Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair—good choice, if I may say so. After that humble start, I’ll proceed quickly to clause 188 within Part 4, being, obviously, within the proposed amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 25 to the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. This is an important clause, and, indeed, an important part, because these are factors affecting benefits. In the case of clause 188, we’re turning our minds to situations in which the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) may refuse or cancel a benefit of a person if that person is not ordinarily resident in New Zealand. So there are serious consequences for a person who is affected by this clause.

I’ll speak to the amendment that I have in my name regarding that clause in detail in a moment, but first I’d just like to note that the way that the clause operates is significant to the comments that I wish to make. First, subclause (1) talks about situations in which MSD can refuse to grant a benefit, cancel it, and so forth if a person is “not ordinarily resident in New Zealand.” Elsewhere, we can find some guidance as to what the phrase “not ordinarily resident in New Zealand” means. However, the importance of subclause (2) is that it provides an exception to that. In that sense, it’s an exception to an exception. So we’re talking about situations in which the section by which the MSD may refuse or cancel a benefit, and so forth, does not apply.

The paragraph labelled (a) currently reads “New Zealand superannuation payable to a person resident in a specified Pacific country under section 31 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001”, and then it adds some detail in brackets. So that’s saying that the exception to the exception applies in such cases.

The first aspect of my amendment focuses on the fact that the word “payable” actually has a narrow meaning in the sense that it does not necessarily capture a situation in which a person is already being paid New Zealand superannuation. Now, if we look in the context of the whole subclause, in the first paragraph, listed (aaa), which I note sounds like someone who is hard of hearing and has a stutter—“Eh, eh, eh?”—we’re talking about “New Zealand superannuation being paid”. The next one, (a), is “New Zealand superannuation payable”. The third paragraph, (ab), is “a veteran’s pension being paid”. Again, the distinction is not contained within that one clause in relation to a veterans pension that is “payable”, as is stated in the fourth paragraph, simply labelled “(b)”. Finally, in the next paragraph, (c), it is “a benefit payable under any reciprocity agreement”—to me that perhaps should be “reciprocal agreement”, which is why I stumbled perhaps a little—“with another country adopted by an order made under section 359”.

So within that single section, we’ve got a number of different ways in which we can see that the legislation deals with people who are receiving, or may be eligible to receive, such benefits as are listed within it. The significance is that in looking to apply this law, and if it were to be challenged by a person who’s had the exception invoked upon them and their benefit stopped, notwithstanding that they are not ordinarily resident in New Zealand, we need the clarity, we need the breadth, and we need the certainty that says, in any of those situations, whether you are merely eligible to be receiving those payments or you are, in fact, receiving them, you are, in any case, able to claim the protection that is intended under the clause.

I do believe—and I invite the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, to agree or disagree with me as she will—it is the intention of this provision to enable these sorts of broad exceptions, and, to that end, in each case, I believe we should see stated clearly “payable or being paid”. So that’s the intent of the first aspect of my amendment.

Turning now to the second aspect, but in the same subclause, we see, under the words “of that Act”, referring specifically to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act—[Bell rung] Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to continue this contribution. Addressing the second part of that amendment, the reason that I’m proposing to the Minister that we have additional wording there is, again, for certainty but also flexibility in a situation in which that might arise.

So, currently, to recap in terms of the meaning of that particular subclause, we’re talking about New Zealand superannuation that is payable, or, as I’ve proposed a moment ago, being paid, to a person who is in a specified Pacific country. I’ll just pause for a moment to note that there are good reasons that we allow such exemptions to people in those certain Pacific countries, reflecting the nature of our relationship in New Zealand with peoples of those countries. Referring, however, to that particular Act and, actually, within it—more specifically, section 31 of that Act—we’re not allowing ourselves, as a legislature, if we pass it in that form without my amendment, to contemplate that there might be a situation in which an equivalent piece of legislation comes onto the statute book and replaces that. And yet, in that situation, what we would want to happen, I’m sure—I’m sure the Minister intends that to be the case, and I can see it in her eyes now. The intention, as I say, is that this equivalent provision would still actually apply.

The wording of my amendment, that second part of it, is very deliberate and very specific along those lines. I have said, or proposed to say, “or under any other equivalent legislative provision in replacement thereof”. The word “or” obviously indicates the flexibility. We want that situation not only where the current legislation being referred to remains in force but also contemplating that a future Parliament might change that, and not wanting to bind the hands of a future Parliament. The words “any other” indicate that, actually, we want to be expansive in our idea of how we can sort of contemplate that this might arise, such that this would be replaced, and I don’t imagine that this Parliament would pass legislation to exclude the benefit of those who are in other Pacific countries that meet the criteria, but it is possible. So if we say “any other equivalent legislation” then we cover ourselves to the maximum extent possible and there are no unintended consequences in terms of people in those nations but otherwise applicable to this Act being excluded.

The next little piece of wording within my amendment that I’d like to focus on is the phrase “legislative provision”. You can imagine that I spent quite some time thinking about how better to express my very earnest desire not to have any unintended consequences as far as that’s concerned, and I settled eventually on the phrase “legislative provision” because, again, I’m desiring to be as broad as possible so far as that is concerned. If I had said “another Act”, if I’d said “a statute”, then I would be indicating that it would only be another piece of primary legislation that would trigger this effective alternate reality, if I could put it like that, where this exception to the exception could apply. Instead, I say “legislative provision” because I also want to include the notion that a regulation made under the authority of this House but by a Minister—technically, of course, by the Governor-General under Order in Council, but, in any case, a legislative provision that is not primary legislation. Of course, regulations, as we all know, no doubt, are legislation too—they’re secondary legislation, and, of course, we have such a thing as tertiary legislation, so I note, again, with the intention that any relevant and equivalent provision would actually be caught by this change that I’m proposing today.

So I conclude with the hope, indeed, the desire, that the Minister will be able to speak to that and just to confirm, in the first instance, that her intention is, as I’ve expressed it to be, as I genuinely think it is, no doubt, in good faith—the Minister is intending that as many people who are intended to be eligible will be eligible. So it is that I’m making this proposal, first, that not only people who are in fact being paid or eligible to be paid but also both of those things—and also so that any legislative changes that are made don’t inadvertently exclude the intent of the section.

OK, well, this is the only amendment I’ve seen for this part so far, and I do want to commend Chris Penk, because he has brought an amendment here that is so incredibly policy-neutral that it does nothing. Effectively, what you’ve got here, in terms of what he’s trying to do—it doesn’t change anything. Adding “that is being paid” does not add anything, as in order to be paid, it must be payable in the first place. So, actually, it doesn’t add anything new. It is so neutral that it changes nothing, and so therefore it is redundant.

