Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on Parliament’s website.

I move, That the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that—sorry. After you.

The Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill amends the Social Security Act 2018 to introduce regular reviews of specified benefits, including the accommodation supplement. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) does not always have the most up-to-date information about clients and they therefore may not be receiving the correct assistance. To efficiently implement the boarders’ contribution initiative in the legislation we’ve just passed, MSD must have up-to-date information on how much clients are getting from boarders, particularly to ensure correct entitlement for the accommodation supplement.

The mandatory reviews that will be introduced through this bill provide an efficient mechanism to regularly gather information about contributions from boarders and other client circumstances. MSD will be required to review specified benefits at least once a year. These reviews will confirm that clients are receiving the correct rate and are still eligible for the benefit. The specified benefits this requirement will apply to, in addition to the accommodation supplement, are the supported living payment and the disability allowance. The changes will also apply to the emergency benefit when the expiry date is beyond 52 weeks, or if there is no expiry date at all. Finally, the changes will also apply to people receiving New Zealand superannuation with a non-qualified partner. This is a grandparented assistance that will not affect the vast majority of people who receive superannuation.

These changes will mean that more clients will have to engage with the MSD regularly to keep their circumstances up to date, including information about board payments. The bill does not introduce an onerous process for clients and they will be able to choose how they respond to the review. These changes will lead to more clients being paid the right rate of benefit. This will reflect their correct entitlement and will reduce the accumulation of debt over time, which is an issue that I know members on the other side have been concerned about. Similar to the changes that I have recently introduced through the 26-week reapplications, when a client has already confirmed their circumstances are correct through another engagement, MSD will not be required to review their circumstances for the 52 weeks.

This bill will also enable MSD staff to prioritise supporting clients into work. Some aspects of the process to confirm a client’s circumstances will use automated decision-making. I want to speak about the limited use of the automated decision-making. They are: firstly, notifying the client that they do need to confirm their circumstances, then continuing their benefit if a client confirms the information MSD holds is correct, or stopping the benefit if a client doesn’t respond to the review before the deadline. Automated decision-making will only be used for review-related decisions that do not require the use of discretion or human judgment.

There are several final points I want to emphasise to the House. Firstly, these reviews are different from the reapplication process for jobseeker support or sole parent support. Clients will not be required to submit full reapplications for their assistance; they will simply need to confirm that the information MSD holds about them is correct.

Secondly—for the avoidance of doubt—medical reviews are not tied to these reviews. Clients will be confirming aspects of their life, such as contributions from boarders, income, living arrangements, and whether they have a partner or children in their care—not their disability or health condition. They will not be required to seek additional medical certificates as a result of this bill.

Finally, I want to emphasise that this bill does not change any rules regarding eligibility for these payments. It simply creates a more efficient mechanism to apply existing rules. Many New Zealanders would be surprised that this review is not already in place, and it is critical to the successful implementation of the boarders’ contribution changes. It will also contribute to a more proactive, efficient, and accurate welfare system. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Sorry about that. Again, here we have yet another attack from this Government on the poorest and most vulnerable Kiwis. It’s déjà vu. As I said earlier, it’s been a terrible week for the Government and, now, here we are on Saturday. They’re hoping that most New Zealanders are not watching this, but people are aware of what’s happening in terms of this kaupapa. We don’t believe the cruel sanction process alongside this bill will help the welfare of any—

💬 Joseph Mooney: Speak to the bill, Willie!

I’ll do it again just for you, Mr Mooney. We don’t believe the sanction process alongside this bill will help the welfare of anyone impacted by it, all right? So it’s about—you can’t sort of—

💬 Joseph Mooney: It’s not alongside this bill; it’s separate—a separate issue.

Oh, no, no, it’s all connected, Mr Mooney. It’s all connected. You just think, “Oh, there are just sanctions here, and nothing’s connected.” Everything’s connected. And we’ve got incredible misgivings over the sanctions process.

