Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this is going to be a very robust part of the bill to debate, because it talks about something that has varying views across the political divide—even in the current Government coalition—and it’s to do with sanctions. We know that prior to the election, there were differing views. I know that New Zealand First had a very clear perspective that they needed to be robust, they needed to be reviewed, and they needed to make sure that, actually, they complied, and this was to do with those that were receiving a benefit. Whereas on the other side were the Greens, who were very clear that they wanted to remove as much as possible, almost all sanctions, because they felt that they were too punitive. So I’ll be interested to see the debates that happen over this part.

I want to start off my contribution with regards to Part 5, and it’s with the amendment in regards to Part 5, clause 217. What this talks about is that this is to create some continuity and consistency, and this is policy-positive. None of this neutral stuff, right? There’s neutral and positive, and this is policy-positive. I’d like us to refer to the evidence in clause 217. What this amendment will do is actually make it consistent with the clause in Part 3, which is clause 99. If I read this for the benefit of the members opposite and the Government, it states this: “The beneficiary must notify change of circumstances” and the “beneficiary must without delay notify MSD of a change in the beneficiary’s circumstances”, and it highlights and indicates what those changes are.

What this amendment is seeking to do is ensure that in clause 217, when it talks about the hierarchy of sanctions, it makes it very clear in the insertion of a new line. In that first part of clause 217, it is to insert the new line, which says that “MSD must advise P”—that is, the beneficiary—“of the hierarchy of sanctions and ensure P understands impacts of any breaches”. Now if one reads in the explanatory note, it is simply to do this: “This Supplementary Order Paper amends clause 99 to make it clear that it is the responsibility of the person receiving the benefit to notify MSD of any changes. It ensures that people have an obligation to notify MSD even when they believe their change in circumstances may affect their entitlement, not just in [circumstances] where they are unsure that it will.” It’s consistent with clause 99 where, again, the consistency is that the beneficiary must notify of those changes.

I think this is quite a pragmatic view to be able to ensure that we make a change to clause 217, which I think is critically important. It also affects clause 216, where it talks about the obligations to carry out the sanctions for failure to comply, and where it states quite clearly that the obligations referred to are: “(a) obligation to comply with a requirement under section 104 to attend and participate in a work ability assessment or reassessment:”—as well—“(b) obligation to comply with a work-preparation obligation under section 110 or 111:”.

I know that my colleague Darroch Ball across the way would agree with this. He’s been a strong supporter of the Limited Service Volunteers and felt for a long time that they’ve been very effective in being able to help those young people that are in need to be able to comply with the rules and regulations but, more importantly, to give them an opportunity to be able to have a career.

So I think, actually, that this amendment is quite clear. It’s precise. Number one, it allows for consistency, which is in clause 99 in Part 3, and it ensures that it is clear for the beneficiary, in this particular instance, to ensure that they understand and know that the fact is that they must comply. But, more importantly, it puts some onus and accountability and responsibility back on the beneficiary themselves, and I think that’s really important as well. It’s not just dependent on MSD to do its job. It will do its job, it will comply, and in most of these cases, we think that’s critically important.

So this is just the first of my contributions, and I think that I’d like to, again, put this order up. If the Minister that’s in the chair, Kris Faafoi, who is very capable—I know that this may not be his brief. He may not have skills, but he is a good Minister. He is a great Minister and a great person, who I think understands this, and I’d like to see that Minister stand up, take charge, and agree to this amendment. This could be the Golden Kiwi of the night. I think he would agree with this. I submit this amendment to the committee.

Excellent—thank you, Madam Chair. I rise, and it’s fantastic to take a second call—my second ever call—on what is a fantastic summation going on here by my colleagues. We’ve got the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill, and I’m just happy to be here to talk about what is, as my colleague the Hon Alfred Ngaro said, a very important part of the bill—talking about the sanctions.

I want to talk in particular about clause 232 in Part 5 of this bill. So what are we talking about here? We’re talking about the clause that looks at the good and sufficient reason for non-compliance, such that there’s a default from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). So what I have here is an amendment from my fantastic colleague the Hon Louise Upston, and she has an—

💬 Simon O’Connor: Dame—is she a Dame?

