Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill. Members, we come first to Part 1. This debate is on clauses 3 to 11 and Schedules 1 and 2, “Amendments to the Social Security Act 2018”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Point of order, Madam Chair. I seek leave to take this bill as one question.

Is there any objection? There is no objection; then we shall take it as one part. The question is that Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to the Chair. Look, I’ve just got some questions for the Minister regarding what I canvassed in my first reading and second reading speeches.

I’d be keen to understand, in terms of the journey of this bill, when she would have received advice for the first time that this was going on, the journey around receiving that advice, and then time lines around addressing this. I totally acknowledge the point about the pandemic and prioritisation, but it would be good to get some clarity around that.

I would also be keen that—as part of identifying that there were issues in the delivery of the accommodation supplement, whether she sought any other advice on how to improve the delivery of the accommodation supplement, and, if not, whether this was the only thing that she has been exploring in regard to changes to the accommodation supplement. As we know, this is not the only complicated, and often nebulous, part of the delivery of this income support.

The other thing is: does she have any knowledge or reports of there being a practice that has been inconsistent with the Act; if so, do we know how many people have been potentially impacted by this inconsistency, if there was one, and what have been the impacts of it?

I invite the Minister’s reflections on how we can better improve the accommodation supplement so that it is less complex.

I’ll attempt to respond to the questions of that member. The first question was in relation to when we realised that there was this alignment issue. As pointed out in my second reading speech, it was through the 2018/2019 annual review. At that point that it was picked up, work began; however, it wasn’t completed when COVID hit our shores, and it was one of those areas where, despite the fact there was an alignment issue, the policy intent was still being realised. I would have been concerned if our superannuitants were being disadvantaged. Of course, we’re always concerned when law doesn’t align with policy, but it was one of those areas that could be parked for then. It did need to be picked up again—in fact, the Office of the Auditor-General, through Audit New Zealand, said that we needed to treat this with some urgency and hurry up and fix it. So this seemed like the most appropriate place to do it, during this urgency session.

It is a technical fix, and so I know some members have said it should go through a select committee process, but I would like to just say, please rest assured: I really do not think, very genuinely, that there was anything in here that you need to be concerned about. It is a fix.

With respect to the member’s question around any broader changes to the accommodation supplement, that was not a consideration with this bill; we needed to just treat this one with urgency. I think anything in relation to the broader accommodation supplement issue does need to be considered carefully. There is a review of that under way at the moment. We certainly haven’t made any decisions in that space, but it is something that we’re looking at. That has to and should be separate from making this fix.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve just got a follow-up question in light of that answer. The work began in 2019 and wasn’t completed because of COVID, I understand. There was just a mention that the Office of the Auditor-General has said this needs to be done under urgency.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. I’m just wondering whether some of the information the member may be about to disclose was, in fact, in a committee session, which remains confidential until the committee reports back.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Speaking to the point of order. I think, as a committee member, I am aware of that risk, but I just wanted to say that Karen Chhour is directly responding to the comments by the speaker. I think we’re all aware of that, and we’re navigating with the care that there should be. I just wanted to assure the Chair that those committee members are aware of the serious ramifications of this.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): So the member, obviously, was not a member of the committee—

Yes, I am a member.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): So you’re aware of any restrictions around that? So just tread carefully, please, as you go, being aware of that, of the restriction around it.

I’m speaking to the answer to the question, and the answer stated that the Office of the Auditor-General has said this needs to be treated with urgency.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: With urgency, not in urgency.

With urgency—sorry.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We may be divided by a common language here! So carry on, and I thank members for their patience.

I apologise for that wrong wording. So my question, really, is: when was that advice from the Office of the Auditor-General given to you? And how long since then has this taken?

A quick answer to that question: September was when we got asked to treat this with some urgency—not in urgency, but with some urgency—and hence we’re here now.

Thank you. I guess, as a first-time MP, this is the first time where I kind of see this happening, so I would like some clarification of whether the Minister thought that it was in the public interest to let people know that there could have been a misalignment—if there was a misalignment in 2019 identified, whether it was in the public interest to, at least, while the work is being carried out, let the public know. Because reading through the legislation papers, it is—you know, this is the first time that we’re hearing this in this public arena.

The second question I had was: so it was identified that there wasn’t a no-doubt sort of—that there was no doubt—so let me rephrase that. It was identified that there could potentially be doubt in how the accommodation supplement was delivered and in the law. So I just wanted to get assurances from the Minister that there hadn’t been anyone who has a partner in residential care that would have not then received their full entitlements as it had been interpreted. Because obviously this guarantees that all these people are going to now, but whether the Minister is aware of anyone who perhaps was getting less than others because of this kind of complex interpretation of the previous law—well, the current law that we’re now changing.

My understanding is that that hasn’t been the case. Referring back to what I said earlier, the policy intent has been realised. I would have been very concerned if the policy intent wasn’t being realised and people weren’t receiving what we had intended for them to receive. They were receiving it. The problem was that the legislation wasn’t reflecting the policy intent. Now, my understanding is that because the policy intent was clear from the start, the guidelines and practice with regards to providing the support have been consistently provided across the Ministry of Social Development. It is the law that doesn’t align with what they’re doing, but certainly the practice has been consistent, to my understanding.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, can you just bear with me here—new MP, first time. So I just want to ask a question: is it normal practice to continue allowing an unlawful practice to happen after you realise that it’s unlawful? So have any of these supplements been approved after the Ministry of Social Development was made aware that it didn’t align with lawful practice, and is that normal, to continue unlawful practice knowingly?

