properly. It should not have been part of that bill. Was it actually an attempt to cover up the fact that this error had come to light—and not come to light in recent times, but, actually, a year and a half ago? It was a long time ago that this error came to light, but the Government sat on it. It sat on it until November 2015 in order to actually force the bill through under urgency. Then we get to the point where people have got until 8 January to apply for a review—7 weeks. We all know that if people are looking to apply for a review, we have got a couple of weeks of closure at our Government offices; so, technically, that is going to cut a couple of weeks from their ability to get their applications in for the review process.

Why is this happening now? What is so urgent about doing this right now? According to Mr Ngaro, the cost of this is $3.5 million. Is that going to change if we pass this piece of legislation today or if we pass it at the beginning of next year? I say: not significantly. So what is the hurry to get this bill through under urgency? Is this an excuse to hold us in the House to pass this piece of legislation—and the one before and the one following? No one has really justified this to us, as yet. I would be really interested to hear your comments on that, Minister, when we come to the Committee stage—if you would take a call on that.

I really recommend supporting the extension of the commencement date of this bill, which will give people adequate time to find out whether they are able to apply and to then put in an application for review. The Greens are advertising the fact. I think that is a great idea. It shows real openness and transparency. It could do, on the Government’s part, to actually capture those people who need to look at whether they want to respond. Indeed, Carmel Sepuloni did say that the people she has spoken to probably will not—that they will not be bothered by it. But at least it gives them the opportunity to do that. When we come to the Committee stage, I will be really interested to get some answers from the Minister about why she will not be looking at an advertising programme and at an extension of the commencement date, which actually makes a lot of sense, and whether the ministry has done any work on how many people have actually been captured by this, going back to 1998—and not just Labour Governments but National Governments as well. I know that we will have plenty of opportunity to traverse this through the Committee of the whole House, and I look forward to doing so. Thank you.

I rise this afternoon to support the second reading of our bill, the Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill. I would like to start by making a few comments about responsibility. I found it very interesting listening to the previous member lecture us in respect of responsibility. I think it is the height of responsibility, actually, to put this bill in place, as we have this afternoon.

The bill corrects this technical error, with full retrospective effect back to 3 June. It is the height of responsibility and fairness to have included in that bill an acknowledgment that those who have lodged a review of decisions relating to a benefit commencement on or after the 1998 amendment can still have their review processes seen to in the normal manner. It is an extremely responsible and fair bill and Government that acknowledges and puts in, under Supplementary Order Paper 141, a 7-week review period where clients have benefits that commenced after the Social Security Appeal Authority decision of May last year. But, in my view, it is completely irresponsible to be holding the view that because of this technical error, every benefit commencement going back to 1998 should be included. It is irresponsible from a logic perspective, and it is irresponsible from a taxpayer perspective.

Also, I do go back to the core view that I have in this debate. It relates to the Government in 1998, successive Governments since, and the Ministry of Social Development and its predecessors from 1998 through to today all holding the view that a stand-down period, particularly when applied to a particular week—it was at the end of those 7 days that you were stood down, and then on the eighth day it began. Everybody was under that assumption. Those who made the law, those who were administering the law, and every one of the Ministry of Social Development’s clients who came to the door were equally under that assumption. So everyone assumed that that was what the rules were, until, of course, this particular Social Security Appeal Authority decision from last year.

This is a responsible Government, which has put together a comprehensive bill that reflects the policy intent, ensures that it is retrospectively validated, and then has, in my view, very fair and natural justice for those who are caught up in this process to have their interests looked at and protected. It is a good bill. I look forward to future debate and discussion. I commend the second reading to the House. Thank you.