What this mandatory review amendment does is speed up—just for you, Mr Mooney—how many times people on welfare face those harsh sanctions. See? That’s the connection—just for you, just for you. Look, I know it’s hard for the other side to understand, but research cited in the regulatory impact statement highlights that these sanctions may increase mental and physical health problems, including substance abuse and poverty. So speeding up how many times people face those sanctions will exacerbate those social stresses—something I think that this Government’s incapable of comprehending.

Because of constant Public Service cutbacks, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) doesn’t have enough staff to process these claims. We’ve constantly cited this, every six months, which will require artificial intelligence automation of eligibility, which the Privacy Commission has concerns about—concerns no one is listening to.

In terms of our policy, we’ve seen example after example of Government policy that is bureaucratically obtuse and creates confusion and punishment. And that’s, again, the problem with this. There is confusion amongst people at the coalface. They don’t know where to go to. They know that MSD are concerned, but MSD don’t have the capability. For example, by halving the review time for job seekers and their partners, this Government will continue along the way of threatening and bullying people and then immediately sanctioning them. This isn’t welfare policy. The Government are actively making the process—and here’s the point: they’re actively making the process of getting welfare as difficult as possible. We want a simple process, and the reality is it’s difficult as possible as unemployment continues to grow.

Where are all the jobs for those who are being thrown off welfare? That’s what we’re asking. They’re setting up job seekers to fail because they don’t want to help them, I think. I think that’s the problem. They don’t want to help them in the first place. In terms of getting beneficiaries into work, of course we all want that, and I appreciate the Minister wants that, too. To achieve that, we must have simple policies, simple ways for our people to access their needs and to access support. That’s not the case here. Benefit and jobseeker numbers have risen significantly under this Government as a result, obviously, of worsening economic conditions, and the Government has to take responsibility for the consequences of those actions.

In terms of this mandatory reviews amendment bill, we obviously oppose it because it doesn’t help job seekers; it just punishes them. It’s the continuation of the punitive style and process of this Government—something that we will turn around when we get that opportunity back in Government. We will bring in a more embracing style, and I’ll go on the record again, today, as saying that Labour totally opposes this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Make no mistake, if the Minister was actually serious about improving the accuracy of the Ministry of Social Development entitlement assessments, she would be investing in the front line and supporting them adequately, rather than continuing to undermine them and pushing through more and more decisions to a computer system, where there will be less accountability should it not adequately calculate benefits. This is part of a plan to cut the lifeline for countless people so that the Government can meet their target of 50,000 less people receiving income support, not about people getting, basically, more support or getting into employment.

💬 Joseph Mooney: This guy doesn’t understand what he’s talking about.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Joseph Mooney says that I don’t know what I’m talking about, but I’d really invite him—because he didn’t in the previous debate—to actually tell us about the substance of this bill and who this is affecting the most. Last debate, he didn’t talk about how the previous bill would affect people in hardship, so I welcome him to do the same. I say this because, as the Minister said—and she’s basically opened up for us to link those two together—this bill was integral for her to meet the intent of the previous bill, which does what? Leave 14,000 people worse off, between, on average, $100 each week, to, potentially, $200 worse each week.

These so-called mandatory reviews, they are also an excuse to, basically, punish people and strip them of their benefit, particularly for those on the supported living payment, who then will be left off, again, in hardship, because we know that disabled people are more likely than many other groups to be living in poverty. The child poverty reports tell us exactly that: that being disabled is actually one of, unfortunately—and it shouldn’t be that way—the largest reasons why somebody could find themselves in poverty, not because of the disability but because of political decisions being made to strip away support for disabled people, to scapegoat them, undermine them, discriminate them, instead of allowing everyone to have the life that they need.

This bill introduces mandatory reviews for things like the supported living payment, the emergency benefit with an expiry date beyond 52 weeks or no expiry date at all, the accommodation supplement—and this is where the Minister tied in the intent of tying this bill with the one that we just passed—the disability allowance, and New Zealand superannuation with a non-qualified partner or grandparent. The thing is, should this review happen—I think particularly for the supported living payment it makes very little sense, since they already face a 52-week review anyway, so it just kind of feels like duplicating things—and people find themselves receiving less, the reality is that that just means that they will be pushed deeper into poverty. People on the supported living payment, for example, they’re not living a life of luxury, unless, you know, the Minister somehow thinks so.