The second part of it, in terms of the member wanting to futureproof with respect to any changes that might be made to secondary legislation or through regulation—the reality is that if those changes are made, then any other additional changes that need to be made throughout the legislation are also looked at. So there’s no need to futureproof it, because that can be done at the time those hypothetical changes would be made. I will just end it at that.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to be able to take a call on the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. I’ve got a few questions that I would like to ask in regards to Part 4, but, firstly, I just thought that Chris Penk made an excellent contribution in relation to his amendment, and I was a little uncertain around what the Minister, Carmel Sepuloni, means by policy-neutral, because his amendment is an excellent one, and it is policy-neutral. Earlier on this afternoon, I heard the Minister complaining about amendments not being policy-neutral, and now we get one which is policy-neutral but it’s so policy-neutral that it’s not a good one!

So I think the House would benefit from some description as to what the Minister determines to be policy-neutral and what the Minister doesn’t determine to be policy-neutral, because I think there’s a bit of confusion being given by the Minister. We’ve got a number of amendments, and these relate to the bill very clearly—trying to improve it, trying to make it better. We want to ensure that this legislation is put through in the best possible form, as any good Opposition would want to do, so having a definition of what policy-neutral means would help us and assist us in this debate as it continues, and I’m sure it will continue for quite some time.

I have a couple of questions, and my questions relate to clauses 203 and 203A. These clauses relate to benefits not being payable while a beneficiary is absent from New Zealand. Rightfully so, there are some exceptions to this rule. Those exceptions relate to those who are receiving New Zealand superannuation, veterans support, and any reciprocal agreement with another country. So there’s a number of exceptions to that rule. And then a new clause has been added in by Supplementary Order Paper 25, section 203A, which relates to the winter energy payment. There are a few questions that I’d like to ask.

My first question is whether that’s a policy-neutral change which has been made by the Government, because that’s a big debate—it’s a big debate, the policy behind the winter energy payment. The Minister has made it very clear that this bill is not about changing policy—it’s policy-neutral—however, that was a budgetary measure which was put through. The Opposition opposed it. It was an election promise. There is a lot of debate over whether it should be. I mean, we had questions in question time over this issue. So to have something which has been questioned about in question time by the Opposition, and then to argue that it’s policy-neutral is something which I think is a little bit of a stretch, and I would like the Minister to clarify whether this section is policy-neutral, and, if so, why it is policy-neutral.

💬 Greg O’Connor: You’re confusing it with being policies-neutral.

Well, you’ve got very weird policies on the other side of the House, don’t you, Mr Greg O’Connor?

So the next question I’d like to ask is around why the decision was made for it to be four weeks during the winter period. So if someone is eligible and receiving it—there’s the opt-out clause there as well, but if someone is receiving it and they leave the country for four weeks, then they become non-eligible. So why was the decision made for four weeks?

I guess that flows on to my second question, which is: how is that measured? Is there a registrar for registering that you’re going to be overseas? Is that information picked up by customs? I’d find it helpful if the Minister could clarify how that information is collected and how the ministry or the department—I think it’s the chief executive has to be satisfied. In clause 203A(2)(b): “the chief executive is satisfied that the 1 or more absences do not affect the beneficiary’s eligibility for the payment under section 65C.” So I’d appreciate some guidance from the Minister on how the chief executive is satisfied in relation to the winter energy payment—that they know that the person has been away for four weeks.

So there are a number of questions, but basically it’s the process for the information in relation to the winter energy payment. I guess, what measures are in place to ensure that the payment is then stopped? Does that automatically happen? Because I understand that you don’t automatically opt out; you have to physically opt out. It’s not an opt-in scheme; it’s an opt-out scheme. So is someone warned or are they given a letter to say that they are no longer going to receive that payment from a particular time? So there’s a number of questions around how that then affects their benefit. Is it automatically cut? What is the measure? Thank you very much.

I’ll just be quickly speaking to some of the factors. I’m a little bit confused about the issues the member Simeon Brown has raised, as I’m not entirely sure if they lie with Part 4, but I will respond to some of them. With respect to why the 28 days was settled upon for absence overseas, it was because that’s consistent with other policies. So currently you need to inform if you are going to be overseas for 28 days with respect to the disability allowance and accommodation supplement as well. So this is about consistency, and that’s what we want to ensure that we have with our social security legislation.

He has asked how introducing the winter energy payment could be deemed policy-neutral. Keep in mind that at the time the previous Government did the rewrite, the winter energy payment didn’t exist. It was something that was introduced by this Government, so of course it has to factor into the legislation; that’s just an absolute necessity.

And, also, he has asked about how people will inform if they’ve been overseas. Well, it’s really interesting that you ask that question, because the process that we’ve undertaken to ensure that people are informed about the winter energy payment and what they’re entitled to has really significantly increased the number of people informing the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) of things like the fact that they will be overseas. So, with regard to the winter energy payment, letters went out to everyone. On an average week prior to that letter going out, MSD was being informed of, on average, 125 people who were saying they were going to be leaving the country for 28 days or longer. And following that letter, it’s increased to 800 per week that are contacting MSD to let them know that they’ll go overseas.

So in many ways this has been a bit of an awareness-raising exercise, and, probably, prior to this many didn’t know that they were supposed to inform MSD of the fact that they were going away. So I think that that is an indication and a lesson to all of us that we do need to keep people informed about how they maintain eligibility, because not everyone knows that. So this exercise has been very successful in doing that.

Going back to Part 4, because, as I said, I’m not really sure if Simeon Brown was speaking to Part 4—

💬 Simeon Brown: Section 203—have you read your Act?

I do want to just cover off what are the essential changes in this rewrite that you would think—that we would think—that the Opposition would be interested in, but Simeon Brown is yelling out, unnecessarily, things that are irrelevant to this debate.

So, as I said, what is important to note is that Part 4 outlines provisions and factors affecting benefits. The bill as introduced contains two minor and technical changes which we would assume that the Opposition would be speaking to. That is, clarifying that where a non-beneficiary client has an outstanding warrant for their arrest and is a risk to public safety, their supplementary assistance will be stopped immediately with no 50 percent protection for any dependent children. And the term “shared custody of a dependent child” has been updated to “shared care”.

Can I just say that this is a really good indication of the good faith in which we came into this, because some of the policies that exist in the legislation as part of the previous Government’s administering of the social development sector are not necessarily things that we agree with, but when we are undertaking a policy-neutral rewrite, that is not the time to turn all of that upside down. So some of these measures that are in here that we are tidying up but not necessarily changing to any great extent—or not changing to any great extent—may be things that are considered as part of the welfare overhaul. Because, as I said, it’s not that we agree with every policy that’s in here, but during a policy-neutral rewrite—that is not the time to try and make those changes. So that is the good faith in which we entered this exercise.

Oh! Makes a change, Alfred. Hey, thank you very much. Look, two things need to be very quickly noted to the Minister who’s just resumed her chair—and thank you for her response to Simeon Brown. Mr Brown was referring to clause 203, which sits within Part 4. I think it’s incorrect to be suggesting that his discussion about the “General rule: benefit not payable while beneficiary absent from New Zealand” is out of scope. That isn’t correct, nor is it out of part.

