Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: I move, That the Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The welfare system delivers assistance to more than 1 million New Zealanders each year, and it is important that people are treated consistently and as intended by the Government.

The Government’s policy that benefits commence on the day after a stand down has always been clear. This technical error discovered in the legislation last year is providing people with an additional day of benefit that they were not intended to have. This is not right. The legislation needs to be changed to avoid unintended costs to the Crown and to the taxpayer.

The bill validates previous ministries’ practice but also provides, as a measure of the Government’s good faith, a reasonable opportunity for clients who feel their interests have been compromised to seek recompense. The bill corrects the technical error and ensures that legislation reflects the Government’s consistent and longstanding policy. I commend this bill to the House.

We are really disappointed on this side of the House. We engaged with the Government in good faith over this matter, recognising that, actually, this was an error that occurred under both National and Labour Governments. What has come to light during this process is actually that that technical error occurred during a very similar process that we have gone through today. It occurred under urgency. It occurred because of the fact that due diligence was not given to that bill, a select committee was not called to look over it, and submissions were not made. Clearly, when we rush things through in urgency like this then we increase the chances of technical errors like that being made. So it seems ridiculous that we are here, 17 years after that bill passed, going through the same process that saw that bill fail in the first place.

All we had asked with this bill, all we had put to the Minister for Social Development, and all we had put to the National Government MPs was that they support our Supplementary Order Paper 142 to delay the commencement so that natural justice could prevail. Unfortunately, the Government could not even do that. We have seen very little argument put up during the Committee stage against what we were saying. We have seen in the departmental disclosure statement that there were fiscal considerations here, and yet we still never got an answer from the Minister or from the National Government in the House today about what exactly those fiscal considerations were, what the dollar amount was that the Government was so concerned about in respect of the claims that could come forward.

We heard from the Minister that there have been 8,500 claims made by people who think they may be eligible to claim back that day, and I say to those people and to the beneficiary advocates out there who have pushed them to put their claims in, well done, good on them. I am glad that at least those 8,500 people will have their claims honoured. Who I am very disappointed for are the other thousands of New Zealanders who are now going to be denied the opportunity to put a claim forward because it does not suit the Government’s agenda. What the Government is doing here tonight is legislating retrospectively to deny them the opportunity to claim what they will be entitled to up until the point that this bill passes and commences.

We had so many concerns raised at the Social Services Committee when the elements of this particular bill were still in the other social security bill. Those concerns should have been taken into consideration here, because, clearly, there was no select committee opportunity to hear submissions on this particular bill. But we have discussed the intent of this particular bill during a select committee for another bill, and we should have taken seriously the concerns that were raised.

There have been numerous reports about the numbers of people who may have been affected. One number we heard come from the Minister was something like 2.5 million people who have gone on and then off benefits over the last 17 years. I guess that acts as a reminder to the whole House that, actually, a large number of New Zealanders at some point in time are going to need to rely on that welfare safety net. I think that that is something that we need to be reminded of. It is not about people wanting to be long-term dependent on the State necessarily. It is about the fact that we have a lot of New Zealanders who at some point in time are going to find themselves out of employment and needing to rely on the State during that period.

So many other elements of this bill are concerning, such as the fact that it never went to the Attorney-General, and the fact that there are concerns that it may not be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, as pointed out by so many of the submissions made to the other bill in relation to this subject. We have made it really clear that our concern too is for the people who work in jobs that are more likely to have been in and out of work over a period of time. We referred to teacher assistants, teacher aides, seasonal workers, and those who go in and out of temporary work. Those people are the ones who stand to lose now because of the decision that the Government has made.

Actually, for many of them, they have gone in and out of work over a long period of time. Some teacher aides are employed term by term. Some, at the end of each term, go on that stand-down period as they wait for their benefit to come in during the 2 weeks, or whatever it is, during the school holidays that they are no longer getting paid from the school. Those workers deserved the opportunity to make a claim. The Government has now denied them of that.

I say that they deserve it because of the level of insecurity in the work that they do, the expectations on them in terms of the service they provide, the children—our children—whom they are looking after on a daily basis, the fact that they are so poorly paid, and yet this Government was so mean-spirited that it could not take into consideration workforces like those teacher aides, like the seasonal workers, like the temporary workers. It could not take into consideration that, actually, those workers had something to gain here. It was not just a matter of 1 day—and the Minister has pointed out in press releases that it is only 1 day and that it is not much money. Well, to these people it actually would have been a lot of money, and, actually, to many of these people it would have been more than just 1 day.