If those mandatory reviews find disabled people earning less each week, I don’t see anywhere in this bill any provisions that take into account, for example, people’s hardship, wellbeing, the likelihood of them becoming homeless before, for example, the machine—the computer—puts them in a disadvantaged position, because we know, right now, due to the inaccuracy of benefit entitlements, some people are getting more than what the system may prescribe. And you know what? For those people, I welcome that. They should be getting roses and bread and far more because, you know, the so-called overpayments they’re receiving are not making these disabled people live a life of luxury. They may be allowing them to adequately be able to afford their rent or food and pay their—

💬 Kahurangi Carter: Feed their kids.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Yeah—and keep a roof over their heads. I’m really concerned that the broadening of the automated decision-making, and I think it’s also really intellectually not transparent for the Minister to not have told us that this was her intent, when in the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill, which allowed for the broadening of the use of automated decision-making, this is what she was planning to do and to use automated decision-making for.

I think this reeks of a Government that is hoping no one will be paying attention to the bills that they’re pushing through with urgency. Why? Because they haven’t told us about the real negative impacts on families as a result of the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill and the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill. We look forward to scrutinising this bill and putting forward amendments that mitigate the harm that the Government is planning to inflict on our communities. Shame on the Minister and this rotten-to-the-core Government for pushing through legislation that harms our most vulnerable.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m taking this call to support the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill on behalf of the ACT Party. We support this bill because this is actually bringing a proactive approach in our social welfare system. This approach is to improve the accuracy of information that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) holds about different people on different kinds of benefits, those who receive assistance from the State. There is nothing wrong with making sure that the information that is held by MSD is updated from time to time to ensure that it is accurate and to ensure that those who are getting assistance from the State are getting the right kind of support.

I do not understand why somebody would oppose our State—the Ministry of Social Development—holding correct information about people, because this bill is not about people getting more or less assistance; this bill is about ensuring that people are getting the correct level of assistance. There are cases where people sometimes forget to update their circumstances. It could be that because of the change of their circumstances, they will need more support, and it is quite possible that because of the change in their circumstances, they will receive less support. But that needs to be reflected in the information that MSD holds about each and every client.

So this bill is about ensuring that, and it brings a proactive approach from MSD that the information will be reviewed every 52 weeks. It also allows, because human lives are complex—we all know that—for exceptions. It allows for exemptions; it also allows for extension of the review date. So it’s a good bill. We support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill. Now, what this Government does is when we identify that there is a problem or an issue, we go ahead and find a solution for it, and then we implement it. We do it efficiently and we do it quickly because we want to run an efficient system for everyone.

What this amendment bill does is it amends the Social Security Act. There have been areas that have been identified that can be tightened. It’s important that you continue to review controls and systems to ensure that everything runs smoothly, efficiently, and effectively.

That is what this Government does. We do everything efficiently, even when delivering our speeches in the House. I commend this bill.

Mōrena, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koe. So how might I start this? Hmm. A society will be measured by the way it treats its women, as it should be. A society must be measured by the way it treats families that are in genuine need and at risk of further harm. I dread that not only this but the package of these bills all come to, I think, a really dead end, sadly, a dead end for the most vulnerable. So I dread that it’s doomsday. When this next layer—anā, I can hear some sort of like moaning to the left of me. But if you just pause a second, what I’m expressing is that when you package all of these ideas up, they are fundamentally about prejudice plus power, which can only equal racism, which is at the core of the way in which the thinking goes, and, therefore, bills that look like this.

Homelessness is soaring in Tāmaki—53 percent increase in the last quarter. How does this help? Not a single way.

Surveillance and control is another part of what I’m hearing and reading with this particular bill, and I just heard the term “efficiency”—right?—as if this is the space where efficiency is the most necessary and required. Efficiency when there is suffering; families are suffering genuinely and they’re vulnerable and they get the least of the big pie—and that’s where you want to surveil? And that’s where you want to control? And then you pretend that it’s called “efficiency”. What a lot of nonsense. But those are the drivers, in my view.

