Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak on the title and commencement of the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. For those people who have just tuned in to this debate, social security legislation covers $25 billion worth of taxpayer spending each and every year—$25 billion. What we’ve seen is an absolute farce of a process by the Government, who have picked up a piece of legislation that was drafted by the previous Government, put a 500-page Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) on the Table within hours of the second reading being planned—no public consultation, no explanation in this House.

The National Party members have diligently tried to improve this legislation, and then, again, we’ve had further SOPs tabled by the Minister in charge of this legislation, Carmel Sepuloni, and a flat-out refusal by the Minister in the chair to answer any questions about SOPs that no member of public has sighted or had the opportunity to debate, and have also denied this House of Representatives—the people’s House—any explanation whatsoever on SOP 49. That is an absolutely outrageous abuse of process in this House.

I’m still staggered that we have a Minister that will refuse to answer basic questions on an SOP and whether or not there are policy changes, because the Minister has previously said, “No policy changes. No, none at all.”—and given no explanation at all. It’s quite disgraceful, and I think this is a sad day in this committee when this Labour-led Government won’t allow any scrutiny on a piece of legislation, the social security legislation, which is legislation that protects New Zealanders in their time of need—$25 billion of taxpayer money a year. It didn’t put the 501-page SOP out for consultation, wouldn’t refer the bill back to a select committee for consideration, and then, in this committee, flatly refuses to answer any questions about further SOPs that are tabled.

Now, members of the public should be absolutely outraged. Taxpayers work hard each and every day to provide a fair welfare system that supports people in need, and they have zero opportunity—zero opportunity—to have their say. Then, in this committee—the final opportunity to provide scrutiny on this legislation—a simple question was asked of the Minister in the chair, to provide answers, explanation, and detail about an SOP, and we got zero answers. I think that’s an absolute disgrace. I think it’s appalling for this House of Representatives. Actually, I don’t believe it can call itself a House of Representatives, because the Government of the day don’t believe in allowing the public the chance to have their say on the most significant area of spending that this Government makes decisions on on behalf of taxpayers.

So it is a disgrace. This is a process that’s just been appalling right from day one, where this Government has refused the opportunity for members of the public to have submissions, and then, having shut down that debate, won’t answer simple questions on an SOP that’s been tabled since this legislation’s been well under way. I think that is an absolute and outright disgrace and a sad day for this Parliament. Just yesterday, the Speaker of the House was talking about engagement and a parliamentary engagement strategy. Well, I suggest number one should be “Make sure that the public have their say on legislation where the spending is $25 billion a year.” It’s a bit of a no-brainer.

I want to go on to some of the other areas, because this is the debate on the title and commencement of a very substantial piece of legislation—legislation that was, basically, first drafted 50 years ago, and things have changed a lot since then. It’s not about welfare reform; this legislation is about bringing it into the aegis—so when a Parliament makes substantial changes to update legislation like this, it does require significant scrutiny. One of the areas that I want to bring to the public’s attention—because, as I mentioned earlier, they don’t have the opportunity to with this 501-page SOP and the three SOPs by the Minister that have followed, without any debate or any answer or explanation from the Minister in this committee. The Labour Party has preached about putting children at the heart of everything they do; at the core of their policy. Yet their first piece of legislation around social security—what does it do? It makes it harder for children in some of the most challenging and challenged circumstances to access support that they could’ve otherwise accessed.

So, yes, it’s the principle of social investment, which is about changing lives. Bill English’s work was about changing lives. Social investment, one of the principles that this Government has ripped out of this legislation, was about ensuring that those who need taxpayer support more than ever—we could focus on their needs; we could focus on what support they required and intervene earlier than before. That gives the opportunity to have the greatest impact on those lives. So the principles of social investment have been ripped out of this legislation, which is a huge lost opportunity.

But, more than that, the other changes that the Minister’s SOP—and I’m going to state this in the committee, because the public didn’t have the opportunity to see these changes and to provide their views on it. There are very practical changes that would make a difference in the lives of Kiwis who most need the Government’s support. Yet, what does this Government do? It removes them. So whether it’s decisions about unsupported children, whether it’s about simple, practical measures like shared care, the Government has decided not to make it easier for front-line staff to support those who need it most, which is quite a misfit, because this is supposedly—for those of you who are watching at home—the Government that purports to be a kinder Government and a more caring Government. What do they do? They make it harder for front-line staff in the Ministry of Social Development to support the people who need their support the most—kind of interesting.