I would like to talk in some detail about the use of urgency for the Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill, but, before I do, I do need to address some of the points raised by the previous speaker, Todd Muller. He said that this bill is the height of responsibility and fairness. This bill seeks to retrospectively remove the legal entitlement of some of the poorest New Zealanders, all for the purpose of saving this Government money. That, I think, goes to the point that we are hearing consistently from that side of the House, that financial responsibility means that the Government has to bring this bill to the House. Any money that would go to those people—it would obviously be irresponsible for the Government to hand out money to people. The intent of this bill is that it was always clear that it was supposed to be “the day after”, even though section 80BA(4)(a)(i) of the Social Security Act reads “the day on which the stand down period ends;”. I do not know how that can lead people to think it is the day after. You read the words, that benefits commence “on the day on which the stand down period ends;”, and suddenly you interpret that as the day after, which is what this Government has been doing. The Government does not seem to understand the rule of law. The Government is telling us, despite how the courts have interpreted this, based on the debates and from reading this legislation stating “the day on which”, that actually the intent was always clear that it was the day after. That really does stretch the Government’s credibility; it really, really does stretch credibility.

I would like to speak a little bit more too, specifically because this is the second reading and this is the time when we normally would have been through a select committee process. This Government, through a previous speaker, has told us that, well, we have been through a select committee process because there was a provision in another bill, which related to the extension of youth services and was entitled the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill, that sought to retrospectively deny those people their rights. It looked nothing like this piece of legislation, might I say, but there was a provision in that bill that covered this, so therefore—we were told—we have been through the process. Well, I do want to point out to people that there was one submission that picked up this point. I cannot even talk about what we were told from the departmental advisers because that is business that is still in front of the Social Services Committee, so I would be breaching privilege if I spoke about the advice that we were given in relation to that point in this bill. This, I think, raises some significant process issues in that we are now debating a bill and the Government is telling us that that process applies to this and means we can go through this under urgency, but I cannot talk about the detail of it because it is still under select committee privilege. That is worrying. That is not a good process at all.

I would like to remind people to think about the appropriate use of urgency. There was a book published on this a few years ago, called What’s the Hurry?, which talked about the 10 guiding principles for the use of urgency, for this House to consider. Point No. 1 is “Legislatures should allow time and opportunity for informed and open policy deliberation”. That has not happened. Point No. 2 is “The legislative process should allow sufficient time and opportunity for the adequate scrutiny of bills”. Days? No. That is not adequate time. That condition has not been met. Point No. 3 is “Citizens should be able to participate in the legislative process”. Again, that has not happened. Point No. 4 is “Parliament should operate in a transparent manner”. Well, putting a provision inside another bill, on a very substantive point, hidden as a remedial matter, which the Government was hoping nobody would pick up? That is not transparency. Moving this bill through under urgency, without the ability for public participation—that is not transparency. Refusing to implement the court’s decision and bringing this through, under this process, is not transparency and does not uphold the rule of law.

The next point is point No. 5: “The House should strive to produce high quality legislation”. How can we produce high-quality legislation when we are rushing it through? Point No. 6 is “Legislation should not jeopardise fundamental constitutional rights and principles”. One of those is around the rule of law and non-retrospective legislation, and here we are putting through, under urgency, retrospective legislation that undermines the rule of law. Point No. 7 is “Parliaments should follow stable procedural rules”.

Point No. 8 is “Parliament should foster, not erode, respect for itself as an institution”—and that, to me, goes to the very, very heart of what is wrong with this piece of legislation. When we have over a million people who did not vote, where we have people not going to Work and Income because they find that experience so alienating that they are living in cars because they do not want to deal with it, and here the people’s benefits get cut by 100 percent or 50 percent if they miss a bus and miss an appointment. Here the Government is making a very, very fundamental misinterpretation of the law, which reads to me so clearly. It is saying “Yes, we made a mistake, and we’re just going to fix that up and deny all of you your rights over the last 18 years.”; not “OK, we made a mistake. We’re going to fix this for the future.” That would have been credible. We would have supported that, if you had brought that case. But, no, you are doing it retrospectively, and it is so out of balance with those people’s experience of how you—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