Here we are in November, heading into Christmas, and that Government is so mean-spirited that now it has denied them the opportunity to make that claim, and what a difference it could have made to their families. I have spoken to so many people out and about. There are lots of people who may have gone on a benefit once over the last 17 years, maybe even twice, who, actually, have said to me: “I wouldn’t have made a claim.” But it is not about whether or not they would have made it; it is about ensuring that natural justice does prevail and that they were given the opportunity to actually do it.

That is why we put the Supplementary Order Paper up. We understand the Government’s need to correct this technical error in the legislation. We support that. But what we could not support is the fact that it was going to deny the groups of New Zealanders whom I talked about in this speech the natural justice that they deserve. All we asked was for a 6-week window for those people to be able to put in a claim. All we asked was that the Government provide that 6-week window by delaying the commencement date of the bill by 6 weeks, and it is so mean-spirited that it could not even agree to that one small ask from us. We have nothing to gain in doing this. We did it because it is the right thing to do, and all we hoped was that the Government would acknowledge that it was the right thing to do as well.

We have had several speeches tonight from my colleagues, and from colleagues in the Opposition parties, talking about this idea: what if this was retrospective legislation that applied to businesses? Would the Government be so quick to enact such retrospective legislation if that was the case? Of course it would not. And do you know what? The unfortunate thing is that if it was retrospective legislation that might apply to businesses, they would have the means by which to take out a case against the Government, they would have the influence to change the Government’s mind or to force it not to do it. But, unfortunately, we are talking about New Zealanders here who do not necessarily have the means, they do not necessarily know what is happening in Parliament, and they do not necessarily know how the decisions we make affect their everyday lives. The Government knows that. The Government knows that the beneficiaries we are talking about who stand to lose here are often, unfortunately, the people with the quietest voices.

I want to finish this final speech by just, again, expressing my disappointment in the Government. We really did want to work with the Government on this. I also want to just thank people out there who have been pushing this as quickly and as hard as they can to anyone who might be eligible—all of the beneficiary advocates. Particularly I want to acknowledge Kay Brereton, who brought this to my attention, who brought this to the media’s attention, who brought this to the attention of the House. She has done a fantastic job advocating for beneficiaries. There are 8,500 beneficiaries who now have their claims in. The only reason they really started to come in in numbers is because the Ministry of Social Development did start to pay out and people realised that, actually, this is not a hoax and they may actually be eligible for some money, and Kay Brereton is responsible for getting the word out.

I also want to acknowledge the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. It put the word around to the unions as well. The meatworkers union, I know, put the word out because it has a lot of workers who are on work and then off work and then forced to have to go on benefit, and so may have a number of stand-down periods as well. To all those who have tried to get the word out there, I want to acknowledge them. And, finally, I just want to say “No thanks.” to the National Government for being so mean-spirited, and I am very disappointed—

I am sorry to interrupt the member. Her time has expired.

I rise to take a call in the third reading of the Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill. I do so because one of the things I want to make a point about, which has been made, is that we know and we have talked about the date of 1998. So like a previous member of the House who actually went to the Hansard, I too decided it would be of some interest to look at the Hansard of 1998—and it was on 14 May.

It was the Hon Roger Sowry who was the Minister of Social Welfare who put this legislation through. I want to just take a couple of lines out of that and this is what he says: “The bill also extends work obligations to some groups of beneficiaries with expectations about their capacity to take up part-time work.” So that was the intent of the bill. There was a sense that there was going to be welfare change. He also concludes his speech and contribution saying: “In conclusion, the changes to welfare benefits contained in this bill herald a radical change in the direction of welfare in New Zealand.” So that has not changed—the intent of that bill. Obviously it is the technical aspect of that bill that is of some concern.

As I was reading through the Hansard with some interest, not looking on Facebook and so forth, I actually came up to the Rev. Ann Batten from New Zealand First. I thought that New Zealand First and Mr Darroch Ball may have some interest there. This is what she said: “One thing I’ve learnt in my time here is just how shallow and simplistic the howls of outrage that emanate from Opposition parties often are whenever the Government attempts to make any improvements whatsoever.” So I think that there is some precedent there that Mr Darroch Ball is taking—that the Rev. Ann Batten, a member of New Zealand First, also too was in support of this bill and that is what she was saying there.

💬 Barbara Stewart: Years ago. Years ago.

That is just here in Hansard, Barbara, so I think that is important. One of the things that I think is important that also has been raised, and also came through in some of the 26 speeches in the Committee stage by the Labour Party members, was the need for urgency. Again, how wonderful history is. I know that Mr Faafoi is a great historian. He loves reading history though—

💬 Kris Faafoi: Someone’s going to be history.

OK—and here is what it says. The attack from the Opposition was around the fact that here we are, in urgency, not going through the select committee process. Well, in 2003 there was the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill. I know that the Hon Ruth Dyson will remember this, and in the first reading the Hon Rick Barker said this: “I move, That the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Because of the urgency accorded to this bill, it is the Government’s intention that the bill be passed through all stages without referral to a select committee.” Throughout this afternoon and into the evening we have heard from the Opposition about the fact that there was no robust process and about heading to select committee.