I think it’s fair to say that if the Ministry of Social Development hadn’t been interrupted by a pandemic, and the work log that that brought and the need to divert their energy and their resource to what was required in response to the pandemic, it would’ve been responded to much quicker than it has been. And so I think that’s the point of difference between this particular alignment issue between policy and legislation compared to some others that may have occurred. It is not abnormal, particularly with very complex legislation, to find these types of alignment issues. Ideally, I think agencies, ministries get on to them much quicker, but for the reasons that I’ve cited, it has taken longer.

I thank the Minister for her assurances that no one has received less than intended, and just going back to my first question from my previous contribution about whether she had considered—it’s been identified, this misalignment, and whether it would have been in the public interest to sort of at least make people aware of that, or at least those of us in the House, and, if not, why not? I mean, for me, I guess, whether it is common practice to not let the public know, or whether this is sort of an odd situation where we’re kind of only finding out at this point in time when it’s now actually changing. While I totally get the delays around COVID and there is the fact that I totally take the point that this is an issue that could have, potentially, not drawn heaps of contributions from submitters, but there still could have been a debate or there could have been constructive contributions from parliamentarians and community members. Should the public have been made aware of this inconsistency?

So I guess I’m going back to my question: did, at any point, the Minister consider letting the public know of this potential misalignment and her intention to fix it?

To be fair, I’m not sure what the precedent is with regards to informing people about any alignment issues that we may come across in legislation. I can imagine that scale would be an issue with this while the policy intent is still being realised. I think it would be in the public interest if someone had been disadvantaged or if a policy was going to have to change immediately and, therefore, potentially disadvantage future people who may need to access this support. We weren’t in a situation with this particular issue where any of those things were going to be a concern, so I don’t feel that there was urgency on this one.

The question around public interest in alignment issues and sharing that information is interesting, though, and I will go away and check what the precedent is for that.

Thank you. I seek clarification from the Minister, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, about being advised by the Office of the Attorney-General—was that August 2019 or August of this year, Minister?

What I was referring to was the Office of the Auditor-General, through Audit New Zealand, wanting us to treat this with urgency. And so it was in September this year that we got asked to treat this with some urgency.

Thank you, Minister. As a follow-on question to that: in September this year, to treat the issue with urgency—noting the section 73 requirement under the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 mandating that the Minister must, on the introduction into the House of a Government bill that proposes an amendment to the Act, which this bill is addressing, bring to the attention of the House the consultation process followed in formulating the proposed amendment. Minister, it’s known that you wrote a letter dated 1 November of this year to each of the political parties. How does that comply with section 73, when it’s mandatory that, on the introduction of the bill in proposing an amendment to the Act, you, as Minister, must, in bringing the consultation process to the attention of the House, do so in formulating a proposed amendment? So, Minister, can you clarify that? Because the formulation of the proposed amendment occurred before you actually engaged in notifying the political parties in a process of consultation.

It was in September that the Office of the Auditor-General, through Audit New Zealand, said we need to treat this with some urgency. My understanding is that then we needed to make sure that we were very clear about what the legislation would look like before we could really come to political parties and say this is what we’re planning on doing. So 1 November was when that was done. The feedback we received from political parties, I think it was just the Green Party—but we certainly didn’t receive any feedback in response to say that any party had any concerns or didn’t support the bill, and so we’ve moved forward and are now here.

For the interest of the public and other parliamentarians, I guess, and going back, I guess, to the question of public interest, does the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, intend to release those communications with the Office of the Auditor-General? Like, is there any intent of actually proactively making the public aware? Again, this does seem to be an odd quirk. I appreciate the Minister will go back around the precedent on letting people know if, like, there is a belief that it is in the public interest, but I guess my concern is more about the element of transparency, where, again, like, as a legislator, if I am aware that this has been identified and that it is being worked through, that gives me a sense of comfort and peace, because—I get this is a tiny issue, but there could be other examples where it may not be sort of a relatively minor change, and I just want to check what sort of practice the Minister wants to take on this bill so that it sets a good precedent for any other potential quirks in law and practice and that we set a good example.

My understanding is we can’t release any advice that we receive from the Office of the Auditor-General, so that responds to part of the question in relation to this—I’m not sure about more broadly.

Going back to what you were saying about alignment issues, we do have an ongoing programme where we’re constantly seeking to find if there are any alignment issues. We’ve got beneficiary advocates that support some of that work, because quite often—and that member would know this—they are working with people that are able to discover where there may be misalignments, and so it’s important that we’re constantly looking for those and then looking for opportunities to fix them when that is possible. I can’t remember what else the member asked, so I’ll just leave it there.

Just following on from that, does the Minister see any merit in—if there is a work programme that is looking for misalignments that would have resulted, for example, in this bill coming to the House, as to whether maybe the Ministry of Social Development could be working better with the general public, not just the welfare advocacy groups, around supporting the identification of any misalignments based on experience, to better identify this and to, I guess, involve the general public and benefit recipients on identifying where they may feel that the law isn’t always in accordance with the practice? I know that not every benefit recipient is a Social Security Act enthusiast, but there are people who—actually, part of the complications of accessing income support is that people actually do brush up on the law and they themselves—this is my experience—could identify those misalignments feeding into that work. So, I guess, are there any lessons taken from identifying this one that could lead to changes in practices on how other misalignments may be identified?

Any member of the public, at any time, that discovers a misalignment like this between practice and policy and legislation of course can contact the Government agency with whom the legislation sits or is aligned to, and that would be taken seriously, I’m sure, by the Government agencies. It’s certainly not just the beneficiary advocates; we do have policy people, as well, who are often looking to see whether or not there are things that need to be fixed. But, I mean, there’s nothing to stop any member of the public from raising an issue like this, and it would be taken seriously by any Government agency.

Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Social Security (Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third Reading