Secondly, as my contribution will indicate, there’s more to Part 4 in terms of changes than simply the two that the Minister has pointed out. I’ll be tabling a number of Supplementary Order Papers (SOP)—and I know that other colleagues are at the moment—around this.

So I want to spend a little bit of time, if I might, in Part 4 on clause 192, just to help the Minister there—192 in Part 4, before clause 203, which is also in Part 4. This is to do with the “Beneficiary resident in institution for treatment of alcoholism or drug addiction”.

💬 Hon Member: Is it the AA, eh?

So it’s not the AA, eh, which is referred to earlier by Christopher Penk. What is important is that the changes being made—and I suppose I’m just wanting to seek some clarity from the Minister, which may take the time over the dinner break—is they have removed in the SOP the reference to the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act 1966 and also reference to the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, and to replace it, which I think is well-meaning, with the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 2017. I think the intention of the Minister is obviously to apply what is seen as a more updated Act in this space. I am wondering, as the former chair of the Health Committee who stewarded the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill through the House, that there may be at least two misunderstandings at play that would require some alteration.

So I have SOP 34 tabled at the moment, which is suggesting we go back to the original wording. That is, that we have clause 192 referencing the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act 1966 and the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. It’s possible that a further SOP might be needed in order to make sure we can bring in the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 2017. As I say, there are two important factors which need to be addressed. One is timing of the substance addiction Act of 2017. The second is a fuller understanding of—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member the time has come for me to leave the chair for the dinner break. Committee will resume at 7.30 p.m.

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

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Colleagues, the House is resumed in committee for the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. Before the dinner break, we were debating Part 4. Simon O’Connor had the call, and he has two minutes and two seconds remaining.

I’ll take it.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call Simon O’Connor.

Thank you very much. I’m not sure that’ll be the best decision of the night, but I’m pleased you have.

I was talking on Part 4, clause 192(3) in particular. It was around the decision of the Minister to change references to the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act 1966 and the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 and to instead replace it with the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 2017. And I was signalling to the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, before the bell rang that I had two particular issues to raise. None is particularly political; it’s more just trying to get an understanding of whether the right decision has been made about bringing this more recent legislation in.

I suspect it is simply a belief that this new substance addiction Act of 2017 is more timely and, therefore, will help around the treatment of alcoholism or drug addiction, but the two elements are to do with the dates—particularly when the substance addiction Act comes into force, and the second is around whether or not that new legislation is broad enough for, actually, the treatment of alcoholism and drug addiction.

You’ll excuse me, Madam Chair, as I attempt to pull up, hopefully, still, my notes—there we go. So the first element around this new bill is the timing. So I wouldn’t mind the Minister clarifying, if they can. The Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act was something that had come through the Health Committee when I was chair and, very importantly, a number of elements of that legislation to do with the treatment around drug and alcohol, actually do not come into force until at least a year after Royal assent is given.

So we’re now switching to the legislation that’s referenced here—the substance addiction Act. The commencement date says “this Act comes into force on the day that is the first anniversary of the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” So I suppose what I would like some clarification from the Minister or her officials on, if possible, is just a complete understanding that, while rightly including the substance addiction Act of 2017 into this amendment, many parts of it, Minister, are actually not in play at the moment. They’re not actually in force.

Some sections are. Sections 4 and 86 through to 96, along with sections 116—[Bell rung] Thank you very much. So some parts of this substance addiction Act are in force, but a goodly number are still not in force. So I suppose I think we want to avoid a situation where, through this social legislation rewrite bill, we’re not referencing or an Act now which is not in force. And fundamentally, and I think rightly, we’re here to try and treat those with alcohol and drug problems; you can’t fully do that—or someone can’t fully do that—under an Act which is not fully in force.

The second element moves away from the date per se but to the nature of what this substance addiction Act is in comparison to the drug addiction Act of 1966. I think it’s really important to understand—and I’m very happy to be corrected on this—the substance addiction bill this Parliament passed is for the absolute top-end addicts. This is not an Act which is designed to help all people with drug and alcohol problems, and this is where I think we’re running into slight problems, potentially.

The social rewrite bill is using that substance addiction Act in terms of how we treat alcoholism and drugs. It is only designed, as a piece of law, to affect the absolute highest end drug addiction. We’re not talking the alcoholic or the drug addict who goes to Alcoholics Anonymous, or something. We’re talking about, if I might, someone who has neuroadaptation to the substance. This means someone whose brain chemistry has been so affected by alcohol that they can no longer function. They’re craving for a substance, have had multiple unsuccessful efforts to control that substance, and, importantly, out of the Act, use the substance despite several harmful consequences.

What we’re talking about here, Minister—and you may well know it already, so I’m sorry to be presumptuous—is someone with such an alcohol or drug dependency that they have literally fallen down the stairs multiple times, multiple fractures, and are continuing to try and get alcohol. So I suppose what I’m highlighting to the committee is that it’s good that it’s been mentioned—the substance addiction Act, here in the social rewrite bill in clause 192—but it’s only aimed at looking after a very small, very particular group of people. So perhaps if I put it another way, the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act is very broad. It provides and manifests ways to help people with those addictions right across the panoply of care, whereas the substance addiction one that has now been inserted does not. It is only focusing on a very narrow—very narrow—group of people.

And finally, which I think is important—well, actually, it’s the third one that’s jumped to mind. A lot of it’s actually about the detaining of people. The whole point of this substance addiction Act 2017 is to, effectively, detain a person who has such a high level of alcohol and drug abuse. I don’t think that’s the intended aspect of this social security rewrite bill. I don’t think the Minister, or anyone, is actually wanting that those coming to the Ministry of Social Development who are getting treatment for alcohol and drugs are going to be subject to that sort of high-level treatment.

So, fundamentally, it’s asking: why are we putting that particular Act in place? Why are we not keeping to the more general Act of 1966 around alcohol and drug harm? I think that’s the general question. Then the specific questions, in three parts, are the dates and an appreciation that many elements of the substance addiction Act are not yet in force. They will become in force probably in about—what are we in at the moment? July—probably in September or October this year. I assume we might be up to about Part 7 of this rewrite bill by then, but I think it’s important that it’s in play.

The second part of it is, ultimately, an appreciation that the substance addiction Act is not for all alcoholics and drug users; it’s for that absolute high end—I probably could count, Minister, on two hands the number of people who fall within the ambit of that legislation.

And then, finally, an appreciation that even if it’s correct to have that Act referenced here instead of the drug addiction Act, it’s about detaining New Zealanders in some ways, and it’s something that the Health Committee really spent a lot of time over. It’s about detaining people, in a sense, against their will.