But it gets even better—and here are the little Ginsu knives—because here is the next one in 2006. That is right. They may not want to hear this. This is from the Hon Michael Cullen and this is the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill—in other words, that was the pledge card. Mr Cullen said: “I move, That the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill be now read for the first time.” There was a point of order around the fact that the National Government asked for the bill, because there was no bill at that time. The Hon Dr Cullen said this: “Speaking to the point of order, I say that a copy of this was made available to the National Party … this morning …”. There has been a lot of criticism about the process. I think that the honourable Minister, Anne Tolley, has actually been working alongside as well as possible with Carmel Sepuloni to try to come to some compromise and agreement about the intent of this bill.

I want to just finalise my comments by saying that this bill has been under urgency. We know the importance of the bill for that: 8,500 applications so far for review, and on average involving around $105. So there is not a point that is there. The Supplementary Order Paper by Jan Logie talked about the ability to advertise this. We know that there has been a promotional campaign by those departments, which has already begun—a few weeks—encouraging clients to seek reviews about their entitlements. The Government has made every step possible. It takes responsibility and, knowing the fact that this is a technical area that it needs to correct, we have ensured that as well as possible we can not only meet the needs of the requirements of the vision of this Government but also too meet the needs of those clients. I commend this bill in its third reading to the House.

All that last speaker, Alfred Ngaro, proves by his contribution is that he can read. That is all he proves. He makes no valid points. I want to say that one of the points that we made on this side of the House was that the Government MPs did not take a call throughout that whole Committee stage—

💬 Alfred Ngaro: I might need to talk to Ruth about that.

You might not need to. However, you should be defending your bill. After all the points that we raised I was sure that the member Alfred Ngaro, as the chairman of the select committee that saw the original bill, would have wanted to make a contribution. But no, Government MPs sit there and they throw the occasional lob but they do nothing constructive, when they have required us to sit in urgency to pass a bill that obviously does not require urgency. There has been no justification given to this House as to why urgency is required—none whatsoever.

We started the day debating the reason we were here for this particular bill, and it is really about a couple of phrases. The two phrases in contention are “on the day which” or “on the day after”. That is all this argument has been about for the whole of this debate. We know that when we go back to the original section 80BA of the Social Security Act—the principal Act—it says “on the day which”. So we have been having an argument for the last—how many hours has it been, Ruth Dyson? Several hours—to say that 17 years ago it was right, and it was implemented incorrectly for the last 17 or 18½ years.

It is a simple argument—let us fix it. Let us go back to 1998 and say: “You know what? All those people who missed out on that day, because of those two clauses, ‘on the day which’ or ‘on the day after’, the people who were actually paid on the day after, you know what, we are going to restore that. We are not going to say: ‘Hey, we found this out in 2014, and that is the day from which we are going to actually fix this.’ No, we are going to go back and have a look at the whole shebang and correct it from the beginning.” What has happened, because we have put that line in the sand and said that we are going to go from May 2014, is that there are a whole lot of people who have missed out on this, and there has been a lot of discussion about the principles of natural justice. They have been excluded from this process because of it.

The Minister said that, to date, they have received 8,500 claims. The previous speaker seemed to intimate that that is because of the work that the Government and the ministry have done. Well, actually, that is not correct. It is because of the work that beneficiary advocates have done and the word of mouth that has gotten out there as beneficiaries have been able to claim and receive what they are entitled to, that people have started to claim this process. But from tomorrow that stops for most of those people who should be included in this process. That is, frankly, unfair and not good enough. The Government takes responsibility just from the date that the mistake came to light and not actually from the date of the original error, which was when the bill was passed under urgency in 1998.

We could have actually provided a little bit more fairness in this process if we had looked at Supplementary Order Paper 142, submitted by Carmel Sepuloni, and Supplementary Order Papers 143 and 144, submitted by Jan Logie, to actually extend the period and give people an opportunity to review where they had been and what they had been doing, and potentially make a claim. We know that there are sections of the working population who are going to be impacted more than others, and those are the seasonal workers, those are workers who participate in school and education activities where their contracts cease at the end of term and they are clearly not able to engage in this process.

This piece of legislation came to the House with no regulatory impact statement, with no clarity that the policy intent was actually met through any evidence, there were no Cabinet papers to support it, and we have had to rely on the word of the Minister that the intent of the policy of the bill is actually that. This side of the House has been working all evening to look through Hansard for evidence. We have had nothing from the other side of the House, nothing at all. This has been a really truncated process when it did not need to be. We have had no external examination and we have had no official input whatsoever. It is a flimsy bill and it has been poorly drafted. We will be coming back to the House probably, in time, to fix it.