The other part that I think is a slippery slope is this automated decision-making idea. I agree with just one of the previous speakers: human lives are complex. It’s very true, and they are dynamic. So why on earth do you think that an automated system is going to appreciate those very special things about being human after all? But it is a very slippery slope.

So here’s the thing. If you have to use an automated system, why would you do that? Let’s just get some people into jobs so they can make those decisions. Why would you use a blinking machine? What is wrong with the Government? Why don’t you just, like—automated? Why would you do that? Do we not have enough people that need jobs? I mean, let’s just think about that.

So here we go. I do want to impress particularly on the people to my left, if they were just to, you know, shush up—to say that the traffic lights system, also the sanctions and that idea, is straight out of Squid Game. It’s straight out of Squid Game. So too bad if you’re on the red light; too bad about that.

So I do want to make these points. They are serious, they are real, and they matter. They matter in the places and in the spaces in which I live and work in and know and love and respect. And all of this, when you package it all up: it is bad to be brown and there is no way we support this. In fact, I would condemn it, and I wish I could just stand up and rip it up right now. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill. This is very simple. It introduces a requirement that the Ministry of Social Development must review a client’s eligibility and rate of a specified benefit at least once every 52 weeks. That is to make sure that they are getting the right amount of assistance that they are entitled to.

It’s a very simple bill. It’s quite amazing to hear the lack of quality of contributions from the Opposition. This also introduces a little bit of automated decision making, and, honestly, if that’s the quality of debate we get from the Opposition, maybe there should be some more automated decision-making from the other side of the House as well. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you. I think that’s a really interesting reflection on what’s going on in the Government that a person complains about the quality of your speech while speaking for—I think it was about 30 seconds. They’re actually the lead on the Social Services and Community Committee that would have dealt with this. So the amount of actual knowledge that is being accumulated by that kind of superficial approach worries me.

What I want to talk about is this bill itself, and I dispute what the member Joseph Mooney just said the bill does, because this is the problem definition in the regulatory impact statement: “To implement the Budget of 2024 cost savings initiatives to recognise housing contributions from all boarders in the assessment of housing subsidies, the Ministry of Social Development must be able to confirm the client’s circumstances to determine whether contributions from boarders should affect the client’s rate of housing subsidies.” Except it goes on. Basically, it says the only way that we can find out if the people have boarders is by bringing them in once a year and checking that with them. That’s what we’re doing today.

It is not about equity. It is not about making sure they’re all right. It’s not making sure they get all the right things or fairness. This is about making sure that everybody who receives any kind of subsidy from the Government is hauled in and has to disclose that information so that the Government can capture the information of our boarders. That’s what’s going on here.

It was such a big task. We’re talking about a whole huge range of New Zealanders now, because everybody who has an accommodation supplement, all these other groups—and we’ll talk about them in the committee stage—are going to be covered. All these people who, really, they’re on benefits for life for reasons like disabilities or accidents, etc., all of those people, they’re all going in the door once a year. All those working New Zealanders who are working as our caregivers, because they are on minimum wage and can’t make ends meet and get an accommodation supplement, they’re going in there as well. That’s all happening so we can capture the information about boarders, so we can take $150 million off them in a three-year period.

Make no bones, that’s what this piece of legislation is about. It’s very much connected with the last piece of legislation we saw. We wouldn’t be doing it without that happening. So I just simply dispute the reasons given on the other side, and I would ask people to think very clearly about what the purpose of this legislation is, because that’s why you’re going to see a tough fight today from the Opposition. The reason we’re going to fight hard for ordinary New Zealanders is that this touches the lives of so many people that we didn’t impact in this way. We didn’t put them into a situation where every year they were going back because it seemed inhumane or unnecessary. We tried to have a light touch. But, actually, now, we’re going to grab them and tell them they have to come in to see someone every year because we want the information about how much money we can claw back from them. That’s what’s going on. Let’s not forget it.

The people who will be affected are people who are listed in the legislation itself, and they include people on supported living payments, people on emergency benefits, people on accommodation supplements, disability allowances, New Zealand superannuants with a non-qualified partner. Those people will all be hauled out into the office once a year.