So it doesn’t, to me, quite fit here in section 192—that swapping out. I could imagine it would be part of it, but not a complete—[Time expired]

Thank you, Madam Chair. As we are now debating in the committee Part 4 of this bill, I just want to reflect on comments that were actually made by the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, just prior to the dinner break. And I suppose the comments created a little bit of a concern, but, also, I’d be interested to get some clarity from the Minister, when she stands, to then address some of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) and the issues that have been raised in regards to Part 4. She was reflecting on the welfare overhaul. She was talking about elements of the social security rewrite legislation that is before the committee, and then she also indicated that there are elements of it that she did not agree with; in fact, she was quite clear that, actually, they would change at a later time, but that at the moment they just needed to get through.

I’d like to remind the Minister that the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill is the most significant rewriting of the legislation in a number of years. In order to be able to make those changes, I’m just wondering whether the Minister can clarify what changes she would make, because I would think that she would take the opportunity now to be able to make those changes. So that’s the first thing I’d like to, sort of, see: whether the Minister can talk about that.

The second thing that would be important, as we are now continuing the debate, is what’s come up in responses from the Minister, in regards to her responses to SOPs that we’ve put forward—she’s ruled them out because they are not policy-neutral. Yet, when our colleague here, Chris Penk, put forward an amendment that was policy-neutral, it was not acceptable. I know my colleague Simeon Brown asked the Minister—and I hope that she will be able to take the opportunity to do that—to clarify what she deems as being policy-neutral. So that we can continue to, sort of, look forward to our SOPs—at least having the opportunity to be able to have some form of debate on them, and maybe have some consideration by the Minister.

So my contribution at this time is just in regards to an SOP in the name of the Hon Louise Upston, who can’t be here this evening. This SOP is in regards to Part 4, clause 191. Just to give you the context of this, this particular clause of the bill talks about “Factors affecting benefit: hospitalisation”. It talks about “Hospitalisation” in clause 190—“The main benefit under this Act of a person … is affected by hospitalisation”. It gives, under that clause—those who are dependants, those who are spouses inside of that. It then talks further on, in clause 191—“Benefit of spouse or partner increased after 13th week of hospitalisation”—“(1) This section applies if—(a) a person’s … main benefit under this Act is reduced under section 190; and (b) … has a spouse or partner who is not in hospital or has been in hospital for less than 13 weeks;”.

The SOP in the name of the Hon Louise Upston seeks to make a change. Members will see that on SOP 25, this has been removed. The words that have been removed in subclause 3—the first part of the subclause notes, “Nothing in this section entitles a single person or a couple who are”. I then quote the removed parts—the crossed-out parts—“married or in a civil union or in a de facto relationship”, which just then has been replaced with a new part which states, “in a relationship”.

So I was speaking on behalf of the Hon Louise Upston, who would like to see that again. This is important. There are numerous other pieces of legislation that actually acknowledge the different types of relationship. Again, I would hope to see that the Minister will see, actually, this is policy-neutral. There’s nothing here that would actually be inconsistent with other forms of policy that’s there. That would then allow the Minister to consider this. I hope that the Minister will consider this here as well. The Hon Louise Upston also notes that this Supplementary Order Paper—Supplementary Order Paper 33—amends the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill, and amends clause 191 to specify the types of relationship which are applicable to this clause.

So there are other SOPs I will be speaking on, but two things. First of all: the clarification around what’s policy-neutral. The second is just in regards to the comments that the Minister made that, in regards to the welfare overhaul, actually, she changed a number of things. I’d like to know what those things are. I think that’s important for us, so that we can think that we’ve got an opportunity at the committee of the whole House to debate those.

Then, obviously, the third part of this debate is in regards to SOP 33 and Part 4, clause 191 as well. I hope that the Minister can consider this, and in her response, consider, actually, allowing this amendment to be part of the bill as well. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just before I call the next member. It is custom—and I think there have been Speakers’ rulings in this House—that we don’t mention the absence of a member from the Chamber. You can certainly speak on behalf of another member, but it’s not in the rules to mention that that person is away.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to rise to speak on this Part 4. I was, unfortunately, away in Auckland working and I missed out on the—

💬 Simon O’Connor: You just mentioned your own absence.

Yeah, I know. I’m talking about myself, so I think I’m actually OK. I missed out on the opportunity to speak on the amendments that I had presented. So I’d like to thank members who did, in fact, speak on them.

Moving on, I’d like to speak on the amendment to clause 174 in Part 4. Clause 174 talks about the “Benefit of a person affected is reduced by amount of overseas pension”. Basically, what it is is that if someone is being paid an overseas pension and they are also entitled to the New Zealand pension, the amount that they are being paid overseas is deducted from the amount that they are being paid in New Zealand. There is also subclause (2) where that first part does not apply, and there are two categories. One is for the New Zealand superannuation payable overseas under section 26 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001, or the veterans pension payable overseas under section 182 of the Veterans’ Support Act, and I’d like to put forward an amendment in my name to add another clause.

My amendment to clause 174 is to insert the following new paragraph (c) in subclause (2): “a person whose overseas pension is currently inaccessible from New Zealand.” The reason I am doing this to amend the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill is to make it clear that those people—you know, in New Zealand there are so many people who go overseas and work overseas, and often they pay into a retirement savings plan or a pension plan. Sometimes they pay into a savings plan for which, in some of the countries, the language is actually different, and it is called a pension plan. I have specifically written about this issue to the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, since last year.

For New Zealanders who are currently working in Korea, for example, they’re teaching English at local schools, but they are not paying into the Government superannuation fund because the pension that they call “pension” is called “pension” in that language. It’s like a KiwiSaver. It’s like a savings plan, and there is no differentiation between a savings plan that they have to pay into and the actual Government-funded pension, but it’s all called pension. So New Zealand recognises those savings plans as a pension, and they think that they’re being paid as superannuation, like a pension. I know, it sounds a little bit confusing, and what—

💬 Simon O’Connor: I think it’s a conspiracy.

Thank you, Mr O’Connor. It’s not a conspiracy. What happens is that when New Zealanders, after having worked there and having paid into a savings scheme for their retirement, just like New Zealanders do in New Zealand into a KiwiSaver—that does not mean that they should be punished for making plans for their future. What happens is that when they leave Korea, for example, the savings that they have made in that country are not withdrawable. They cannot withdraw them to move to a New Zealand superannuation, KiwiSaver type kind of a scheme, and often New Zealanders who work in Korea are left thousands and thousands of dollars out of pocket.

I have been contacted by a lot of these people who are working over there, asking the New Zealand Government to go into negotiation with the Korean Government to work on this social security agreement. I know that the previous Government worked on that and that this Minister is currently working on that, and I know that they have agreed on the details of the language. Having said that, there is an issue specifically for these people who have saved into a savings scheme but cannot withdraw from it. Their Australian counterparts, their Canadian counterparts, and even their American counterparts can withdraw their money from their savings scheme to move it to their country and put it into their KiwiSaver type of retirement savings account, but New Zealanders apparently can’t.