She’s not a Dame. She has an amendment here to amend clause 232 of Part 5, and it is to replace paragraph (a) with the following: “Compliance was dependent on any assistance specified by MSD, including the availability of online MSD services;”.

I think that this is a really important paragraph to add in an age of technological change, where they should have access to update their enrolment details or changes in circumstances, changes in address, and changes in employment status via the online capabilities. I just think that this is an important amendment to make. It brings us together into the 21st century and makes sure that the beneficiaries have a requirement to go online and update their status in order to avoid being in default and being put into default by MSD. So I just think that this is a really important thing, and I commend my colleague the Hon Louise Upston for putting this forward.

You know, I spoke about incentives in my maiden statement yesterday. I think that this part of the bill is all about putting the right incentives in place to ensure that beneficiaries are given the push that they need in order to do whatever they can to get back into the workforce and become gainfully employed. So I do want to wrap up by just saying that my honourable colleague Louise Upston from Taupō—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Keep going—you can do it. Come on, keep going.

Ha, ha! I really commend her for what is, I think, a really important part of the clause. I’m all about making sure that everybody has access to online services.

So I think I’ll just leave it there, and we’ll keep going from that. I’d like to get some debate and discussion on this amendment because I think it’s a really important part to debate, and all I’ve heard from the Government is complaints. Where is their discussion and their debate on this amendment? So—

💬 Hon Member: You’ve got a lot to learn, sunshine.

Absolutely. I will just leave it there and say that I once again commend my colleague the Hon Louise Upston for putting this amendment on the Table. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to follow the speech by Mr Dan Bidois—a hard act to follow, but I shall give it my very best. Specifically in relation to Subpart 1—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: You don’t mean that.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Sorry to interrupt the member. Please be careful with the personal pronouns—you’ll bring the Chair into the debate. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I wish to focus on clause 215, under the subheading “Types of sanction”, and let me precede my comments about the amendment that’s placed before us by the Minister by just looking at the significance of that clause in the context of the legislation as a whole. What we’re looking at is “Sanctions for failure to comply with certain obligations under this Act”. This is important because the Act does, obviously, provide certain benefits, which is, of course, the very purpose of the thing, but it does also note that in circumstances where a person makes himself or herself ineligible, then certain sanctions will apply. So this is no small matter. This is a very serious thing, indeed, for people who are caught up in such circumstances.

Now, originally, subclause (1) had said that “MSD must under section 217”—and I note those words are significant, for reasons that I will come back to shortly—“impose a sanction for failure without good and sufficient reason to comply with the obligations under this Act that are specified in section 216.” Now, in the replacement version of that subclause, we’ve got something slightly different, because, actually, what we’re doing now is referring to the section itself, and not section 217. So the words “under section 217” have been replaced by “under this section”. It’s actually completely unnecessary for a subsection to refer to itself or, indeed, a section to refer to itself. That’s because the presumption would be that if a section is making certain provisions for those who are subject to the Act to comply with, it would be under exactly that section, and you would only say that it was section X, Y, or Z that’s referred to if it was a section other than the section in which those words are contained.

So I’ll seek the advice of the Minister on whether those words are indeed redundant and, in doing so, perhaps confirm or deny his view on whether he agrees with another aspect of the wording as well—that is, whether the phrase “good and sufficient reason” has sufficient clarity in this proposed law. It seems to me—and I might be wrong; again, I’m happy to be corrected if that’s the case—that the phrase is not defined in the legislation itself. So my question of the Minister—and perhaps her officials, if necessary—then becomes whether this phrase has a particular meaning in the law of the land already, perhaps in another piece of legislation or in cases in which such matters have been brought before the courts. Is there any jurisprudence, in other words, around the phrase “good and sufficient reason”?

Why is this important, I hear you ask? Well, the answer is: because this is the basis of the determination of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), according to whether a person has failed to comply with the obligations under this Act. I will note in passing that an improvement, in my mind, has been made in this new version of subclause (1). It talks about compliance with one or more obligations under this Act, whereas the previous version had simply talked about “the obligations”. Under the old version, this would imply that all the obligations have to be met, whereas, in fact, it is failure to comply with just one or more that will trigger this obligation or, indeed, ability for MSD to impose sanctions. So I will give a shout-out to the Minister and her various teams of officials, who I think, in this case, have made a worthwhile change from the old to the new versions.