We have no idea how much this is going to cost us. There has been no financial examination of this bill whatsoever. There has been no financial examination of the cost of this whatsoever. If there has been, it has not been presented to the House, nor has it been provided to members to debate. That, surely, is not good enough. When we are spending the precious time of the House to debate this bill, surely we should know, and the people of New Zealand—the taxpayers of New Zealand particularly—should know what the fiscal implications of this bill are going to be. We have not had the opportunity to examine that. The resources of the Government are vast. They should have been used to ensure that members of the public were well informed about the implications for them and the opportunities for them to actually make claims, and not leave it up to our beneficiary advocates.

The Minister herself said that Kay Brereton had exhausted her electricity source trying to contact beneficiaries, and she applauded Kay Brereton for it. I was absolutely astonished. Surely that is the job of the Government to do that work, when it has clearly made a mistake and it needs to advise those who could benefit from that error being corrected. Surely, it was the job of the Government to do that.

This is the second of three bills that we will be passing through this House under urgency. Frankly, this one did not need to come to the House under urgency; it could have gone through the normal process. There are bills languishing on the Order Paper that are far more important and far more urgent. There has not been sufficient justification from this Government about why it needed to happen now. Clearly, the bill has been rushed. Clearly, there is a lack of evidence and a lack of a regulatory impact statement, and the other information that should have come to the House for a full and thorough examination has not occurred. There is not much more to say. We have well traversed this bill in the House. Unfortunately we will not be supporting it.

What a great privilege it is to be able to stand up here and make a couple of comments with regard to the third and final reading of the Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill. Was it not great to follow Alfred Ngaro, who put into context some of the interesting comments that we have heard in the last hour or so when he talked about a bit of history in regard to parties that have put historical, retrospective validating legislation into the House. For those who have been totally opposed to this, suddenly hearing some of their history repeated back to them, you could tell it was not particularly comfortable. It was a shame that he stopped. It was a shame he did not carry on for another 2 or 3 minutes.

We are retrospectively validating 17 years of policy intent. Of course, some of that covered our party, but, interestingly, it also covered the time when the Labour Government was in power, with the Minister for Social Development and Employment, Steve Maharey, and of course towards the end of that terrible Government, the Hon Ruth Dyson no doubt had officials come up and talk about the stand-down period being 7 days and the commencement of the benefit being on the 8th day. As the Minister she would have nodded and said: “Of course that is the policy intent. I’m glad the legislation reflects that.” Alas, though, a legislative error was subsequently identified, and, ultimately, we had to find the balance between fairness for those who have been caught up in that process and ensuring that what we come up with has appropriate fiscal prudence. We have done that. It is a great bill, and I commend the bill to the House.

It is with a certain amount of dismay that I stand and speak in the third reading of the Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill, which has been rushed through in urgency with a very shady process that preceded that. But before I start my final contribution on this bill I would also like to join the Minister for Social Development and the members on this side of the House who have acknowledged the beneficiary advocate Kay Brereton for her work in bringing this to the attention of the House.

The truth is that if she had not noticed this hidden in the bill, the advice that we had would not have alerted us to the significance of this bill, and we would not have connected this to the decisions of the court and been able to understand the true impact of this bill. Kay Brereton, as the Minister for Social Development acknowledged, is a woman who is doing a lot of work for people who are really struggling, and she is struggling herself. She has had, we have been informed by the Minister, her power cut off due to the financial consequences of her trying to inform New Zealanders of their right to have their entitlement reviewed. There is something just so deeply perverse about that situation, where a member of our community who is trying to look out for other people is living without power from the consequences of that, when this Government has refused to take action. That, to me, is not something to honour without acknowledging the Government’s responsibility in creating that situation.

What we are doing—it needs to be said again—in the House today is passing legislation that retrospectively removes the legally established rights of New Zealanders, for the primary purpose of saving this Government some money. We have heard on that side of the House: “Well, other parties have passed retrospective legislation; nothing to see here.” Well, yes, this House does pass retrospective legislation at times. I think that every time that happens, it needs very close scrutiny, and when that legislation is being passed retrospectively and removing rights for the most vulnerable New Zealanders, it deserves additional scrutiny. And I would say two wrongs never make a right, but that is the argument, and pretty much the depth of the argument that we have heard from the other side of the House. I really think we need to review how this has happened, and the process, in my final contribution.