I would like to ask the Minister whether that has been included in the social security agreement with Korea to give effect to this so that when New Zealanders who are now in New Zealand who cannot access those funds because they are not allowed to because they are now living in New Zealand—[Bell rung] Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call Melissa Lee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will repeat it. I ask whether those New Zealanders who have now returned to New Zealand and who cannot access the thousands of dollars in money that they have saved in their accounts in Korea can, in fact, find their way to bring that money over to New Zealand, or, in fact, whether they would be missing out on their superannuation in New Zealand just because they’ve got a pension scheme—that word, “pension” scheme—in Korea. The language, the translation, makes it very difficult for them to differentiate between a superannuation type of scheme and a savings plan for those people.

Yesterday, our newest member, Dan Bidois, spoke. It was an amazing maiden statement, I have to say.

💬 Hon Member: That’s right.

That’s right. One of the things that he talked about was the fact that he’s worked in so many different countries, and that reminded me about this particular issue. One of the things that he said was that apart from working in developed countries, he also worked in some parts of the world that, often, we don’t actually go and work in—places like Kazakhstan—and that made me wonder what kind of situation Kazakhstan has in terms of the superannuation or pension schemes that a lot of Kiwis save into. I looked it up, and I think in Kazakhstan there isn’t a superannuation scheme that Kiwis who work in Kazakhstan can save into. I think they’re exempt from it, whereas in countries like Korea, Kiwis who work in environments like in an education facility—whether it’s private or Government, they have to save into a savings scheme.

I know it sounds really—when the employer says you need to put it into a savings scheme, they have to say yes, but the thing is it’s not a Government-funded pension scheme. Some do; some don’t. But even if they do, they should be allowed to bring their funds back to New Zealand so that they are entitled to that money that they’ve put away. If they’re not, what I’m asking—and what I’m seeking in this amendment in my name—is to exclude those funds so that they are not disqualified from accessing New Zealand superannuation and so that their superannuation in New Zealand will not be deducted from the sum that they’ve got overseas, as often that section 174 would have us believe.

The other issue that I would like to talk about is that often—it might have been in an earlier clause, but I think it’s relevant to this part as well—when people who are on a benefit go overseas for more than a certain period of time, their benefits are deducted. They can be overseas for only a certain period of time. If they are, in fact, going overseas to deal with their savings or superannuation type of situation, like in the examples that I’ve given, they would not be prejudiced in that cutting of benefit, for example, to make sure that they are just trying to get what is rightfully theirs. So I would like to put forward my amendment to clause 174, to insert a new paragraph (c) in this clause.

I would like to urge the Minister to consider that this will, in fact, benefit a lot of New Zealanders who don’t work only in New Zealand but all over the world. They may be caught in many different situations where they do the right thing by putting money away for their retirement, just like with a KiwiSaver type of savings scheme, and they’re not able to access it. If they can’t access it, they should not be penalised, and if they do try and access it, they should be given the right to access it, but if they can’t, they should not have to go with less money in their superannuation payments in New Zealand. It seems only fair, and if the Minister thinks that there is a real reason why these New Zealanders who work overseas should be penalised, I would like to hear of her reasoning behind it—why she doesn’t think it’s a good idea—and perhaps she could talk to some of these people who write to me, or I could forward to her the emails and the letters that I have received from them.

Madam Chair, I wanted to stand and speak. I know that this is an area that that member, Melissa Lee, is particularly concerned about, as she’s spoken to me about this. I hear her concerns. I do just want to say that the issue here is that this is a policy-neutral rewrite. So we’ve received that tabled amendment from Melissa Lee, also one from Dr Yang. Both of them are proposing to make quite significant changes to our overseas pensions—the elements in our legislation that are specific to overseas pensions. This is not the place to make it. There are not policy changes that are going to occur as part of this policy-neutral rewrite. If they have suggestions with respect to overseas pensions and how they’re treated through our Social Security Act, then I suggest they use their right to put up a member’s bill or something like that, but not through this particular process. So I wanted to speak to both of them at the same time, given that they are both on overseas pensions.

I also wanted to say to the member Melissa Lee that I can’t speak to the social security agreement that is being signed between New Zealand and Korea, because it hasn’t been finalised yet. So we’re waiting for that, and when that is done, I’m sure not long after then, that will be known to the public. Then, at that point, that will provide an opportunity for that member in particular, given her interest in this area, to scrutinise the decisions that have been made as part of that agreement between New Zealand and Korea.

Can I also just refer back to some of the comments that were made earlier by the Hon Alfred Ngaro, questioning what “policy-neutral” is. Look, we’ve had this conversation many times in this House, and short of asking you to google search both those terms and put the definition together, I will just say that we understand what a “policy” is in this House; “neutral” means no change. Therefore, I think it’s really—in terms of it doesn’t make any significant proposals; so no significant policy proposals in this area. All it’s doing is tidying up and making things consistent, keeping in mind, as I’ve mentioned in the House many times before, that this bill was, initially, written in 1938, updated in 1964, and amended hundreds and hundreds of times. People like Sir Geoffrey Palmer have said that it’s one of the worst pieces of legislation that we have on our books, because it’s so untidy, which is why the previous Government committed to doing the rewrite in the first place. So I do acknowledge that we just had differences of opinion with regard to what “policy-neutral” was, so that is why we’ve come to this committee with the Supplementary Order Paper.

So I’m not going to continue to go over what is “policy-neutral”. That same member—I was going to say Sir Alfred Ngaro. No; the Hon Alfred Ngaro! The Hon Alfred Ngaro also asked me to pre-empt what the welfare overhaul changes will be. Well, that’s actually not part of what we’re discussing in committee stages here. I mentioned that some things may be considered there, but I’m certainly not going to pre-empt those changes today in the committee or make any major announcements, so we can lay that particular request to rest.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair, a very good choice. The Minister of Justice mentioned my amendment. I think my amendment actually fits perfectly with this particular bill, because my amendment is related to clause 172, “Interpretation”, under “overseas pension”. It says an overseas pension currently “is not a Governmental occupational pension”, which is, of course, reasonable. The problem here is sometimes it’s very hard to define whether this is a Governmental occupational pension or not. It is very important for us to understand that we have different pension systems in different countries. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) should take all these different pension systems into consideration, which can be similar to, but not necessarily clearly defined as, Government occupational pensions. This is about basically trying to make sure all those overseas pensions which are similar to Government occupational pensions will also be treated as, basically, Government occupational pensions. So those that are similar in nature to the Government occupational pensions should be considered as Government occupational pensions instead of overseas pensions.

The purpose of this amendment, of course, is to ensure that MSD takes those other pension systems into consideration whenever it is not clearly identified or clearly defined as a Government occupational pension, but is not really an overseas pension, so that MSD officials will look into this. This will ensure that MSD understands the nature of certain overseas benefits, pensions, or periodical allowances, and that the affected persons are consulted and not unfairly treated and penalised.