My next point is just around the meaning of the word “considers”—so, MSD “considers”, that a person has failed. I wonder if we should instead have something along the lines of “reasonably considers”, so that a reasonable standard, an objective standard, is required by the legislation. This will mean that it’s subject to judicial review. If a person believes that he or she has been unfairly excluded—unfairly sanctioned—then because the requirement has to be reasonable in terms of the exercise of that power by the department, by virtue of the word “reasonable”, or perhaps some other variation such as “objectively” or “in the honest belief”, perhaps. These, obviously, have different meanings and different import, and my question to the Minister is really seeking assurance that these different variations, these different kinds of standard, have been considered.

Similarly, there is no guidance in this particular clause as to whether we’re talking about a standard based perhaps on the balance of probabilities. Is it the case that on the balance of probabilities—a more than 50 percent chance, in other words—a person has failed to comply with their obligations? Alternatively, we could have a higher standard that would provide greater protection if we were to say that MSD considering the obligations not having been met would be something like “beyond reasonable doubt”. That particular standard is used in criminal law. My personal view is that it’s not an appropriate standard for this type of legislation, because we’re not talking about criminal activity; we’re talking about something lower and less serious than that—merely failing to meet obligations. But, nevertheless, I think it’s a reasonable point to make and something that, again, I invite the good Minister to turn her mind to.

My final point, I think, depending on how well I go in expressing it in the remaining time, is perhaps a bit pedantic, but, as we’re frequently reminded, and quite rightly, words do matter—words have consequences. I mention that in the sense of this debate that we’ve been having within the debate, the meta-level debate, about policy neutrality. We’ve been invited by the Minister to talk about things and propose amendments, indeed, that are policy-neutral. She’s indicated that she won’t entertain ideas that change the policy settings as outlined in the Act. That much is reasonable, but, on this side of the House, we’ve had different views about what “policy-neutral” means, and I suppose the obvious point there is that because all words have meaning and all words matter, if we’re changing any words, or, indeed, grammar, punctuation, and so forth, then we are changing, in some small way, the policy.

So that’s the balance that we need to strike, and so it is that I say—and I think in a policy-neutral way, but it will perhaps be put to the test by the Minister on this—that the following phrase is ambiguous, and I’ll quote it verbatim and, therefore, I hope I’ll be forgiven for referring directly to the text, because exactitude is important in this matter: “MSD must under this section impose a sanction if MSD considers that a person has failed without good and sufficient reason to comply with one or more obligations under this Act that are specified”, and so forth. An alternative wording would be “If MSD considers that a person has without good reason failed to comply with one or more obligations under this Act”, the significance being that the phrase “without good and sufficient reason” could actually, technically—syntactically, at least, it’s possible—refer to the phrase, and qualify the phrase, “If MSD considers”.

I don’t imagine it was the intent of the Minister and her Government that we’d be talking about MSD considering without good and sufficient reason that a person has failed, etc. I think it’s much more likely that she intended the wording to mean that it was the failure of the person concerned without good and sufficient reason—in other words, to have failed for some reason that is sufficiently strong that would be justified in the circumstances. As I say, that seems to me the logical, the natural meaning—the natural interpretation. But in these cases, of course, we are dealing not merely with my view or even, indeed, the personal view of the Minister or any other person in this House, or any other person in this Government; we are, in fact, dealing with a series of words that, together, have meaning. In the context of this legislation, they have a meaning, specifically, that certain benefits will accrue unless they’re denied under the operation of this section. That is why it’s so significant. That is why it’s important that we have absolute clarity. And if this wording is to be the subject of a test in a court of law because the reasonableness of the decision is put to the test, then we must have clarity on that point, and I invite the Minister to do so.

I find it really interesting that that member had so much to say on Part 5 given that, actually, this was one of the parts of the bill that the Social Services Committee and all sides of the House agreed on. So, in terms of how we currently have it drafted, it is almost exactly in the same form as what was given to us by them. There were very little changes because that section was actually policy-neutral.

To come to the committee of the whole House now and throw out proposals for changes goes against what their members on the select committee had proposed at the time. There was agreement in the select committee that Part 5 was policy-neutral and that it achieved what it had set out to achieve. The only small change, if I’m to be completely honest, is that clause 215, in Subpart 2, has some minor language changes, but the rest of Part 5, in terms of what we are proposing tonight, is exactly the same as what was in the rewrite from the previous Government. So to come into the committee now with these random suggestions and changes really does suggest that certain members are looking to waste the time of this House.