There was legislation introduced under urgency on 3 June 1998. That legislation under what is now section 80BA of the Social Security Act said that the stand-down period applies in this way: for benefits to commence on the day on which the stand-down period ends, not the day after. For 18 years, since that law was passed, the Ministry of Social Development has been starting benefits on the day after that stand-down period, despite the fact that there is no room to misinterpret “the day on which the stand-down period ends”. I would ask anyone in this House to misinterpret that—to think that that meant “the next day”. Nobody could interpret it that way. But the Government has been paying as if it had said “the next day” for the last 18 years. I asked the Parliamentary Library to search the Hansard of the debates for discussion to clarify that that was the intent, because we have been told again and again and again from this side of the House that the intent, despite the clarity of that piece of legislation, was always for it to be the next day. There was not one mention in those Hansard debates that that referred to that clause—not one. We have not been provided any evidence of Cabinet decisions or discussions that would have illuminated that intent either. We have just been told that was the intent.

I think that if you are going to pass something under urgency that retrospectively removes people’s legally established rights, you need to provide some evidence, at the very least. I personally think the rule of law is pretty important. I think that actually for everything to work well in this country, we need our courts to be able to establish the law and interpret our legislation, and to have primacy of that, and for any Government to follow that law as it is written. Well, the courts established in May of last year—in 2014—that, in fact, the Government was misinterpreting the law. And here we are about to remove and change that law and remove up to that point all of the people’s rights to their legally established entitlements. After that, one of the very significant parts was that the Government continued denying people’s legal rights, despite the court having established it was misapplying the laws. And, again, that was established and went to court twice—not just once, twice—and the Government continued to deny people their legal entitlements.

Then over a year later on 29 July this year this Government introduced a bill called the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill, a title that, you know, would, obviously—not—provoke discussion of this issue that we have had in the House tonight, which brought in this retrospective law change. Submissions closed on 9 September. There were only 10 submissions, and only one of them, from Kay Brereton, actually recognised the significance of this clause and made a submission on it. So we are being told by the Government that there is no need for a select committee process in relation to this piece of legislation because that process has already been gone through and people had the chance to submit on it, even though what we have been given today is significantly different to the clause presented in the original bill. But even then it was so hidden that nobody knew. Nobody had the opportunity to submit and offer their views and their interpretation of the legislation. So then what we had was departmental advice that did not even alert us to the significance of it. Then the first media attention on this issue was on 16 September, prompted by Kay Brereton in relation to her submission. You know, we saw an operational change on 29 September, 13 days after this came to the media—what is that, 18 months after the court ruled that there needed to be a change in the policy enactment of the law.

We do not even have a regulatory impact statement relating to this. There has been very little opportunity for submissions, no opportunities for submissions on this actual bill, and no regulatory impact statement. Technically, the only ability for there not to be a regulatory impact statement is if this legislation makes no significant change to the law—well, of course it makes a significant change to the law, because that is what the Government said the intent of it is: to significantly change the law because it thinks the law is wrong—or for it to have little or no impact outside of the Government on real life’s people. Well, what this does is very, very significant. As soon as this passes—probably—and gets Royal assent in a day or so, there will be a group of people who will find out that they were entitled today to money from Work and Income. Some of the poorest people in New Zealand who could really, really do with some extra money will find out that today they were entitled to that money but, oh, sorry, the day has passed, the Royal assent has happened, and they are not entitled to it. That is what this legislation does. That impact is real. That impact is harsh. I think it has been said already that this is mean.

We put forward Supplementary Order Papers 143 and 144 to give the Government certainty by allowing people to have 6 months to get their application in and to require the Government to advertise that it was doing this. That would have given the Government certainty, some fiscal limitations, and ensured people’s trust in the public institutions and in this House. This piece of legislation fundamentally erodes people’s trust and confidence in our fundamentally important social security system, and it is with deep, deep disappointment we will be opposing this.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and take this call on the third reading of the Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supports this bill, and I will endeavour to outline why. My colleague’s contribution earlier in the first and second reading, and throughout the Committee stage of this simple bill is quite correct. This bill is merely seeking to amend a technical glitch and put in place a simple, fair, and clear process to fix this glitch.

New Zealand First has an amendment that basically asks the Government to automatically include those beneficiaries who, clearly, can be easily identified by the records of Work and Income New Zealand and will qualify for a payment under this bill we are debating tonight.

The purpose of this bill is relatively straightforward, as set out in the general policy statement, which is outlined in the departmental disclosure statement. The general policy statement reads: “This Bill amends the Social Security Act 1964 to correct, with retrospective effect to 3 June 1998, an error in the legislation that does not give effect to the policy intent that a benefit commences on the day after a stand down period ends as opposed to the day on which the stand down period ends. It also provides that certain people are protected from the effect of the retrospective amendment, including those who apply for a review of a decision of their commencement date before or in the case of benefit that commenced on or after 20 May 2014 within 6 weeks after the Bill comes into force.”

