Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m not sure if we’ve been sent here tonight as a collective group to torture Matt King, but—[Interruption] Look, we have, in many ways, moved through a lot of the substance of the bill now. Part 6, however, is quite long, but is particularly around the administration of what we’ve been through.

So as has been noted before, this is a bill in 10 parts, of about 600 pages. To be fair, it is mainly the existing text with some rewrites. But Part 6 is titled “Administration” and is broken down into a series of subparts, which are really about how one applies, inquires, grants, and commences benefits, how one ends benefits, the expiries and the payments, and tax and deduction. So it’s not the sexy part of the bill, but it is sort of the engine, if you will.

Because it’s the engine and because it needs to be an effective mechanism, I do have a particular issue around clause 289A, in Supplementary Order Paper 25, which is around the termination of the winter energy payment—so that’s clause 289A.

💬 Simeon Brown: It is getting cold.

I know, it is getting cold here, Mr Brown, but that’s not why I’m raising it. Look, the winter energy payment has been done to death as a concept, and I don’t intend to relitigate that part of it.

💬 Simeon Brown: It is a dead concept.

Someone has suggested it’s a dead concept. But my concern really is the almost circular nature of how this particular clause—it’s a new insertion by the Minister. In many ways, why is it added here and why is it in the form that it is? The issue that we’ve got is we’ve got effective insertion almost randomly—that’s indicated by the fact that it’s clause 289A rather than a whole new number. It’s just in between clause 289, which is about another benefit being more appropriate, and clause 290 about certain benefits being granted. So it’s unclear to me in terms of the legal progress why it’s just randomly been inserted there.

But the fundamental problem is that clause 289A here in Part 6 says “After the review”—whatever “the” review is. And that’s a problem right from the start because it’s using the definite article rather the indefinite article—that is, “the” rather than “a”. So what is “the” review? I would imagine, again, having been in the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), that there are reviews in the plural, so, you know, I would expect the indefinite article. But then: “MSD may terminate a winter energy payment”—fortunately, it’s the payment, not the person, though that would also achieve the same end. But: “MSD may terminate a winter energy payment under section 65F”.

So what we have is a section here in Part 6 which then refers back to something in Part 2. The problem we run into immediately is clause 65F talks about “Winter energy payment: termination on review”—I’m not going to read the whole thing, but then it says to terminate you have to go back to section 285 and also section 289A. So we start in Part 6, and Part 6 refers us to Part 2, and Part 2 then refers us back to Part 6. By this time I’m getting rather confused. Now, some on that side might suggest it’s a matter of mental ability, but I don’t think that’s the case. So we’ve got a confused section, fundamentally. Why is it put in here at this point? Why then is clause 289A referring back to Part 2?

When you get to Part 2, you’re immediately sent back to Part 6—in this case clause 285, in the first instance, which is around the entitlement and rate payable. When you look at clause 285(1)(a), and this is in Part 6, it says that MSD may review a benefit—I’m expurgating here—where the beneficiary is or remains entitled to receive the benefit. Well, one would assume that if someone has received the winter energy payment based on age—as I understand it, that’s how you receive it—it’s sort of nonsensical to suggest that that may not remain. I suppose that could be a question of whether that’s the fundamental criterion, but we’re not talking like a sickness benefit here, where the condition may abate or change; we’re talking about a winter energy payment based on a person’s age and the season.

So if you’ve gone from Part 6 back to Part 2, jumping back to Part 6, clause 285(1)(a), we’re talking here that there remains—[Bell rung] Thank you very much. One of the things you learn, the MP for Northland, is a little bit of humility.

But, fundamentally, what we’ve got here, then, as I said, first and foremost, is backwards and forwards within a situation where the termination of payment is based on, say, a remaining entitlement. So I suppose there’s some confusion of—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: We want to hear from Matt King.

He has put me off—that’s right. It’s one of the striking things that through the interjections of Mr McAnulty, he’s given about four speeches in this entire thing.

But, fundamentally, clause 285(1)(a) is basically working out whether a winter energy payment continues on the original basis of entitlement. As I was saying, if this was a sickness benefit, it makes sense. You go back and you review, because that illness may have gone, dissipated, or so forth, or in such a way that someone can return to work. The winter energy payment—as I said, its two legs are, effectively, age and, effectively, the season, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me why that’s one of the reasons. Clause 285(1)(b) does make a lot of sense. Where the beneficiary was not entitled to receive the benefit, I can certainly understand that MSD may review and decide for some reason—I don’t know; for theory’s sake that the person had fraudulently indicated their age, forgot that they’d received the letter, or something like that—that they may want to review it. But we just have a fundamental lack of clarity here in the way that it is completely structured.