Thank you, Mr Chair. In some ways this is a reaction to the Minister once again suggesting that, in effect, members of this committee don’t have an ability or the right to re-engage a bill as it goes through the House.

I think in terms of Part 5 the Minister is quite correct: there are very few substantial changes. But I think one of the great things about the Westminster democratic system is that we’re able to re-engage the text every time, and to try and find opportunities to make it better. I have growing concern, nay alarm, that actually there’s attempt to just shut this discussion down and continue to discuss policy-neutral. We have yet to have—and I’m not going to belabour this too much. We’ve had the terms “policy” and “neutral” pushed through without actually any definition.

What I need to pick up on is around sanctions around evidential drug-testing, so we’re looking at clause 240 and following. The particular reason for this is because we’ve had a question in the previous section, in Part 4—which was not answered despite two attempts—around the addition of the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act. Because of what’s happened in a subsequent part, Part 4 now has contiguous elements in Part 5. When we’re looking at clause 240 onwards around the evidential drug-test, most of it is fairly logical when you begin to consider a person who is capable of fulfilling the requirements as proposed here in clause 240 onwards. However, because of what was voted on, as I understand it—and agreed to in the previous part—we are now including or can include people who have a very high level of drug and alcohol addiction and problems.

As I noted to the committee at that point—I’m waving something at you, Mr Chair, sorry—these are people with such a high degree of damage, for want of a better word, due to drugs and alcohol that the question begins to arise whether they could ever fully engage in an evidential drug-test as prescribed now in Part 5. Their ability to engage in this evidential drug-test, again simply because we have introduced a discussion of the substance abuse Act—and I’m still not clear if the Minister fully understands what that Act is or has done. But we may have clients of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) who are physically unable, even as MSD clients, to conclude an evidential drug-test as prescribed in clause 240, clause 241, through to clause at least clause 247—I do apologise—right through to clause 249. They physically may not be able to engage in an evidential drug-test. In fact, it reaches such a high degree of problem that you may not even be able to do a blood test. So an evidential drug-test—we’re talking about the likes of saliva and breath. The other thing is they may not have the mental competency or acuity to actually be able to engage that test too. So I think there is a lack of understanding, perhaps, in the wording of these clauses of how to include those people who have such a high level of impairment.

So, fundamentally, I think most of it works for most New Zealanders. But the fundamental element of law is that we want to get it right first time. Now, I know we don’t often get that right, but we try to do our best. So I suppose the suggestion to the Minister is, once again to explain by including or bringing within the ambit those being thought of in the substance abuse Act of 2017. We’re introducing a level of client that sits outside the norm of what we’d expect to see within MSD, and, therefore, they will not be able to fit what is required here.

So I suppose the fundamental element that then kicks out of all of this—I’m trying to slowly describe it, but as I’ve often found in committee stage, it’s good to be accurate. These are people, arguably, who could be sanctioned—who could be sanctioned—for not being able to take a test. As we read through Part 5, we obviously have what the effects are, the failure to do it, the costs of a drug test, and then, particularly in clause 244, “Recompliance”, and then clause 243, if someone has such a high level of addiction that they cannot engage in these tests, then, first and foremost, they’re going to incur more and more costs, and according to clause 244, they’re not going to be able to re-comply. They’ll never, in effect, be able to re-comply. So I think the Minister will probably need to address that. In fact, she may be able to point out to me that there is a clause further on within Part 5 that says basically MSD can just—[Bell rung]

I was listening to the member Simon O’Connor while I was also going through the amendments that have been tabled. The member Simon O’Connor said, “There seems to be a lack of understanding of the wording in these clauses.” The lack of understanding in the wording and of this part and of this entire legislation is evident in two of the amendments that have been tabled.

I don’t know if this is just a very bad cut-and-paste job, but we’ve got one amendment that refers to Part 5, clause 232, and then in the explanatory note talks about amending clause 99, which is actually in Part 3. Then if we look at the other one that’s been tabled by the Hon Louise Upston as well, which looks at Part 5, clause 217, it’s got the same explanatory note pasted referring to Part 3, clause 99.