I have gone over this bill to get a clear understanding of the impact of the technical glitch this Government finds itself dealing with tonight. I noted the departmental disclosure statement asks valid key questions, especially in “Part Four: Significant Legislative Features”. Point 4.3 asks: “Does this Bill affect rights, freedoms, or impose obligations, retrospectively?”. Clearly, the answer is yes, it does. Point 4.3 goes on: “Provisions in the Bill have [a] retrospective effect, which could be seen as contentious, as generally legislation should operate prospectively [and] not retrospectively. However, in this case the retrospective provisions can be justified to ensure: [that] the Government policy intent is upheld, [that] practice and understanding that has been previously applied by the Ministry of Social Development is validated, [and that] financial costs to the Crown that were not anticipated are avoided. The amendment to section 80BA”—of the Social Security Act—“to correct the commencement date of a benefit so that a benefit commences on the day after a stand down period ends will be retrospective to 3 June 1998, in order to validate the Ministry of Social Development’s previous practice and decisions.”

It is the general understanding of New Zealanders that the Government has the legal and moral duty to pay beneficiaries what it says they are entitled to. Once this assessment is processed at Work and Income, people go into a stand-down period. Therein lies the problem: the stand-down period itself. From listening to previous members speaking it seems to be the sinking ship. Clearly, members do not agree with this mandatory stand-down period, which in many cases can, sadly, force people into the early stages of poverty.

This is one of the consequences and barriers that people in New Zealand face when they are standing in line to ask for assistance to keep a roof over their heads, meals on their tables, and shoes on their feet. I am referring to casual workers, teacher-aides, seasonal workers, freezing workers, people who have been made redundant, or people whose current job and current employer are just not a good fit. They go into Work and Income New Zealand to apply for a benefit and get hit with that mandatory stand-down period, and they hope like hell that the last 50, 60, or even 100 bucks will see them through the stand-down time.

I find it amazing that legislative muck-ups have occurred over many years under both National and Labour Governments, such as this bill we are debating tonight under urgency. To recap for those viewers watching, the Social Security Amendment Act (No 2) in 1998 amended section 80BA of the Social Security Act, and it incorrectly changed the wording to mean the day the stand-down ends. The wording change was not picked up until it was identified in a Social Security Appeal Authority’s decision in May 2014—and thank goodness too. Now, 18 months later, here we are under urgency, debating this amendment and fixing a retrospective law to simply close this loophole up for good.

The legislative error was unfortunate, and operational practice was changed from 29 September 2015 so that payments were technically in line with the wording of the law until legislative change is passed. This will now add clarity to Work and Income stand-down periods. I understand that it has always been Government policy that a benefit will commence the day after a stand-down period ends. For example, that means if you have a stand-down period of 5 days then your benefit will kick in on the sixth day. This I know—I am not doubting it—was how this legislation was intended to work, and, of course, the operational practices of Work and Income support should match up.

The Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill corrects the error with full retrospective effect to 3 June 1998. This, New Zealand First believes, addresses the unintended consequences to beneficiaries and the cost to taxpayers. It means that any beneficiary who has lodged a review of a decision related to a benefit commencement on or after the 1998 amendment and before the passing of corrective legislation will still have their review process in the usual way.

Just quickly before I finish, I do empathise with beneficiaries, because no matter which way this bill that is being debated under urgency tonight is covered, or how members in this House choose to debate this bill, comments on social media sites are already slamming them for expecting to benefit from the Government’s “honest mistake”. This has been an embarrassing oversight, and I am sure a regrettable moment on both the National Government’s and Labour Government’s books. New Zealand First supports this bill.

I rise to take a short call on this because, as was said by Poto Williams earlier on, this is a very simple bill. It does not need a lot of explanation. It has certainly been well canvassed for the 2 hours and 50 minutes that it took through the Committee stage—although there was not a lot said from this side of the House; the bill speaks for itself, you see. It does not need a lot of extra input because it has actually been well drafted and well put together by a good Minister who is dealing with what is actually, essentially, a very simple remedial matter.

On that, there is not a lot more to be said, other than the fact that this will actually put something right that needed putting right. It is good that we are getting it done quickly and getting it sorted, so that there is no more ambiguity going on for a long period of time. I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I would stand by a bill that would legislate to clarify current practice, but this is not that bill. As I said at the beginning of the first reading, retrospective legislation to deny people what is owed them is an affront to the rule of law. When that affront to the rule of law harshly impacts on those already doing it tough, then that is a stain on a civil society, on a transparent society, and a stain on good governance. This is bad governance because the Government cannot budget to meet its legal obligations.

I have applied for this legal entitlement, and will be paying forward all funds received to the Auckland Action Against Poverty group. The Auckland Action Against Poverty group is an advocate for those people with the least power and those people who have their power cut off, and without them supporting people like Kay Brereton this blunder would have stayed secret. Let us role model good governance, put right a wrong, and for people to receive their legal entitlement.