It’s $25 billion that taxpayers provide to support people in need, and I don’t think there would be a taxpayer out there who doesn’t want to make sure that people who are struggling have easier access to their support. So it is a sad day in this Parliament. It’s a sad day for a Government completely missing an opportunity to do their best for children in need, to do their best for families in need, and an absolute outrage that members of the public don’t have the opportunity to participate in this process. And that the Minister sitting in the chair doesn’t even answer a simple question or provide any explanation of an SOP that’s been tabled in this committee with zero input from anyone. It’s a disgrace.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, this has been a somewhat lengthy debate over a number of days, and it’s good that we’re up here now to, obviously, the title and commencement. But we haven’t, in effect, had enough debate, and the reason for that is, ultimately, twofold: one is that we have not, sadly, heard from the Ministers in the chair and, secondly, we’ve had a substantial 600-plus page Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) tabled at the last moment bringing about substantial changes—and as my colleague who has just resumed her seat noted, changes that have not gone through select committee, have not been engaged with by the general public, and, in effect, even as hard-working MPs, we haven’t had the full amount of time required to go through.

But in the time that we have had in the debate in the House and outside, there are a number of problems. Fundamentally, the first is this is no longer policy-neutral. Pretty much the only contributions we got from Ministers in the chair were waxing lyrical—or perhaps waxing boring—on the fact that this is policy-neutral, and it’s a case, unfortunately, of “the lady doth protest too much”. It’s the complete opposite of what’s being said. This is no longer policy-neutral, and it’s one of the key reasons that National is unable to support the bill. In fact, I’d better be clear: we could support the bill, but we cannot support the bill with SOP 25 dropped on it. So, for that reason, I suggest that the title should really be something like the “Social Security Legislation Rewrite and Last-Minute SOP Dropped on the Public Without Discussion Bill”.

I would suggest, too, that the commencement needs to be pushed at least a year out. So, basically, they’re suggesting at the moment via the SOP that it should be 26 November 2018. It should go at least to 2019, and there are two reasons for that. First and foremost, I think it remains an affront to the House and democratic process that the public hasn’t had their say. I think the Minister should take this last opportunity to actually seek the leave of the House or go to the Business Committee, go to the Speaker, and send this back into select committee to allow people to have their say. In fact, probably most of their friends—when I think of the poverty action groups and so forth, one of the things they always talk about is they want to talk and engage and have a discussion. They seem a little bit mute at the moment, which doesn’t fully surprise me. The Left often become mute when they get what they want and don’t want anyone else to speak, but, really, the public should have their say.

The second is, I’m not convinced that all these changes can be implemented in time. In fact, the original implementation was meant to be in July—in fact, a couple of weeks ago. We’ve obviously gone past that time because the House has not been able to agree on this legislation, and it’s been pushed out to 26 November. Again, that was done by SOP 25 weeks and weeks and weeks ago, and here we are, almost in August. So I think there’s a bit of a problem there. I can’t speak for the good people at the Ministry of Social Development, but with the changes that are being put through—the non - policy-neutral changes that are being put through—more time is required.

Look, fundamentally, where the opposition has come around this is not just the lack of neutrality—which is what the intention of the rewrite bill was to do, to try and modernise various points of language—but it was to enable flexibility in the welfare system. The one example—and it’s only one of many—that we on this side particularly used is around the care of children. In effect, under the previous rewrite and before this SOP, Work and Income, in particular, had the flexibility to divide payments where necessary to those parents who are looking after children. It’s not the case with two parents and, let’s say, three or four children that all the children will be with one of the parents. That’s a really simple situation, and I suspect a case manager in Work and Income would be relieved when that situation comes up, because it’s very clear: if one parent’s looking after all the kids, all the entitlements go to that parent.

But we know that parenting these days is quite complex. I know that myself. You can no longer, because of this SOP and this proposed legislation, split the moneys. Now, that’s going to cause all sorts of strife, I would suggest, in so far as if the four kids are split between the two parents, only one gets it—I suspect probably the mum, which she might be happy about. But then, all of a sudden, how is the father going to access some of those funds? Is he going to have to negotiate with the mother? Is he or she going to have to engage lawyers? And the cost—it just all gets a little bit messy. So it’s just an example—just an example—of how this is not flexible, and I think a contradiction to the suggestions that have been put that this is about putting the child at the centre. Fundamentally, if that were the case, then elements, I would say, of this SOP would be rejected. But with that, I end my contribution, which is probably a great relief, hours and hours later, to the honourable member Kieran McAnulty.

on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: I move, Supplementary Order Paper 26 dividing the bill.