So in terms of trying to understand what the members on that side of the House are attempting to propose in terms of amendments, it’s very difficult when something as simple as this happens. I suggest that perhaps the members on that side of the Chamber would like to maybe take these off the Table and fix them up so that we can actually analyse them properly, otherwise it really is a waste of time.

Well, it just seems that the Minister seems to be getting a bit angry because she’s not liking the debate that’s happening in the committee of the whole House. The committee of the whole House is an opportunity to debate the issues. She talked about the fact that at select committee these issues weren’t raised up. Now, it’s not unheard that the fact is that when the bill returns back to the House, actually, amendments are quite commonly brought within the committee of the whole House—that’s the reason why it’s there. So, actually, to have these amendments—OK—is not inconsistent with the process.

The second thing: I’m glad that, Mr Chair, you’re the only adjudicator.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And the honourable member might actually come to the amendments, rather than talk about the process about it.

Thank you, Mr Chair. So what I want to address is actually the comments in regards to the amendments that the Minister Carmel Sepuloni actually got up just a moment ago to talk about. I actually spoke to this amendment in regards to clause 217 in the name of Louise Upston, and the reason why we mentioned a clause in Part 3 in the explanatory note was for the purpose of consistency. If the Minister would like to look into that, I can do that for her.

The reason why the explanatory note referred to Part 3, clause 99, was because it states this: “Beneficiary must notify change of circumstances”. If we look at the amendment, it clearly states to insert in line one: “MSD must advise P of the hierarchy of sanctions and ensure P understands the impacts of any breaches”. The point that was made in this clause was to clarify the fact that there is consistency from clause 99 through to clause 217. So I just wanted to flag that. I want to put that on the record for the Minister so that she understands the purpose and the reason for that amendment.

The other part that the Minister was talking about was Louise Upston’s amendment to clause 232. Again, for clarity purposes, it’s consistent with the changes—what’s been amended and, by the way, already supported and passed—in Part 3 in clause 99, which, again, are about the issue around compliance. It reads here, in proposed amended clause 232(a): “compliance was dependent on any assistance specified by MSD, including availability of online MSD services;”.

The point in the explanatory note is the point of consistency with Part 3. So I just want to say that, you know, the Minister maybe tried to school us to go away, make changes, and come back again. If the Minister reads the explanatory notes, that’s the purpose and the reason for that.

So I want to again look at that point—and this is in clause 232 in Part 5—about “Good and sufficient reasons for non-compliance: default by MSD” and again talk to that point around the “Compliance was dependent on any assistance specified”. Sorry, this is the new insert that we are seeking in this amendment. It would say this in clause 232(a), that it would read—and this is the new insert—“Compliance was dependent on any assistance specified by MSD,” and the new part is “including availability of online MSD services;”.

Now, it may be a small part—and, again, what we are saying to the Minister is clear. We’re not disagreeing with the sanctions. We’re not disagreeing with the policy intent of the bill. The committee of the whole House is to make small amendments, and hence the reason why these tabled amendments are simply small amendments. It’s talking about including the fact that the Ministry for Social Development has the number of online services that it has. So all we’re seeking from the Minister in this amendment is that she would include that inside—as a small amendment, not a policy change. Policy-positive is what I like to call it—not policy-neutral—and this is the inclusion of this part.

So those are the contributions I want to make. It’s to bring clarity to the explanatory notes. It’s to say that the fact is that we think that’s important, and, again, these are small but significant changes, as my colleague Chris Penk actually said. It’s in the detail that it becomes important. It’s important because when we think about those on the front line that deliver the policy platform that’s in the intent of this, we want there to be no misunderstanding. We want clarity that this is exactly what the bill says, and it should be inclusive of all the different services.

We know there’s been an increase. We had that in Estimates. We talked about the increase in the number of online services that are offered through to a number of our customers—those who are clients, those who are beneficiaries as well. Why can that not be included?

I don’t think this is unreasonable. I think it’s a very pragmatic and practical way of including that. I hope that the Minister will again see this as something that she could include. It’s policy-positive, it’s a way of moving forward, and, again, it’s no change to the policy intent or direction. We believe in sanctions.