Of course, some pensions are clear-cut: these are Government occupational pensions—very clear, 100 percent. Sometimes they’re not so clear-cut: they can be 50 percent occupational pension, 50 percent, perhaps, just State pensions. Sometimes they’re even less clear-cut, and you can’t even tell if it’s 50 percent or 30 percent or whatever. So in those situations, officials should really take into consideration other factors to make a decision, so that if those pensions are, in nature, Government occupational pensions, then we should really treat those as Government occupational pensions instead of overseas pensions.

There are many reasons why it’s sometimes hard to define whether these are Government occupational pensions or just State pensions. For example, sometimes the pension system isn’t well established because it is just new, and sometimes the pensions are from different systems and they’re very hard to understand, because, of course, different countries could have different systems in terms of pension systems, social systems, and/or social welfare systems. Also, sometimes it’s hard to get information to understand those pensions because of a lack of transparency, a lack of information, and also sometimes it can be difficult to communicate and to clarify. That is why I believe it is important to add one particular section there to say that an overseas pension is not a Government occupational pension as defined in Schedule 2, or similar in nature to Government occupational pensions as described in Schedule 2 and as discussed with the person.

The reason why I bring up this particular issue is because some years ago—maybe over a decade ago—the pension issue was a major issue in the Chinese community in New Zealand. To the credit of the former Labour Government, they settled the issue and they talked to the Chinese community. In the end, they came to a conclusion, but at that time it was a major concern to many members of—[Time expired]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m really thrilled to get this opportunity. I thought I was going to get overlooked tonight; the competition has been extremely tough.

The reason I’m excited is I actually think I’ve got the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—SOP 33—that the Minister will approve. The reason I say that is because I’ve done a bit of homework on my SOP, which is submitted in the name of the Hon Louise Upston. It proposes an amendment to Part 4, clause 191, and in subclause (3) suggests replacing the “in a relationship” phrase, on page 127, with “married or in a civil union or in a de facto relationship.” The reason that I’m speaking to this one again is because if you take a look in clause 191 of the bill, then we see that in clause 191(1), in (b) and in (c), and then we move on to 191(2), the terms that are used in both of those bits talk about a “spouse or a partner”. So in 191(1)(b), it refers to “[The person] has a spouse or partner who is not in hospital or has been in hospital for less than 13 weeks;”, and 191(1)(c) refers to “a main benefit under this Act is payable to or in respect of [that person’s] spouse or partner.” So I’m suggesting, for the purposes of consistency, that when we move on to 191(3), we use the same language in that subclause, which says that “Nothing in this section entitles a single person or a couple who are … [in a] relationship”.

The words “in a relationship” are open to interpretation. To give you an example, as defined in the dictionary, one interpretation of “in a relationship” is “the way in which two or more … people [or things] are connected, or the state of being connected:”—that could be a relationship between a member of Parliament and their constituents. The other term for “in a relationship” is “The state of being connected by blood or marriage.”—so, you know, you can trace your relationship, via your heritage, to a common ancestor. The other interpretation of “in a relationship” is “The way in which two or more people or groups regard and behave towards each other”—so landlord-tenant relationships. So I think the words “in a relationship” are so open to interpretation, and in order to be consistent with subclauses (1) and (2), where the words “spouse” and “partner” are actually used, I think that we owe it to the bill to maintain that consistency throughout.

I also have a couple of other questions for the Minister. One of those is whether the 13 weeks of hospitalisation actually refers to community-based services for respite care—those places may not be, in terms of the definition of a hospital, actually a hospital, and whether they would comply with this Act, or whether there could be an exemption for respite care services which provide that community-based care for carers, for their family and whānau.

The other question I have for the Minister is around the clarification for this part of the bill, clause 190, which is headed up “Factors affecting benefit: hospitalisation”, and whether the word “benefit” does, in fact, apply to superannuitants as well. So I’m just not quite sure whether that application is meant to apply to superannuitants or not. The definitions indicate that it does, but I wasn’t sure whether it was intended to capture that cohort.

So I do believe I have a very good argument for accepting this SOP, and I’m sure that this one here is actually going to find favour with the Minister and be approved. For that reason, I have great pleasure in speaking to my proposed amendment in the name of the Hon Louise Upston, and I certainly look forward to—[Time expired]

I want to point out, again, that this is a similar situation to what we had earlier. It is so policy-neutral that it makes no absolute difference at all.

Basically, what the member Maureen Pugh has pointed out is that the Supplementary Order Paper 33 is attempting to amend clause 191 to specify the types of relationships which are applicable to the clause, stating that just putting “relationship” is not enough. However, on page 323 of schedule 2, in the “Dictionary” of the bill, there is a line where it’s got “in a relationship, for a person, means that the person is—(a) married; or (b) in a civil union; or (c) in a de facto relationship”. So it’s already considered there. Obviously, all those words are not required throughout the bill, because of the fact that “relationship”, when you refer to this page, is then explained further, and that’s the definition of it. So a very good argument, Maureen Pugh, but not quite this time. Thank you.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I still don’t understand. I mean, I know that the Minister wanted to school us on what policy-neutral is. We do know what policy-neutral is; we want to know what her interpretation of it is. Again that is another good example of being policy-neutral but not good enough. So I think, actually, what we do understand now is that what the Minister is saying is: actually, it’s policy-neutral under her own definition. If it’s good enough for the definitions in the dictionary of the bill, why isn’t it also good enough—and in this House there’s been many debates to recognise the different types of relationships. I mean, let’s be real: in this House, there have been debates acknowledging whether it’s a de facto relationship, a civil union, or a married relationship. Why is it not good enough to have it in the legislation so that it’s very clear there? So I still think that, actually, I’m sure many of us on this side don’t agree with the Minister’s response.

But, Madam Chair, I know you are looking for new and fresh forms of debate, and I would like to give that to you in the form of, in Part 4, new clause 203A, in Supplementary Order Paper 25, and this is, in particular, to do with the factors affecting benefit and the absence from New Zealand. I note that hasn’t been debated as yet in Part 4 and I think it’s particularly important because this is to do with the winter energy payments. Now, I know that the Minister keeps saying that this is policy-neutral, but it wasn’t there before; it is now, under this new Government. Anyway, we won’t go into that debate. That was a debate that was had. But, under this, it talks about the “special absence rule”. So we talk about the winter energy payment: “[payment] is not payable for 1 or more days while a beneficiary is absent from New Zealand”. We get that; we understand it. Subclause (2): “The winter energy payment is payable to a beneficiary for 1 or more days during any 1 or more absences”. We get that as well. It then comes to subclause 2(a) “the payment would, but for those 1 or more absences, … (b) the chief executive is satisfied that the 1 or more absences do not affect the beneficiary’s eligibility for the payment under section 65C.”