Not you, Mr Assistant Speaker—how the Government implements this system. It is so out of balance and such a misuse of power that it undermines the respect for Parliament as an institution. The ninth point is that “The Government has a right to govern, so long as it commands a majority …”, but the respect for this principle has to be balanced against all of the other points, which we have clearly seen are not met by this legislation. Point No. 10 is “Parliament should be able to enact legislation quickly in”—it says—“(actual) emergency situations”. Well, tell me where the emergency is, beyond the fact that people are putting in claims to get back an average of $80 from the Government to be able to put some food on their table before Christmas, to access a right that the courts have established very clearly and well over a year ago that they are entitled to—where is the emergency in that? This is a shameful use of the House and the process, and a misuse of power by this Government.

I would like, in this very short period of time remaining to me, to point out some of the issues that people have been raising that I have been able to see, even though we have not had a select committee process, sadly. One person’s comment was: “If only someone had told Greece that dealing with debt was as simple as passing a law saying they don’t have to pay.” People are seeing this. People who do not have much resource, who have a fragile relationship with the State, are watching this, and their confidence is being eroded. People have talked about the fact—I have seen—that they would like to apply, but actually their situation at the moment is that they would have to print out the forms, sign them, get down to a Work and Income office, and they do not have a printer. They do not have access in terms of filling in the forms on email, to be able to scan and sign them, and they cannot get down there. Here are people who are being told or they have just found out that they have got this legal entitlement, and they want to access it, and they are going “I don’t know how to do this.” They basically will have too short a period of time because of where this cuts off, unless, of course, it was after May 2014, and those people will have a few weeks, until 8 January—over a holiday period, over an incredibly stressful time of the year. People with other languages may not find out—the Government has made no commitment to notify anyone to let them know of their rights. We are also hearing from people that they are actually not in a position to be able to access the technology to be able to apply. Really we need to go back to the point that these are stand downs, which is a debatable point and has been for a long time in this House, because it impacts on people’s ability to provide shelter and feed themselves.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Jan Logie’s contribution she made the point that the advice to the Social Services Committee is, obviously, still with the select committee, and cannot be part of the contribution of the House because the bill is before the select committee. This legislation that we are debating now has been removed at the select committee from that bill, the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. So the primary bill remains with the select committee. We have got a bit of it here, but we are not able to access the officials’ advice. It is not a usual situation, and I wonder whether you could give that consideration and some contribution on whether we would be able to get, particularly in the Committee stage, access to that officials’ advice—just on the part that is relevant to this bill, because that bit is no longer before the select committee; the rest of the bill is.

I was listening to Jan Logie’s comments, and she was, I think, accurate in her summation of the situation, notwithstanding the fact that the chair of the Social Services Committee, Alfred Ngaro, has assured us that this bill is substantially the same, in its effect, as part of the bill currently being considered by the committee, and in fact he referred to the regulatory impact statement, and referred members to that, which is available. I am advised that the advice, because it is still with the committee, is not available to this House for continued debate. I think that is a matter that at some stage it would be appropriate for the Standing Orders Committee to have a look at.

The other point that I would make is that in the end the House is the master of its own destiny, and if a member, especially the chair of the select committee, thought that there was useful advice available on the effect of this legislation from departmental officials, then it would be within his right to seek the leave of the House, notwithstanding the particular Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings, for that material—just that material—to be made available, and I would put it if he did so.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder, having heard your ruling, whether you could give some advice, because we are told in the departmental disclosure statement that there is no regulatory impact statement available, and then we have a regulatory impact statement called Extension of the Youth Service dated February 2015. Is it possible to direct us, because we cannot find it in this regulatory impact statement. Either, one, there is not one, or we are told this is something, and we cannot find where this part of the bill is mentioned in here. So have we got a regulatory impact statement that relates to this part of the legislation or not?

I am sorry. I did rely on the assurance from the chair of the committee that the regulatory impact statement did cover this particular clause, and I apologise if I misinterpreted him. If the member is saying that it does not and the member said it did, that is a debatable matter, on which I am not going to rule.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the departmental disclosure statement. Where it says “Were any regulatory impact statements provided to inform the policy decisions that led to this Bill?”, the answer says “NO”. So could I ask you to ask the Government to clarify whether we have a regulatory impact statement on this bill or not.