I’ve yet to hear a speech from the Greens. I’d love to hear that and hear what they have to say.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’m very pleased to be taking another call on Part 5. As the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, has pointed out, this is very much intact as it was prior to Supplementary Order Paper 25 being tabled. But, as my colleague Simon O’Connor has pointed out, the committee stage is actually our opportunity to improve legislation as it goes through, and so we do take this time to analyse in some detail, and this is what our obligation is as legislators in this House.

I go back to a tabled amendment in the name of Louise Upston. It refers to Part 5, clause 217, and it’s that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) “must advise [the person] of the hierarchy of [the] sanctions and ensure [that person understands] the impacts of any breaches.” The hierarchy of those sanctions require that for a first breach of this clause, there is a reduction in their main benefit; for the second failure, there is a suspension of a main benefit; and then, for the third failure, there is a cancellation.

So when we have a look at what the obligations of the person are, they are that they must be available for reasonable work opportunities, and the second obligation is that they must accept any reasonable offer. For my area, down in West Coast - Tasman, the seasonal workers are also a very big part of the employment opportunities that are presented to people on benefits, and so this obligation that they must accept any reasonable work offer is very reasonable indeed. The third obligation is that they must participate in interviews—they must go for interviews. I can tell you that in my experience in talking to some employers, even turning up to an interview can be quite a challenge, and so I do support the fact that we have this hierarchy of sanctions that are available to MSD to implement for breaches from people who are on those benefits.

I’d just like to also go back to a contribution made by our newest MP in the House, Dan Bidois, who is from the great electorate of Northcote. He spoke to Part 5 as well, and he referred to Louise Upston’s tabled amendment to clause 232(a), where the “Compliance was dependent on any assistance specified by MSD, including availability of online MSD services.” He did outline a few examples, but there are a few more that I would like to use to show why the online availability could be included in this bill. One of the things that comes to my mind, mainly because, I guess, I’m a rural MP in the great electorate of West Coast - Tasman, is that we have absolutely no public transport. Not from one end of the electorate to the other—

💬 Simeon Brown: Not even a bus?

—is there any opportunity for public transport. The closest we get are school buses. So having availability of those online services is absolutely essential.

We’ve got to also realise that under the current environment, the ability for people to drive to MSD offices, to update or to interview, etc., is becoming more and more challenging. Part of that reason is because hardly anyone there can afford the fuel any more because of the fuel taxes that have been imposed. So the online availability is absolutely essential to people, especially in rural and provincial New Zealand. As champions of the regions, I would expect that New Zealand First would appreciate that we do need to use this technology.

We see often in this House that we have supplementary—what are those bills called when we get a whole group together?

💬 Simeon Brown: Oh, lots of bills. Oh, cognate.

Yeah—can’t remember. I can’t remember what they’re called.

💬 Hon Members: Omnibus.

We have omnibus bills—but yes, we do. We have omnibus bills where—statutes amendments—we parcel together a whole lot of minor changes that are required in bills, and so—I’ve lost my train of thought. But, anyway, I think I’ve made my point, and I do think that we do have an opportunity to bring this up to date and fit for purpose for the 21st century.

Because it’s more than once that they have been raised and I did talk about the fact that it seemed that the explanatory note was not fitting with the actual amendments, I’m also going to point out why the amendments are not appropriate, given that Maureen Pugh has just spoken to this.

The first one I’ll speak to is Louise Upston’s one that is looking at Part 5, clause 217, and is seeking to insert, prior to line 1, “MSD must advise [person] of the hierarchy of sanctions and ensure [person] understand impacts of any breaches.” Basically, we won’t be accepting that because it’s unnecessary as clause 92 in Part 3, which we’ve passed, already requires the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to make affected clients aware of their obligations, consequences of non-compliance, and their review and appeal rights. So exactly what you’re attempting to do here is covered in clause 92 in Part 3. So it’s unnecessary.

Then the other amendment that you’ve spoken to and others have spoken to in the House is under the name of the Hon Louise Upston, and it is to amend Part 5, clause 232(a): “Compliance was dependent on any assistance specified by MSD, including availability of online MSD services;” Currently, that’s covered by “good and sufficient reason”. In terms of expanding on what good and sufficient reason might be, that’s in the operational guidelines. So it is quite a long list, but it’s not exhaustive, because you just don’t know what circumstances people may have that may actually be good and sufficient that you couldn’t account for.