I would like to actually include in this, because I think it’s important, that we have the recognition of many of our beneficiaries, and I’m speaking of the Pasifika community in particular. There are many who are superannuitants who often will return back to the Pacific for a number of different reasons, and I’d like to include in this—and it’s not a Supplementary Order Paper, but I’m going to debate it—that if the Minister would consider then having in section 3 a clause that would state: “a person may apply to the chief executive”—in this case, again—“for exemption, in a special absence, under the special absence rule for—(a) caring for children who may be located overseas; (b) health conditions which require time in warmer conditions”. So there are many instances where—I know I’ve had constituents and others who have come to our offices and talked to us about the need to actually go away to warmer climates, because often that suits their conditions; their health conditions as well. And, more importantly—“(c) serious illness to immediate family overseas.” And, on many occasions, that’s the case.

Now, if the Government is clear that the winter energy payments are for those superannuitants, it doesn’t want to disadvantage those who, for a genuine reason, have had to leave the country. Again, it could be for caring for children who could be located overseas—often grandchildren, or “(b) health conditions which require time in warmer conditions”. Often it’s the case—again, because constituents that I know of have had to go back to the beautiful islands, whether it’s Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, and of course the most beautiful islands, the Cook Islands. They’ll go there because the conditions actually allow them to be able to recuperate and to recover. But (c) is “serious illness to immediate family overseas.” I think this is not unreasonable. Again, if I reiterate the points that the Minister has said: this is just simply adding to—it’s not changing—the policy intent. It’s not changing the policy direction. It’s making sure that it ensures that, for those who are genuinely absent from New Zealand for genuine reasons and considerations, the chief executive will take these into consideration and they will not be penalised for that.

So I think this has been a contribution that I’ve made on a part that actually has not had any debate so far in Part 4. I think that I’d like to consider that the Minister—I know what she’ll do: she’ll come up again and she’ll talk about her own views, but I think, as Maureen Pugh said, she had the Golden Kiwi ticket. We don’t talk about Golden Kiwi; we talk about Lotto tickets now, but anyway, back in our day, it was Golden Kiwi. I do hope this could be the Golden Kiwi. The Minister may just consider that this could be the one that is policy-neutral enough to be able to consider this for an amendment and a change to the bill.

Actually, what I’m standing for is not the Golden Kiwi; I’m standing to correct. Earlier I said the definition for relationships was in schedule 2 on page 323, but it’s actually, in the version that everyone’s got in this Chamber, pages 337 and crosses over to 338.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to speak to Part 4 of this bill and to ask the Minister some questions.

💬 Hon Member: Get on with it!

I am getting on with it. While this is not necessarily an area of great expertise for me, this part of the bill—and I particularly refer to clause 176 and the new clause 177—is, specifically, about identifying the other parent. It’s specifically about that. Under the previous legislation, if you could not identify the other parent or identify who is in law the other parent; had not applied for a formula assessment of child support, as required by section 9 of the Child Support Act; or had not given, in evidence in proceedings under the Child Support Act 1991, all information that is required of a parent as a compellable witness under section 122 of the Act, then, effectively, some of your benefit was taken away.

So this is not policy-neutral, this part. This is a new policy that is being brought in by this Government, under this legislation, and clause 176(3) seeks to replace subclause (2) with a new clause 177. I agree with some of the subclauses in clause 177, which say that “(1) MSD must not reduce a benefit under section 176(2) if MSD is satisfied …” of, effectively, five conditions. Two of them I completely agree with. They are “(c) the beneficiary or any of the beneficiary’s children would be at risk of violence if the beneficiary did or took steps to do [anything that changes things]”, and “(d) [a] child [that] was conceived as a result of incest or sexual violation;”. However, clause 177(1)(a), (b), and (c) are open to interpretation.

My contribution seeks to ask the Minister to explain to this committee how the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) is going to be satisfied of those three conditions, the first one being that “(a) there is insufficient evidence available to establish who … in law [is] the other parent;”. How exactly are they going to do that—simply by saying that they don’t know, they’re not sure, they can’t remember, or there were a series of potential other parents? How is MSD actually going to be satisfied when that person says there is insufficient evidence? The second point is “(b) the beneficiary is taking active steps to identify who … in law [is] the other parent;”. What does that mean, Minister? Does that mean they are asking around? Can they remember? Was it at that party? You know, those are all the things that, actually, we’re asking MSD to identify, and I actually think the members on the other side are placing a big onus on these people. Then the third one is “(e) [is there] some other compelling circumstance for the beneficiary’s failure or refusal to do any of the things referred to in section 176(2) and in any event”—this is where it gets really good—“there is no real likelihood of [parent] support being collected in the foreseeable future from the other parent or the other parent’s estate.”

All those things are judgments. They are, absolutely, judgments made by MSD, largely—

💬 Andrew Bayly: And who is judge and jury?

Absolutely, Mr Bayly—largely at whatever the parent said happened: their recollection of the event, their recollection of the relationship, their recollection of “Actually, we don’t know.” The reason I bring this up—and it relates to a further clause which is in this bill, clause 186, which actually affects benefit maintenance claims—is that, in my short while as a member of Parliament, I have had a significant number of constituents come to me and say that, actually, they are being rorted by their partner using tax rorts and a whole lot of other things, and they’re not getting maintenance. So, in this clause, we say, “MSD may refuse or cancel [benefits] for [the] failure to take reasonable steps to obtain maintenance.”

Now, even that in itself, for the parent, is an extremely difficult thing for them to do sometimes—extremely difficult. And when you put all those things together, I think, while this is not policy-neutral and you may not have preferred the policy of the National Government, you are putting MSD in an invidious—sorry, the Government is putting MSD in an invidious position—Madam Chair, I apologise—of actually asking MSD to make all these decisions.

Just, hopefully, to stop that from continuing, because it’s going down the wrong track. I just want to point out to that member, Lawrence Yule, that the exemptions with respect to not naming the other parent have not changed in this version at all; they are the existing exemptions that were there, that now are still there, that are carried over. So there are no changes with respect to that at all. As I said, it’s policy-neutral. If we had changed those, then it wouldn’t be policy-neutral.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look actually, firstly, I would really encourage the Minister to respond to what I thought was—

💬 Andrew Bayly: And the Government members.

I’ll take the speech here, Mr Bayly. In an earlier call, I was asking the Minister quite a serious range of questions around the whole alcohol and drug element. I don’t intend to rehash that in any way, but I would really encourage the Minister to respond to that. I know one can always look at things frivolously, or interpret what is being done in the committee stage as frivolous, but, actually, it’s relatively important to make clear that, when we are referencing new legislation—in this case, the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act of 2017—that’s being done appropriately. And, without belabouring the point and trying to make it too heavy, if we get that wrong, then we’re not fulfilling the correct duty of care for those under the control of the Crown. And again, fundamentally, Minister, if it helps, it’s around the clarity of dates, because this new Act—this compulsory Act—does not come into effect for a whole year; so, in other words, parts of the Act are not effective at the moment. Secondly, it is for people with the absolute highest issues of alcoholism; therefore, does it encompass all people?