The answer to the member’s question is no. I am not going to ask the Government to do anything. It is a matter for it to do something, if it so wishes.

I would like to just make a few points in my second reading speech and reiterate a couple. The first is, the main reason why New Zealand First is supporting this bill is that it is a technical error in law and not a change in policy. I know that a couple of the parties in the House are arguing against that fact. In fact, we have heard a few arguments from the Labour Party and the Greens about why they are opposing this bill. There was an argument that there was a trust issue or about the way that the process has been conducted.

We have heard of emotive issues in regard to child poverty and poverty in general, and of beneficiaries bearing the brunt of those issues of poverty and why they deserve to have that money back-paid. We also heard an argument that there was actually no intent at all, or that the intent was not known, for the original bill and that the beneficiaries are actually owed 1 day’s worth—on average $80—of back-pay and that the Government is in debt to them. But, at best, this is actually a loophole in the law, because if you look at the intent of the original legislation—but not only the original legislation; if Labour wants to go through the Hansard and look for original comments on the original intent of the original legislation—we are talking about the way that the policy was implemented for the last 20-odd years.

Like I mentioned in my first reading speech, the intent was fulfilled by successive Governments. The 7 days of stand down was always the intent of the policy and, like I said in the first reading, if the legislative error that was written was written to the intent of the bill, the beneficiaries would have received the exact same amount as they did receive. If the tables were turned and the intent of the bill was that they were supposed to get that extra day but the law was written differently, that would mean that they were owed that extra day in pay, and then New Zealand First would be stating that and holding the Government to account. But this is a legislative drafting error; this is not a change in policy. That is why New Zealand First is supporting this bill.

The other reason too, apart from the intent of the original bill, is the actual intent of the stand-down period. I know that it has been brought up and there are some issues with the concept of a stand-down period, but the fact is that the stand-down period is there, it is in law, and it is being implemented. I went to have a look at the Social Security Act 1964 to actually have a look at the stand-down period and why there was a stand-down period and the justification for the stand-down period. It says in section 80BA(2): “Every benefit to which this section applies shall be subject to a stand down period calculated in accordance with Schedule 28.” I went and had a look at schedule 28 and basically it takes into account and calculates and assesses the average wage or income for the individual. It takes into account the living conditions of the beneficiaries in regard to whether they have got children, whether they are a solo parent—and all other issues like that: income, marital status, and children. So when the beneficiaries went in to apply for their benefit from 1998—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Excuse me. Can I get the member standing over there to crouch down. Thank you.

—until May their needs were assessed. So their needs for which benefit they needed and how much they were going to get, which included their living status and included how long they needed to be on stand down, were assessed.

Like I said and like the Minister has said and other members have said, the intent of the stand down was for it to last for a full working week, so 7 days. It does not make sense that the benefit would start on the seventh day; it would occur on the eighth day. That was the intent and it has been happening through successive Governments. But New Zealand First does have an issue with the review period for the beneficiaries who applied for their benefit from May last year. If it is going through until January it has been extended to 7 weeks now. Obviously that includes the Christmas period—a busy period—and it would minimise the number of people who were actually able to go to apply in the first place. So I think that it is being a little bit disingenuous in extending it through the Christmas period.

Like I said in the first reading, there is the fact that we do not actually think there is a need for a review period because we believe, if it is a matter of principle, that when the Government actually knew that there was an issue with the legislation in May 2014 and it still did not implement that change, then every single person who got the benefit from that point should automatically be getting the back-pay that they are eligible for. You know, it was only May 2014. We have got the records. We have got the ability to do it digitally. We know exactly who is eligible for it and it can be done very quickly. We should not be expecting beneficiaries to have to go into their offices or go online and apply for this back-pay. We believe that it should be automatic from May onwards. That is where I will leave it at the moment. I will look forward to the Committee stage, but at this stage New Zealand First will continue to support this bill.