To make matters worse, I would suggest, once you’ve dealt with clause 285, which is relatively substantial—there’s a series of other parts—well, actually clause 285(3) then puts someone through an enormous process of review, which, again, doesn’t reflect the simplicity of clause 289A. All of a sudden, someone who’s receiving a fairly minimal contribution is now having to go through at least a series of reviews by the committee and appeal to authority, the courts, and even a medical board. So there’s a proportionality question, I think, which is arising in the structure of this part, and it all comes from the insertion of this termination of the winter energy payment in clause 289A, and, fundamentally, why it turns back to section 65F. I haven’t had the opportunity to table an amendment to make it clearer, but, actually, there are, I suspect, and suggest, ways of making clause 289 easier, in nominating what would be the very particular reasons that one might terminate a winter energy payment.

Again, I think the fundamental point here is that this is, in some ways, an allowance by age and by season. It is not based on one’s youth, on one’s employability, on one’s sickness, illness, solo parenthood, or otherwise. So, in effect, what we’re doing here, or what is being done by introducing clause 289A, in Part 6, is beginning to put New Zealanders who are receiving the winter energy payment into a rather complicated system of review, and I think it’s symbolically suggested by the very fact that we have to go to Part 2, which sends you back to Part 6.

As I noted, though, once you’ve got to Part 2, it then also sends you back, which is really confusing, and I’m hoping the lawyers may assist me. While I’ve already, I think, indicated why it’s odd to go from clause 289A—it says, “Check out section 65F”; section 65F says, “clause 285”. It goes on to say, “See also section 289A”. In other words, section 289A, in Part 6, says, “Go to clause 65F”, and clause 65F says, “Go and look at section 289A”. This is a circular clause—a circular argument. It is nonsensical.

💬 Hon Member: I thought you were a monarchist, Simon.

It’s policy circular—it’s not only neutral, this is policy circular. It makes no sense.

Now, look, I am happy to admit—look, even Her Majesty would be upset about this—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Sit down. Members do not bring Her Majesty into the debate, at all.

That’s right. It is quite correct, and the great thing about that is that there’s another eight seconds. So, marvellous! But, really, what I’m saying is that we’ve got, effectively, a circular debate here. So I’d really welcome the Minister, if she’s able to take a call today or, obviously, in future discussions on why this is so circular. As I said, fundamentally, clause 289A refers to Part 2, and that, in itself, just sends it straight back there.

That member, Simon O’Connor, who was just speaking, was attempting to say that Part 6, in terms of what’s being proposed through Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25, is nonsensical. I just want to say that member is nonsensical. It was very hard to follow his argument when it was based on so many factually incorrect assertions.

Firstly, I need to inform that member that the winter energy payment is not based on age. Superannuitants, veterans—yes—but also all main beneficiaries can get access to the winter energy payment. So it is not age-related in any way.

Also, that member kept referring to the sickness benefit and the invalid’s benefit. Unless the member is citing legislation pre-2013, when those benefits actually still existed, then I have no idea what he’s talking about, because they haven’t existed since 2013, when his Government, at the time—the previous Government—changed the legislation and folded what the terms of those were into what became the supported living payment. So, as I said, it was very difficult to follow that member’s argument because of the fact that there were so many factually incorrect assumptions and statements made.

So perhaps reading the actual SOP would bring him up to speed with more recent legislation, and perhaps next time he won’t start his speech by referring to my lack of intelligence, when, clearly, someone has not read the bill.

I’ve never had to work so hard to get a call. Raymond Huo and Jamie Strange have been sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for this contribution, and I didn’t want to be outdone and have the thunder stolen by Dan Bidois on his first day in the House.

I would like to refer to clause 301, “Effect of no longer being subject to work-preparation obligations”, and then subclause (1)(b)(i): “a general obligation of the person under section”—

Sorry to interrupt the member. [Interruption] Order! I’m on my feet. Sorry to interrupt the member, it’s come time for me to report progress.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill with amendment, progress on the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill, and no progress on the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.