One of the ones that is in the operational guidelines, to my understanding, is what’s been proposed by Louise Upston, and that is the availability of online MSD services. So it is covered. We don’t want to list all of these in legislation, because you’d be cluttering it unnecessarily. So having it in the operational guidelines and leaving some room for discretion, so that it’s not an exhaustive list—and that’s acknowledged—means that when someone has circumstances that you may not have pre-empted that, of course, are circumstances that are good and sufficient, then there is scope there to consider those as well.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you very much—I was pretty quick. Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to talk to my amendment. It’s in Subpart 4, under “Offences”. It’s clause 271(4), and I want to insert paragraph (c) in that clause. So what does it say? It says “A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction to a penalty that is”, and it’s got “either or both”. What I want to do is change both of those to “and”. So: “(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months: (b) a fine not exceeding $5,000.”, and my amendment is paragraph (c), which also includes “and; (c) a 13 week stand down from a benefit”.

I think that by inserting this clause, Minister, it really does drive home the seriousness of what the person committing the offence has done. It really does drive home, I guess, that penalty for her or him liable on that conviction. I want to state that because I think that in many ways—yeah, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months. It’s a long time, but if you have a conviction for a penalty that keeps you in prison for 12 months, that is something very serious, and I don’t see why my 13-week stand down added to those offences, Minister, cannot be added to this particular section, especially when we cover quite a lot of the areas of offences.

As I’ve read through this section, I’ve noted that there’s some quite light-handed stuff in here. I think when people start to defraud and tell lies to MSD over receiving taxpayer-funded benefits, and they lie, then I think that the penalty should be harsh. That’s why adding the 13-week stand down from a benefit is something that will actually drive home that penalty.

So it is without any further ado that when we start looking at offences in this particular area, I think that we do have to take all of these things really seriously. I think that, without which—you know, why do it? I think the 13-week stand down from the benefit on top of those other penalties will show the seriousness of what this side of the House looks at when it comes to offences, thank you very much.

So, without any further ado, that is my amendment—

💬 Darroch Ball: Lies in Opposition, eh?

If you want to talk, then call for a contribution. Otherwise it might pay to just sit back and be quiet. So, yes, he’s getting very, very angry.

💬 Hon Member: Have a Snickers!

Ha! As I said, the offence is serious. It’s a serious thing when it comes to any benefit. We need to be serious in our ability to convict and to penalise those who seek to crock the system. So I would like the Minister to adopt that and maybe contribute to this—tell me why it can’t be added to this particular part of this bill here. I would really like to know why we can’t actually add it. So that’s my question to the Minister.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I want to take a short call on the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill, and just, firstly, respond to a couple of the comments made by Minister Sepuloni in relation to the very good amendment in the name of Louise Upston.

Now, this amendment relates to Part 5, clause 217, and is to insert prior to line 1, “MSD must advise P of the hierarchy of sanctions and ensure P understands impacts of any breaches”. Now, the Minister did respond saying that that is already required elsewhere in the legislation. I think a question I’ve got for the Minister—and I would appreciate her commentary—is: does that require the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to also inform the beneficiary each time they get a strike? I mean I wouldn’t call them a strike. That’s the second point I can make a bit later, but if they were to—at stage one, stage two, stage three, are they informed of the hierarchy? Are they informed of any further breaches at each step along the way? If not, I think there needs to be an obligation on MSD. If a beneficiary is going to be sanctioned at one point, shouldn’t they then, therefore, be able to be given further information? If it happens again—what will be the consequences if it happens again? What will be the further consequences? Should MSD be making that clear, and shouldn’t there be an obligation on them to make that very clear at each step along the way?

I’m happy to write up a new amendment to reflect that, so as to slightly amend the one in the name of Louise Upston, if that would assist the Minister. I know that the Minister is trying to say that if it’s not policy-neutral—not wanting to listen. Well, this is, essentially, policy-neutral. Essentially, it’s just trying to ensure that MSD’s obligations are making sense. The committee stage is the place where we propose amendments which try to assist and try to ensure that the legislation is as good as possible.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: He’s starting to panic and he’s still got 2½ minutes left.