I just want to limit my contribution on this particular occasion to addressing a couple of things that were raised by the previous Green member. There were a couple of accusations in there levelled towards the Government that were pretty much unfounded, and I think need to not go unchallenged.

There was the way the bill was talked about in terms of the Government trying to save money. I think that is the role of the Government to a certain degree, is it not? The only money that the Government actually has control of is, in fact, the money that it has received from the taxpayers of New Zealand. Sometimes they are not necessarily that willing to part with that money, and so it is beholden on us to ensure that we look after it in the most prudent possible way. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I will just ask the member to sit. Could I also ask the junior Opposition whip not to interject as she walks along. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. As I was saying, I think it is really important for us to actually act in a prudent way on behalf of the taxpayers of New Zealand.

The other point that was made was that originally this legislation was somehow buried in another piece of legislation, and was just being referred to as “remedial matters”. Well, if there ever was anything that was a remedial matter, this matter is absolutely it. What we are trying to do is remedy something that was done—as the previous speaker from New Zealand First, Darroch Ball, said—in a legislative drafting error. We are just wanting to remedy that, get it tidied up, and get it sorted out. It is really important for us to get this legislation through, to get things back on track to the way that they were always intended to be, and that is why I think it is important that we do this under urgency and get it through in the best possible time.

Again—again—all that we know about intent is what was written in the law, and the law was very clear. I would like to pick up on the previous speaker’s reference to saving money, being prudent, and what is a fiscal risk to the taxpayer. I think we can just look at housing, for example. If we want to look at managing money and managing investment for good economic outcomes, we can look at how the Government has failed to invest in the needs of New Zealanders and families, and, in the long run, we actually end up paying through the nose for it—all of us taxpayers. I just wanted to make that point.

Again, I absolutely know that this is poor process—that we are here under urgency debating this piece of legislation without any consultation. It is those voices that I would like to take a moment to uphold at this stage of this lawmaking, and I would like to pick up, most certainly, on the point that my colleague Jan Logie referred to, about the Work and Income regiment—about their clients’ responsibility often being cutting; nearly every time, it is cutting. Just some months ago I sat in a room with a whole group of the Manukau community—job seekers who were talking about the barriers to finding suitable and meaningful employment, including, for example, transport, and about how, in south Auckland, the Work and Income regiment is made particularly hard with the lack of good, accessible, and affordable public transport. In those cases, as we have heard, missing any meetings has been cutting on those very people who are doing their darnedest to try to find work and to be contributing members of society—not just socially but also economically. This is absolutely the stage where we would have heard those stories from the people themselves who are going to be directly impacted by this very piece of legislation.

I think, at this stage, I will talk about the fact that I have been in this job for 2 weeks and already I can see how easy it would be for MPs to be very removed, and understandably so, from the realities that many ordinary New Zealanders face. As an MP, I am able to travel free of charge. I have an accommodation benefit so I can do my job. This has been 2 weeks of my life, and I absolutely agree that we need the tools to do our job, but the realities, in contrast with the very people this is going to impact on, are important, particularly at this second reading. I salute all of those people who have struggled and have done amazing things with a small amount of money, to do the best for their lives.

I have a quote here. Jan Logie wrote a blog recently about this issue—this bill—and a person underneath wrote: “The New Zealand Government, not matter who it is, has tried to get as much money back from beneficiaries as they can. No sole parent on a benefit gets to see their child support paid by the other parent. All beneficiaries pay secondary tax at approximately $20 for every $100 earned, yet they dock your pay based on your gross wages.” So it is those voices that I wanted to give my time and support to in this second reading. I reiterate that there is no urgency. There is no genuine case for urgency at this time. Thank you.