I have listened to the hours of this debate and the non-debate as well, and the silence, and I am disappointed that the standard being put forward by the Government is that: “Oh well, they did it too.” Really? Is that our standard? I do not think it should be at all. It is disappointing to know that this process of making decisions relies on people to stay disconnected and to feel that the legislation being proposed does not have relevance to the realities of their ordinary lives, and I am dismayed by that.

I do not want to forget—I do not want to forget—what it is like when $20, or when $10, will make a big difference. I remember scraping that together to feed a family of five. Actually, that is luxurious for many people—$20 is a luxurious family dinner for many people. I do not want to forget that. I hope this House does not just remember it but reaches back to that connection and understands those realities, and that we are relying on those people to feel disconnected from what we are doing here.

So this is another slap in the face for the tens of thousands of those not holding the balance of power, who have been consistently getting bad outcomes from this Parliament during the tenure of the current Government. It is time they received some help from this place, which is why I am proud to oppose this bill. Kia ora.

A 5-minute call—I call David Seymour.

I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this bill. We have had a couple of contributions from the Green members, characterised by melodrama and an exhibition of empathy. The reality is that there are always transaction costs for any kind of system. Whether it is a company or an insurance programme, there is actually a cost of administering it and making the connections between the different parts of the machinery that need to be made. And that is one of the reasons that in most systems people design we have a statute of limitations. We say that things that happened a long time ago are going to be very, very costly to relitigate now, and so we are going to draw a line at some point in the past and not litigate prior to that.

If you would like a practical example, what we are dealing with here is a kind of insurance scheme where, if you fall on hard times, you get a benefit from the Government. If, for example, my car insurance company was to tell me that it was going to put up my premiums and add excessive costs to me and everybody else who contributed to the company so that it could relitigate a very large number of low-value claims stretching back 17 years, then the common-sense, empathic response from someone who really cares about the long-term overall welfare of the people of Aotearoa New Zealand would be to say: “That is not a good use of resources.” They would not come into this House and give us melodrama and exhibit their flow of empathy; they would actually say that is not a good use of resources.

What we are doing here in this House tonight is saying that, rather than paying excessive transaction costs to relitigate long-lost transactions that happened a long time ago, we are actually going to set a statute of limitations and move on and deal with the real business of empathically serving New Zealanders with an efficient welfare State. That is what this bill is about. Hopefully one day the Green Party members will pull their heads out and support similar sensible measures. Thank you.

I am taking this short call to support this bill in its third reading. The 1996 tax reduction and social policy legislation technically provided for the benefit stand-down period to finish a day earlier than it is intended to, but the explanatory note clearly states that the stand-down period should be a full calendar week. That means it should be for 7 days; that means the benefit should start after the 7 days of the stand-down period finish. So we see that the practice has been in line with the intention of the bill, but the legislation has not been in line with the bill. It is important that people are treated equally under the law and that the legislation reflects the treatment that people receive.

It is unfortunate that since 1998—since we had this practice—this was not picked up by any Government, until last year when it was picked up by the court. We know that the promotional campaign is already on to inform people, inform clients of Work and Income, that they have the opportunity to seek a review of their entitlement regarding the stand-down period.

Finally, I want to thank all the people, those who have put in the effort to bring this bill before the House under urgency. I support this bill and I commend it to the House.

The explanatory note of this legislation says that this bill gives effect to the policy intent of the original legislation passed—well, the debate occurred on 14 May 1998, but it came into effect on 3 June 1998. This whole debate, and this whole legislation, has been predicated by the premise that there was a clear policy statement from the 1990s National Government that it was its intention that the stand-down period should last a full 7 days. I do not think a single member of this House has been able to find any evidence that that was, in fact, the policy intent. The only reference that we have to turn to, to try to find out what the policy intent of the Government at the time was, is the Hansard. I have spent a fair amount of time this evening, as I have been listening to the debate, thumbing through the relevant Hansard, and there is no reference at all to the stand-down period or to what the length of the stand-down period should be—certainly not in the Minister’s speeches, and it is the Minister’s speeches to the House that we often go to, to find out what the policy intent actually is, and there is no reference in there at all.