Now, I know Mr McAnulty is sitting there across the other side of the Chamber chirping away like he knows everything, but he still hasn’t taken a call on this bill, which I find to be quite surprising. It’s an important piece of legislation and he is trying to make a good impression in his time here, but he should really take a call and actually talk about some of the legislation which is obviously quite impossible.

So the second question I’ve got, and this is, I guess, getting more towards a policy point—but we do have three stages to these sanctions. In some ways it does resemble “three strikes and you’re out”, because you end up having, firstly, one stage a cut, and then a second, and then you have your benefit cancelled at the end. I was wondering whether Cabinet’s considered this and what support, or not, there was from the different coalition partners for that, because it does resemble, in many ways, the three-strikes legislation, which I see one part of this coalition does agree with and other parts don’t.

Anyway, leaving that aside, I would like to move to clause 240, which is regarding the evidential drug-test. It says here in clause 240, which is “Request for evidential drug test if sanction imposed for failing screening drug test (1) A person (P) who has failed a screening drug test and has been given a section 235 notice … of a sanction on the basis of failing that test may request that P’s sample taken for the screening drug test be subjected to an evidential drug test.” Then, in clause 240(2): “P’s request for an evidential drug test—(a) must be in writing in a form approved by MSD for the purpose”. Now my question regarding the words “in writing” is in relation to whether that is physically written down or whether that is something which can be emailed to the MSD case officer.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Oh, come on. Don’t forget the faxes, mate.

This is actually important. I know Mr McAnulty wants to chirp in again, but actually we live in the 21st century, where we use emails, and what we’re talking about here is language that says “writing”. I want to know from the Minister—I’ve got a question for the Minister and I’d like to have an answer to this question around whether “in writing” should be physically in writing or online. So we need to have that clarified.

I’m happy to have an amendment put up there to change that to clarify the legislation to make it clear, because if MSD hasn’t moved into the 21st century, then they’d better, and the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill is a great opportunity for us to get them into the 21st century. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. This is very efficient. Thank you, Mr Chair. I understand the Minister has just said that Louise Upston’s amendment—basically, including the availability of online assistance has actually been mentioned. So what I’m going to do is I’m going to focus on language assistance, because too many immigrants have difficulty in understanding the policies and understanding letters from departments. These can cause concerns or anxiety for many new immigrants.

Now, in Part 4, I was speaking to my amendment. I didn’t finish because of time limits, but I was going to say that, actually, over 10 years ago, quite a few Chinese migrants received letters from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) regarding their so-called pensions in China. Of course, there was confusion among officials about whether what they had in China was really an overseas pension or not. In the end, of course, with the support of many other people, these Chinese community members actually approached local MPs—including, actually, the Hon Phil Goff—who helped to sort this out. In the end, of course, MSD officials in those years were very helpful. So the language barrier was overcome because of support from the Department of Internal Affairs’ Ethnic Office—what we now call the Office of Ethnic Communities. So with the support of those departments people were able to communicate with all sorts of agencies, but MSD is particularly important because so many migrants need the support of MSD.

Once they received a letter in English—often they are not able to really understand accurately—they would have support from people, either translators or from those community associations, so it is important for MSD to provide language support at certain stages. Now we understand that we have all sorts of support for new immigrants. Language support is a key part. I understand that in the police we now have many people who can speak Mandarin or can speak other languages who are there to support all these ethnic groups. We also understand that we have Language Line, where people can get support for various services. So it is important for MSD to either make sure that they have volunteers there to support these people, or they have staff to support these new migrants—particularly when they are trying to deliver some very important messages or notices. So it is important for them to make sure that these migrants are able to understand the messages. This kind of support, I believe, is particularly important.

The Minister mentioned that online services are there—which is good of course—but, at the same time, whether we are able to have information in different languages online is another matter we may look at. For example, I understand that earlier this year—actually, a few months ago—the Minister of Education was going to do a survey, but they used English without some other very important languages for other very important ethnic communities, including Mandarin, Chinese, Korean, and all these people. They don’t have language for these people. So it is important for us to understand that all services—important services—need to be provided in different languages so that we make sure that all communities are connected.

MSD is a very important part of the Government. Without proper language support, many of our ethnic community members will not be able to get the service or could be penalised because of that misunderstanding. So that is a key part of our services. I hope that not only will we have online services but we will also have online language services. Thank you.

I move, That the question be now put.