Can I just commend the comments that Marama Davidson just concluded her contribution to this debate with, particularly in relation to the fact that there is no urgency for this. We have heard that the Government found out about this misinterpretation between the way the legislation was written in 1998 and the way it was interpreted subsequently over 18 years. We heard that it discovered that disparity in May last year. How can it be possible that between May last year and November of this year there has not been an opportunity for this to be rectified? But wait—it has been. There is a bill before the select committee right at this very moment. This bill was included with that bill, and suddenly, for some reason—we have not had an explanation from the Minister or the Government members of the select committee—that part of the bill was taken out and put as a stand-alone bill.

I think that is a good thing, because it is an entirely separate issue from the ones that are dealt with under the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. So it is good in terms of robust process that those bills are separated, but it is not acceptable for this bill to get rammed through the House, through all stages, under urgency, with lightweight contributions from members of the Government who are writing it off as a technical bill when clearly they do not understand it. The arrogance of first-year MPs is gobsmacking. It is just extraordinary—the number of MPs who have been here for 1 year and 5 minutes and who are so arrogant and born to rule—extraordinary.

This is not an issue on which any party needs to blame another party. Both National-led and Labour-led Governments have taken the operationalising of this as the correct interpretation of the law. We were wrong. Both sides were wrong. Nobody is blaming Anne Tolley. In fact, we have all commended Anne Tolley for engaging in the discussion with us about that. I do not know why the backbench of the National Party had to get up and throw rocks. It is not that sort of debate. Feel the vibe, Todd, feel the vibe. It is not that sort of debate.

💬 Todd Barclay: I’m not even speaking.

I would say the surname if I could remember it, but I cannot. What is it? Barclay—Mr Barclay; I apologise. I apologise even more because I was going to call you Todd McClay but I knew that was wrong. This bill is about a misinterpretation. The challenge for Parliament is: how should it be fixed?

For 18 years we have been paying beneficiaries a day later to start their benefit than the law said. That has been determined now in a separate judicial process. Parliament needs to fix it. What the Minister has said is that the Government will accept that court determination but not right back to the beginning where it first started doing it incorrectly—just from the day it was told about it. That is an incorrect interpretation of the way the court has determined Parliament’s responsibility to not do anything but comply with the law. We either change it or we comply with it, but changing it retrospectively is not a correct process, particularly in this situation. So this is not a matter of blame. This is certainly not a matter of the current Minister or former Ministers wanting to cheat beneficiaries. It was just interpreted in a way that has now been determined as wrong.

So in our view people right back to the very start of this, from the day that it was first changed in 1998 right through until now, should be able to apply if they choose. We should give them a fair period of time, advertise it properly, make sure that everybody knows about it as much as possible—that is fair—and say: “If you had a stand-down provision when you applied for a benefit, you may have got your benefit a day later than you were legally entitled to. We—Parliament—have determined that you should get that day’s benefit paid to you.” How is that irresponsible? It is not. How is it anything but fair? It is not. It is the fair and proper thing to do as Parliament’s response to the determination that that Government received in May last year—that this issue has been misinterpreted.

I would really recommend the Government to relook at its response. I think this is an opportunity for us to get it right. We have a chance now over the next 6 or 7 hours as we debate this further, and I really urge the Government to just think again. We can get it right. It is a very small amount of money, but I think it is worth it.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the second reading of the Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill. I am taking a short call just to talk on one component of this bill, and that is the retrospective component. I see that members opposite have very short memories, and I am going to revive their memories. It was the previous Labour Government that amended the Immigration Act in 2003. That legislation was rushed through the House. That lapsed tens of thousands of applications that were in the queue for 2 to 3 years. The applications were in the queue for 2 to 3 years.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Sorry; I was temporarily distracted, but I do want to remind the member that we are talking about the Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I was just reminding the Opposition members that they have passed legislation that was retrospective. That legislation was surprise legislation, and it was labelled monstrous legislation.

