Income Insurance Scheme (Enabling Development) Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call in this debate. I have a couple of questions, I’ll be fairly quick. But I note in clause 9(3)(a) it says: “In performing this function, the Corporation must ensure that, as far as is reasonably practicable,—(a) the views of Māori are taken into account in the design of the systems and processes for the income insurance scheme to ensure that the scheme is accessible to Māori and responsive to Māori perspectives;” etc., etc., which is fine, and everyone would agree with that. But in clause 9(4) it says: “The Corporation must engage with Māori in good faith in meeting the requirements of subsection (3)”, which I’ve just referred to. But then it goes into clause 9(5) to say that: “The Corporation must engage with representatives of workers and employers in the design of the systems and processes for the income insurance scheme to ensure the perspectives of workers and employers are taken into account.” But there is no reference to act “in good faith” with those groups. So that, by omission, is almost implying that their views will not necessarily be taken as seriously and they won’t act in good faith with that. So is that just an omission in the bill? Are we going to see a Supplementary Order Paper so to rectify that? Or is that what the Government intends—that one group gets selected out to be acted in good faith with, and others do not. So I’d like to know the answer to that from the Minister.

Also, in Schedule 3 I note in clause 2, information about a person—and this is referring to the information that can be gathered on people by the ACC, or the corporation. Under clause 2(a) it says: “ethnicity, including self-declared ethnicity”, and I’d really like to know what that means. Is that the case across Government, that people can self-declare ethnicity? And does that have the same legal status as some other definition of ethnicity? I’d like to know what those are. I think these are perfectly acceptable questions on things like this. If you’re going to draft—not you of course, Madam Chair—but if Government is going to draft legislation, it needs to be precise, because if this doesn’t line up with other legislation, then we’ve got a problem, and, if it does, then we need to be clear about what “ethnicity” means and what “self-declared ethnicity” means and the legal status of those two things.

Just finally, I’d like to make a little suggestion under that same clause in Schedule 3, it says “Information about a person’s—… (f) visa status”. I suspect we would all know with the current Minister that it will almost certainly be pending, it won’t be yet resolved. I would suggest that they perhaps include Minister Faafoi on their working group. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Our intention is to work in good faith with all the stakeholders and groups that were mentioned earlier. We have been really clear from the get-go that we would not have embarked on the process of exploring this social income insurance scheme if we didn’t have the support of the tripartite partners—Business New Zealand and the Council of Trade Unions. So they have been with us each step of the way.

It’s been also been important to us that we do engage Māori early on, and we have been further buoyed by their support for us to continue this work and that is exactly what we’re doing. Speaking to them about the wording in the bill, they were happy with the fact that we have been so specific with regards to saying that we “must” engage. It’s not “should”, it’s not “may”; it is that we “must”. We have made that clear because of the fact that we know how important this scheme could and should be for Māori. So the intention, certainly, is to act in good faith with everyone. I think the difference is that from the start it was a discussion that was really with the Council of Trade Unions, Business New Zealand, and the Government. Then along the way we have then made sure to bring Māori or iwi on board and to keep them in step with regards to knowing what our moves might be here, as well as getting their advice on how they’re feeling with regards to where we’re going, and making sure that we’re taking them with us. So I’m quite happy with the wording. I think it’s landed where it has and I’m pretty sure our tripartite partners and also Māori are happy with the wording of the legislation as well.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve got a few questions, and thank the Minister for this opportunity to try and get my head around some of the detail in the bill. So one of the first questions is about the timing of this bill and going through urgency. I’ve read through the papers and I’ve seen the modelling that was in the regulatory impact statement that was talking about how we either do it now and then there’s the risks of actually delaying implementation if the Government decides to go ahead, because the preparatory work wouldn’t have been done, and it would have to wait until the introduction of the final legislation, which would be in July. That would really slow things down.

But I didn’t see any analysis in there of the idea of introducing legislation at the point of the Government making a decision. The only thing I could find around was a line in the regulatory impact statement that was saying, “If enabling legislation is not passed now, advice on operational and budgetary implications will be more limited in scope”.

I was just interested and wanting the Minister to explain or add a bit more substance to that, because mostly the other papers talk about the stage after the Government having signed this off to keep going, and the work around modelling and the need for private information in that modelling to be able to get it to work. So I’m interested in actually what’s required between now and the Government making a decision in detail that requires this to happen under urgency now.

Thank you to the member. It’s important because what we’re asking ACC to do actually falls out of the remit of ACC with regards to legislation. Money in the Budget has been set aside so that they can do the development work that we need them to do and the scoping that we need them to do with regards to what a scheme may look like and what would be required to actually operate the scheme. We need them to get that under way, because if we make the decision to do it, then—otherwise we will be playing catch up. So anyway, the legislation has to be put in place.