At the outset, the purpose of this legislation stood on very, very shaky ground indeed. Then we have a variety of other issues that have been raised throughout the debate this evening. Principal of those is that if it was the policy intent of the then National Government for the stand-down period to be a full 7 days, and if this was a genuine mistake, then it was a mistake born of rushed legislation. The original legislation was passed under urgency—actually, during Budget urgency, which appears to me to be a gross abuse of Budget urgency because this was not a Budget measure at all. It was passed under urgency, and it was not shown to the Opposition until a few hours before the debate took place. This is the kind of error that occurs when you push things through under urgency. In a way, it is deeply ironic that the current National Government is seeking to fix a mistake made by a previous National Government—a mistake that was made under urgency—by passing legislation under urgency; legislation that the Opposition has not had an opportunity to scrutinise properly, which we have been given no regulatory impact statement for, which we have been given no background documents for, and which we have a very, very scant departmental disclosure statement for. We are at risk once again of making bad law that is not fit for purpose and that does not actually achieve the policy intent that is being stated by the Government.

I wonder what would have been the harm of taking this legislation to a select committee, because it has been more than a year and a half since the Government actually realised that it was acting illegally—and let us be clear about that. I have heard from members opposite that this is just a technical amendment to tidy up a technical mistake. That is not quite the truth. The truth is that the Government has been acting illegally, the Government has been acting illegally for some 17 years, and Governments of both hues have been acting illegally. But the interesting thing is that when this Government discovered that it was acting illegally, it made a conscious decision to continue acting illegally, and it was only after that illegal action became publicly apparent that this Government decided to take action. So I think that speaks to the values of this Government. It is one thing to make a mistake; it is another to know that you are acting illegally and to continue to do so and hope that you can hide it from the public for as long as possible and act only when that information becomes publicly available. That is what the Government has done.

This is more than a technical amendment; this is actually retrospectively making legal what was illegal, and, through that process, denying people who have been adversely affected by the improper implementation of the legislation, as it was enacted back in 1998, the opportunity to seek compensation for the illegal activities of the Government. So when members opposite get up and make very brief speeches about how this is nothing more than a technical amendment, I say that there is nothing that could be further from the truth. Nothing could be further from the truth, because that Government knowingly acted illegally and in a way that detrimentally affected the incomes of potentially thousands of New Zealanders. We know from the one bit of information that the Minister was able to give us that over 8,000 people have made claims within the narrow opportunity that is available for people to make claims. That is 8,000 people. That will be a tiny subset of the total number of people who have been affected by this legislation.

There is another thing that I also want to challenge, which members opposite have been saying throughout the debate, and it is that this legislation is about a large number of very small claims. I think that was the thrust of the ACT Party leader’s contribution: that these are small claims that are of no real significance, and that Parliament and the Ministry of Social Development should not waste resources on dealing with them. In fact, what we suspect—and what we really know; again, we do not have details—is that there will be a group of people who are severely and adversely affected by this.

I know this is a source of great amusement for National Party members, but there are a number of vulnerable working people who are severely and adversely affected by this, and those are people who are on temporary work, people who move in and out of fixed-term contracts, people who are on temporary contracts, people who get work through labour hire companies, and people who move in and out of work on a regular basis, because every time they move out of work and have to apply for a benefit, the stand-down period applies to them. We have had the example of teacher-aides, but there will be numerous other examples of people who, by the nature of their work, move in and out of work and they will have had a number of these days where they have been illegally denied income through the benefit system, and that will total up. Over 17 years—moving in and out of work maybe 5 times a year—there could very well be some people who have been significantly impacted by this. Again I say it is a source of amusement for the National Party; that is not so for those of us on this side of the House. We are actually concerned that there are people out there who have been severely and adversely affected by the failure of this Government to appropriately address this illegal activity that the Government has been engaging in.

As I said, I have been looking through the Hansard, looking for any indication that it was the Government’s original intention for the stand down to be 7 days, not 6 days. I could not find any, but I did find this, and I think it is an appropriate way to finish this debate. It is a quote from my predecessor and friend the Hon Steve Maharey, who said at the time, during this debate: “This Government wants to see beneficiaries be the fall guys for its faults. This Government wants the victims of this Government to pay for what it is not able to achieve. There is no opportunity in this Bill. There is no chance for a person to get a decent job with a living wage. There is nothing about families in this Bill. There is nothing about getting ahead in this Bill. It is all about the Government saying: ‘We can’t get the economy to grow, we can’t give you a chance to get a job, we can’t get wages to go up, and beneficiaries are going to wear it.’ ” Those words are as true today as they were in 1998, and that, I think, is a very appropriate way to finish this debate on what is an appalling bill, which has been a shambolic process to tidy up a classic National Party shambles.

This has clearly been a long night. I think one of the members over there is almost asleep and dreaming, given those last few words. It is actually my pleasure to have the last words in this debate, and it has been a wide-ranging debate. I think there has been agreement across the House that there is an error in the legislation, and the issue is now how far back the decision goes, as far as the applications for review. Being a good Minister and a good Government is about balance, and we have an excellent Minister for Social Development, who has struck the right balance. With that, it is my pleasure to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.