If we look at this bill before the House, we can see it provides a fair opportunity to those who want to seek a review of the decision about the commencement date of their benefit, as long as they seek that review within the allowed time frame. Having this provision in the bill is not going to undermine the original intent of the policy. The intention is that the benefit should commence after the stand-down period finishes. It is great bill. I support this bill, and I commend it to the House.

What is the Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill all about? We are told it amends an error in the Social Security Act, with retrospective effect to 3 June 1998. It was an error. It did not do what we thought it was going to do, and we need to correct it. It has got a retrospective element to it, no doubt. But we are not standing here saying that that is the problem. What we are saying is, yes, it does need to be fixed, no doubt about it, but the Minister of Social Development said it needed to be done in a fair way. So the argument I am going to put to the Government is: is it being done in a fair way and is natural justice being served in the way that it is being done? And I will get to that in a moment.

I always go to what has been said about a bill before it comes to this House, because none of us are necessarily experts, and so we rely on the best of advice. I always go, first of all, to the regulatory impact statement. We have relied on regulatory impact statements on bills in this House for as long as I can remember. And we are told by the member, Alfred Ngaro, who was, I think, the chair of the Social Services Committee, that there was a regulatory impact statement. I went and talked to him and said: “But your regulatory impact statement doesn’t address this bill at all. It’s all about the extension of the youth service.” So, members opposite, when you stand up to speak with such eloquence, you do not know what you are talking about, because your regulatory impact statement does not relate to the bill. So if the members are reading this as some sort of comfort, you are not going to get much at all.

So then, members opposite, go and read the department disclosure statement. Maybe it will tell you something about this bill that you did not know. Always look to see what it says. It says: “Are there any publicly available, inquiry, review or evaluation reports that have informed, or are relevant to the policy to be given effect by this Bill?”. Answer: no. “Were any regulatory impact statements provided to inform the policy decisions that led to this Bill?” Answer: no. This is one that I thought was interesting: “For the policy to be given effect by this Bill, is there an analysis available on: (a) the size of the potential costs and benefits?”. What is the answer to that? It is no. And then we are asked: “Has advice been provided to the Attorney-General on whether any provisions of this Bill appear to limit … the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?”. No advice has been given. So I go back to the point I started with: this has to be fixed, but is it being fixed in a fair way?

You see, the Minister for Social Development has put up a Supplementary Order Paper saying that there are going to be some people who will be able to claim. And, as my colleagues said, the Government has known since May last year. So why has it not done something earlier? What it is doing in this is allowing some to claim the day they should have been paid. Is that fair? [Interruption] The Government is only allowing some to claim, Minister Bennett, from when it found out there was a problem. If you went to court and said “I didn’t know I was committing a crime.” is that a defence? Is it a defence when you do not know something? I think the answer is no. You cannot use that as a defence; it is not a defence. Just because the Government did not know and no Government has known, it is not a defence. So Supplementary Order Paper 142, which my colleague Carmel Sepuloni has put up—and if it is accepted by the Government we will vote for the bill—is fair and gives natural justice. It says: “Give everybody who could have been affected 6 weeks to put in an application.”

How many, I wonder, would put in an application for their 1 day if they were given 6 weeks but they were given a fair go and natural justice? What is so hard about that, members opposite? All their heads are down, of course, because the members opposite know that is not natural justice and that it is not fair. And, surely, this Parliament should be about passing fair law, just law, and law that is based on natural justice. Do we not go out and make speeches about that and how fair we are in this democratic country of New Zealand? And then the Minister brings in a bill and allows some people to be able to claim their day’s benefit based on the fact that her department found out at a certain time. So when it found out, from that time those people can be included. Does that sound fair? I do not think so.