We’ll talk about automation in the committee stage, but right now I just want to set the scene. This is a five-minute speech and it’s really important New Zealand understands what it’s about. It’s about taking money away from people in a cost of living crisis, the very people who can least afford it. It is as important as the bill, because it’s the mechanism to do it. So expect a bit of a fight today because we’re going to be giving you one as Opposition. We’re standing up for ordinary New Zealanders who are doing it tough. This Government promised them it would help them. It has done nothing but harm them, and this bill does that too.

The Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill is exactly that: mandatory reviews every 52 weeks for beneficiaries to confirm that their circumstances have remained the same, that they remain eligible, and that their eligibility gives them the right assistance. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We’re here now to consider this Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill, which basically amends the Social Security Act 2018 in order to allow the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to use an automated decision-making system to review the specific benefits that people receive and to be able to take action once every 52 weeks—once every year. So that’s a couple of things that this bill does. Really, what it aims to do that for is to then ensure that MSD can put in place and make decisions on the previous bill that we’ve been debating in this House, the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill, which is to ensure that those who take on boarders then have to have the money that they get from it considered as income and then taken into consideration when their assistance and benefits are then considered.

So this bill gives effect to that previous one, and one of the things that I wanted to raise about this bill is the fact that when I get correspondence, largely, from disabled people—and they will be impacted by this bill—one of the things that’s often raised with me is just how onerous it is to constantly justify the benefit that you need. This is a bill that will impact those on a supported living payment and a disability allowance, as well.

I do, however, want to just take a minute to clarify what will be within scope of the mandatory reviews, because I know that there’s angst out there. This is, again, going through all stages under urgency, which means that members of the public will not be able to submit in the way that they otherwise would have through the select committee process. One of the main issues is when disabled people have to constantly justify that they still have their disability through medical checks. I do want to just point out that this bill doesn’t require them to do that, because I know that there is anxiety out there. I see in the RIS—in the regulatory impact statement—that it says, “All mandatory reviews for … clients will not include a review of their health condition or disability.” That is a good thing.

However, there is a huge amount of stress that people, particularly disabled people, go through when they have to constantly go through the motions of justifying the benefit that they need, and this bill will contribute to that. So I will just point that out: that I don’t support it from that point of view, as well, because it’s just more onerous for people who are on a supported living payment or a disability allowance. The RIS states that this would include reviewing approximately 100,000 people on supported living payments and 125,000 clients who get the disability allowance. So we are talking about a large number of people, just those who get those two specific benefits, and it will require them to confirm that the information that MSD currently holds about them is true and accurate, and that will impact their benefit eligibility and their rates. So it will add to the anxiety that people are already facing.

The other point that I just wanted to make that is laid out in the RIS is the assumptions around both the accuracy and MSD’s social licence to be able to use the automated decision-making system (ADM). It says here that there are assumptions that this automated decision-making system “will create more positive outcomes for clients. In general ADM is intended to ensure [that] people receive all the assistance [that] they are entitled to by removing the human element including inconsistent eligibility information and any unconscious bias.” However, it also removes the human ability for discretion, as well. It says here, “However, depending on the design of the algorithms used, it is possible for the use of ADM to entrench existing inequities in the welfare system as these can be built into … data collection.” That is worrying.

The RIS also goes on to say that “There is an assumption that MSD has the social licence for machines to make decisions. It is assumed that the widespread use of ADM outside of MSD may mean the public would expect and even support [it to use it] within the welfare system.” However, this has not been tested, and it goes on to say that there’s been no public consultation on this. As I said at the start, there is no ability for members of the public to submit because there is no select committee process, either. For all of those reasons, I don’t commend this bill to the House.

This is a fantastic Budget, with more than ever before for healthcare, more doctors, more nurses, an after-hours in Levin, and health shuttles for Kāpiti. There is more for education with teacher-aides and learning support. There is funding for defence, there is support for seniors, and there are better savings in KiwiSaver.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Mr Costley, this is not a Budget speech.

This bill delivers more support. It makes sure people are getting the right amount that they should be, and I commend it to the House.

This bill is set down for second reading immediately.

Second Reading