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It’s around a tabled amendment that I’m attempting to table. Am I able to seek if that’s valid now or not—whether I can speak to it?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You can speak to it while they’re still considering whether it’s valid. Go for it!

Marvellous! The philosopher in me loves those distinctions. Marvellous!

Look, I would like to talk, fortunately not in Greek and Latin, to a tabled amendment fresh, potentially, on the Table—so fresh my hands are burning. It’s a suggestion to insert new clause 213(a), and it’s to do with factors that affect eligibility—in this particular regard, to the Minister—around the child disability allowance.

It may not be well known to this House: generally speaking, when people are in the armed forces and are serving the Realm of New Zealand here in New Zealand, if one of their children is receiving a child disability allowance, all is fine—or, to use the colloquial, all is tickety-boo. However, as you might imagine, if someone is going off to serve the Realm overseas, they lose access to the child disability allowance. And that makes sense, because if, like myself and others, you’ve been in Iraq and Afghanistan, you’re not taking your children with you.

The issue, though, Minister—and it’s something I’ve raised in this House unsuccessfully for seven years, and I think there’s an opportunity here; I believe it would be policy-neutral, because it would get the support of the House—is in those relatively rare circumstances where a serving military officer who has a child who is accessing the child disability allowance, at the moment, their eligibility is curtailed when they leave the Realm. However, think of the circumstance, for an example, where a military officer is dispatched to be a military attaché in one of New Zealand’s embassies, and, as you might expect, takes their children; they should be able, I would suggest, and it’s through this amendment, to continue being eligible for the child disability allowance.

So, in this Part 4, a new clause 213(a) that I am suggesting, is to put a factor of eligibility that serving the Realm in a military capacity overseas enables them to still maintain and retain the child disability allowance. I really need to stress it’s in very particular cases. We’re not advocating here that all our serving personnel in the likes of the Sinai, in East Timor, up on the North Korea - South Korea border, in Iraq and Afghanistan—that our soldiers serving overseas—are to be taking their families; we’re talking about very particular cases. So, really, we’re coming back down to those who are at our embassies and those who are serving overseas in situations where they take their family.

I suppose the fundamental principle behind this is equity and fairness. Fundamentally, what it’s about is that if he or she has signed up, has taken the Queen’s coin and is serving the Realm, they shouldn’t lose entitlement because of that service. And I suppose that’s the fundamental issue here that we have around eligibility and criteria in Part 4: that, in effect, these men and women who are serving the Realm, who are overseas with their children, are being affected and are losing that entitlement. And it just doesn’t seem particularly fair to me that they should be.

I think, really importantly as well, this is not an unusual provision as far as I understand things. This is not completely unusual; it is very particular to the defence forces—[Bell rung]

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You need to sign your Supplementary Order Paper.

Fundamentally, at the moment, people who are in the foreign service and in the police, I understand, still keep their entitlement when they are serving overseas. It affects just our defence force members. So this is a situation—and perhaps an example helps illustrate this—where a constituent of mine a number of years ago, who has served the Realm with distinction, has come in, has a child affected with a disability, has been, rightly, and thanks to the Government regardless of political colour, receiving that benefit, but at the moment that he and his family were deployed to one of our overseas missions, he was put at a disadvantage—he, his wife, and, in particular, his child. He lost this entitlement. It was a factor affecting the benefit, as is fitting of Part 4. It was a factor which has seen that he is at a disadvantage—his family’s at a disadvantage—because of the service he’s giving.

And I just think, fundamentally, that’s a flaw. I think it’s actually where the House can come together at its best and strongest, when actually we’re just acknowledging that, yes, the law, over time, has just had a few problems that need tidying up. And I think this is an excellent case in point. It will, Minister, I suggest, affect only the defence force. This will be, probably, they suggest to me, no more than 10 people a year—if we’re lucky. In fact, as my current research indicates, and by current I mean “just now”—this is something I’m also seeking to introduce as a member’s bill; in fact, it sits in the ballot at the moment—we’ve probably only got about two people in this space at the moment overseas.

So, in terms of what we can achieve here in Part 4, we can go through, as we rightly have done, looking at all the entitlements we’ve got, from insurance recovery to failure to assist child support. We’ve got hospitalisation. We’ve got alcohol and drug treatment. I suppose it’s a plaintive plea—an alliterative plaintive plea—that we do look at this very small element to do with our defence forces. We may well be able to look—and, Minister, your officials may well be able to look—over the course of tonight at how that’s already affecting those within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; how it’s affecting the police. In fact, if they are, for some reason, against the advice that I’ve been given, not included, then perhaps they should be included as well. It’s not going to have a major impact on the policy-neutral elements that have been suggested, because it’s such a small amount of money in and of itself when one thinks of the child benefit, and in total it’s a very small number of people who are going to be affected. But, as I say, it’s a situation that has arisen directly out of a constituent query to me. It’s something that I will continue to pursue.

I do understand the Minister’s intention; it has been mentioned to us many times in this regard: that this bill is seeking to be policy-neutral and not trying to put anything in that’s too problematic. I think, twofold—one, this is not going to have a major financial impact, although will benefit and be gratefully received by those who, again, serve the country, but, secondly, I think it will be neutral in so far as I would hope every member of this House would support it.

So to wrap up where these contributions have gone, working backwards, fundamentally, the new tabled amendment seeks that the eligibility criteria for our defence force personnel serving overseas—usually in a military or a defence attaché role—with their children do not have as a factor affecting their benefit that service overseas; that, in effect, they continue to receive the child disability allowance; and that they continue to receive all that they would if they were in the Realm. It’s not able to go into the tabled amendment, but the factor is that a lot of New Zealand embassies are, effectively, New Zealand land. I know there’s a distinction between who owns the land, but it’s seen as New Zealand property, so that may help us conceptualise it.

The final point is really just an encouragement, if possible, Minister, to address my earlier questions around the treatment of alcoholism and drug addiction. Fundamentally, in swapping out those two older bills, as tempting as it was with the new one, is that new bill actually in effect? I can tell you, as the former chair of the Health Committee and reading the bill, it is not. And, secondly, will this provide the appropriate duty of care required?

So, look, that’s where I’ll end those contributions.

💬 Hon Members: Hooray!

It may be a relief to the Minister—and probably to Mr McNulty—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: McAnulty

—that on this Part 4 I have given now all four speeches. But the more he interjects the more I may need to—no, only kidding.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): If that seemed longer than five minutes, it was indeed. I’m sorry, I do apologise. We forgot to set the clock.

I move, That the question be now put.

[A member sneezes] Votes should normally be taken in silence, bodily functions excepted—some.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 34 in the name of Simon O’Connor to the proposed amendment set out in Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni replacing clause 192(3) be agreed to.