We would like to support this bill. In fact, in respect of Carmel Sepuloni’s Supplementary Order Paper, if the Minister, wherever she is, is listening, I would suggest that she looks at it and that she considers it. Would you not want to have the major support of the parties in this House to pass this retrospective legislation, which we all hate? Retrospective legislation has been passed in this House on many occasions, so the member who just sat down in her seat, Parmjeet Parmar, who was being all righteous about the fact that Labour had done some retrospective legislation has not looked at enough debates and Hansards of this place. Of course there are times when there is retrospective legislation. There are times when you have got to fix mistakes that have been made in legislation. That happens. But because it is retrospective, and because we are doing it under urgency, therefore denying a whole lot of comment and input on this particular piece of legislation, then I would have thought a Government that really did care about justice—and I cannot believe that Chris Finlayson can think that this is fair. He is the Attorney-General. Actually, he did not get to provide any advice. I cannot believe that he thinks this is fair or just when an arbitrary date can be set and that is used to give some people the right to claim money back but disregards everybody else.

I do not believe there would be very many people at all who would even bother to apply, because you would have to remember, between 1998 and today, when you left work and when the person did not get their pay at the right time. You would have to remember that. And that, I would imagine, would probably be beyond the ability of most people, unless they are very good at bookkeeping and they have kept all their records and their payslips and so on. So I would not have thought it would be very difficult to allow anybody who was affected from 1998, in a 6-week period, to put in a claim for their 1 day. So I am very sorry that the Government cannot see the strength of that argument, and I look forward to the chair of the Social Services Committee, Alfred Ngaro, returning to this House with his comments on the regulatory impact statement that he mentioned in his speech. He said the comments we needed were in this one. They are not in this one. There is no regulatory impact statement on the department report, there is no advice given to us, and all I can assume is that there is a whole lot of bungling going on, yet again. Surely this should have been done in a straightforward manner with the principles of fairness and natural justice at the centre of it. That is not what we are getting today.

Well, I do have to give credit where it is due. I think that was a masterful speech from a person who I think that the 150-odd people who were in Palmerston North the other weekend would prefer to see as their leader of the Labour Party, Annette King. But that was a great speech.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: What an arrogant prat.

💬 Chris Bishop: A good speech from a good member.

That is right.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): No, I am going to require the member to withdraw that interjection. [Interruption] Carmel Sepuloni.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: I didn’t say anything.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: I think it was me. Probably me.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Who used “arrogant” and then another word?

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Me.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I require Ruth Dyson to withdraw.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: I withdraw and apologise.

Well, I am going to take that as a compliment that I have had someone withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Now the member will resume his seat. I am going to remind the member, as I probably should have reminded my old friend Annette King, that when the Speaker has ruled, members do not refer to that ruling; they just get on with business.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker—lesson learnt. This piece of legislation corrects a 1998 legislative error. It is quite clear. Everybody agrees there has been an error, and that 7 days actually is a week to everybody except for the courts in this case, and we are fixing that piece of legislation. Retrospective legislation has been discussed for quite a bit of time here this evening and there have been some holier than thou speeches given across from the other side. But as to the residency provisions that were referred to by my colleague earlier, people have been in the queue for 2 to 3 years—they did not get 6 weeks. It was summarily dismissed overnight. Sometimes you have got to make decisions around what is responsible, what is right, and what is good governance. That is what the National Party stands for, and it is with that in mind that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

I raise a point of order, Mr Assistant Speaker. I was momentarily distracted by reading your earlier contribution in the 1998 debate, actually, Mr Assistant Speaker. Earlier I raised a point of order in relation to the advice from the officials at the select committee, and you indicated then that Parliament was in its own hands—we are the masters of our destiny, or words to that effect. You suggested that a member could move that we agree that the advice on this bill, that is still stuck at the select committee and that we cannot access, could be made available to us. You indicated it would be appropriate for the chair of the select committee to do that. He has not been able to do that so far. I am keen to have that advice if we are going to get it before Committee stage. Can another member move it, is my question.

I do not think that I indicated that a member could move. I did indicate that, with the appropriate caveats, leave could be sought. To be absolutely clear, the mere tabling of advice does not mean that members can refer to it. If it were to be tabled, it would have to be with leave sought for it to be tabled for the purpose and for members to have permission to use that advice. I also indicated that it is not for me to recommend that any member do that.