Also we have to have the legislation in place, otherwise they can’t spend any of the money that’s been set aside to support them to do it—money that is actually in this Budget. So I do want to clarify; I know the member who just asked the question knows this, but I do want to clarify that this bill is just enabling that. It’s actually not talking about the detail of what the scheme will look like or legislating for the scheme. I think most members in the Chamber understand that. So the scope of this bill is very narrow and it is for the purpose of us doing the preparatory work that we need to actually develop this further and then we see what happens.

I think I’ve almost got my head around it, but I’ve got more questions to try and make sure I have. My understanding is that normally in the area of policy related to ACC, it’s the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment that does that work, in consultation with ACC officials. So in terms of the Government being in a position to make a decision, I would have thought that that was more policy, and so I’m just trying to get my head around, actually, that point. Hopefully, that made sense.

I thank the member—I understand what you’re saying. You’re right—with regards to ACC, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment does develop the policy, but ACC needs to do work on what the operationalisation of this scheme would look like, what the IT requirements would be, and so it’s actually work around the practical kind of implementation side of running this type of scheme. If I haven’t been clear on that, then this is a good opportunity to be able to clear this up.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Another area of questioning, and it’s—I feel as if I’m being a bit nerdy.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Never!

That’s right. But, looking at the departmental statement—this is on a completely different point—the clause that I was very happy to see, it was co-developed with the iwi leaders group and ACC around the co-design work with Māori.

I noticed in the departmental report and the general policy statement, it said that the bill requires ACC to engage with and reflect the views of Māori and to be purposeful in developing a scheme platform that will contribute to improving Māori economic and labour market outcomes, including revitalising mātauranga Māori and tikanga. Sounds awesome—it’s not actually in the bill, that specificity. So did that get taken out or is that just inherent in the labour market and economic outcomes?

I actually didn’t hear the first part of the member’s question, so if she could repeat that, that would be great.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In the departmental disclosure statement on page 3 around the general policy statement where it’s talking about the bill requiring ACC to engage and reflect the views of Māori and to “contribute to improving Māori economic and labour market outcomes.”, the sentence continues on to say “including revitalising mātauranga and tikanga.” but that’s not in the bill. In the bill, it ends at “economic and labour market outcomes.” So I’m wondering whether, actually, there was a version of the bill where it was specific around mātauranga Māori and tikanga and it got taken out, or is that just inherent but it’s not mentioned anywhere else?

I think the reality was, as we were developing this, that, again, we realised that the scope of this is quite narrow. Some of the more extensive wording that the member referred to, I think, would be better suited to the actual legislation if—when—we decide to go ahead.

Certainly, I can say with confidence that the particular iwi leader who, on behalf of the Iwi Leaders Forum, has been engaged with us—because of the narrow scope of the bill and because of the fact that it’s enabling legislation; it’s not actually determining the scheme—was indeed quite content with where we landed with the language.

This might be my final question, you’ll be relieved to know, and it was relating to the sharing-of-information provisions in the bill, and I’m just wondering if the Minister can talk us though a bit more of the detail around that. I was pleased to see the provision in here around the checks with the Privacy Commissioner, and that before a Government agency provides information it will first consult with the Privacy Commissioner. I was very pleased to see those checks in place. But it was a little uncomfortable for me to read some of the papers talking about the privacy protections as they are in place within ACC as if that would give us confidence around this while we’re waiting for a report to let us know whether ACC will be addressing the public concerns around privacy, particularly in relation to sensitive claims.

So I assume the Minister has seen the privacy report, which we haven’t had the chance to, and I’m wondering if she would like to make any reflections and give us some assurances around that.

I won’t go into more extensive discussions around privacy. However, I will just state that of course ACC must—it is legally required—consult with the Privacy Commissioner over this and the changes they’re making. There will be the need for information sharing. The most obvious one I can think of is perhaps Inland Revenue and ACC, and we need to make sure that we get that right. So in developing the scheme further, once we pass the enabling legislation, those are going to be the areas that they will need to traverse and work out with regards to how they do that safely and how they do that in a way that will uphold the integrity of the scheme if we choose to go ahead, and so this is part of the preparation. It’s just working out what fundamentally that would look like and how they would do that, and, of course, we would want to get that right from day one if we were to go ahead with the implementation of the scheme.

I will report this bill without amendment.

House resumed.

Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Income Insurance Scheme (Enabling Development) Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.