Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to our final debate. This is on clauses 1 to 3: “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”.

Madam Chair, thank you very much. This is one of those bills that does not come into place, basically—as in its Royal assent—it’s got a very specific date in March, and I did want to ask about the potential fiscal reasons as to why this may be. Because I note in the regulatory impact statement (RIS), we have a comment in paragraph 52 about the initial IT costs for implementing mandatory reviews being $5.3 million, and the fulltime-equivalent (FTE) costs being $7.5 million. Now, can I assume that there will not be ongoing IT costs in relationship to that? I think this is probably the best place to ask this question. But I wanted to ask as well about the staging of the building of, for example, any additional IT changes that need to be made, as well the hiring processes.

Because basically, what we’re expecting is that automatic decision-making will be set up and ready and broadened by March next year. And then, secondly, that everybody who would have been hired or moved to these roles, per the cost in the FTE section of the RIS, would have been hired and doing their work, and there would be probably no vacancies that would be left unfilled for quite some time. So I wanted to ask about, sort of, what is the staging implementation of this in terms of, particularly, any IT changes that need to come into place before March, and the level of confidence that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has given her. So this is not her confidence that I’m asking for but MSD’s level of confidence in being able to have these systems ready by the commencement date.

I say this because, again, we have seen in other programmes that MSD has, for example—the front lines are struggling and they’re at overcapacity; they have said it themselves. So I wanted to ask about how she expects—between passing this bill and the commencement date—the staging of any IT changes that need to happen. I also wanted to ask whether she intends to notify the hundreds of thousands of people affected by this bill of the changes prior to the commencement date. When does she expect to send communications on these changes? And does she think that it would be responsible to let people know prior to 1 March—basically, as soon as possible—to give rolling notifications that this is coming up?

The reason why I wanted to get certainty about the comms in relationship to this is because we know that there will be $230 million worth of savings and benefits or related expenses. People on the benefit stand to lose weekly income as a result of this bill. I do worry that without adequate communications, a lot of people could be caught off guard by these mandatory reviews. And as we discussed in Part 2, because of the really broad language in the Schedule, I think beneficiaries could use the time between now and March to, for example, change whether the circumstances that they have put forward to MSD are correct. I think, in some ways, to avoid people being overpaid and then slapped with debt, MSD could use the time to actually communicate to people what this expression of automatic decision-making could entail.

To recap: I’m interested to know, is there a staged implementation of the, for example, IT changes that are between now and the commencement date? Secondly, between now and the commencement date, will the Minister for Social Development and Employment expect MSD to send communications notifying people of these changes and an explanation of how automatic decision-making will work; and, if not, why not? And when does she expect communications to be sent out from MSD to clients directly around this?

This is because, actually, there was no press release—to my knowledge—issued in relationship to this bill. And the Minister, I think, hasn’t really made a lot of song and dance about this bill in the media, in any of her comms, so I don’t expect the general public to learn about the provisions in this bill up until the commencement date, when then they will start finding out that these automatic decision-making - led reviews are starting to happen. I think they would benefit—

Hon Louise Upston: Madam Speaker.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Louise Upston.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I haven’t finished. Can she interrupt my call if I’ve still got time left?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I didn’t think so.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry—my apologies. You’ve got 18 seconds. My bad.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Thank you. In the last 10 seconds: staged implementation; communications, how frequent; and whether she thinks it’s adequate to leave it until the commencement date. Thank you very much.

This is the title and commencement. The title says what it is on the tin, which is the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill. It comes in on 2 March, which allows sufficient time for—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Yeah, we know that. We’re asking you questions.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Do you want an answer or not?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask about, first of all, the commencement date, and I’ll go back and ask about the title. My amendment on the commencement date is one that asks for a four-year extension. My logic in asking the Minister for Social Development and Employment to consider this is: this is a bill that goes to the heart of cost of living issues. We are dealing with a lot of people on accommodation supplement here who have never had this need before, and those are the very people who the bill—one of the bill’s intentions is to gather information about boarders, and to make sure that those people are no longer in a situation where they are getting the money that the boarder pays. They have to pay back quite a percentage of it; immediately, it gets deducted from their accommodation supplement. That’s a big change for the very group of New Zealanders who are getting accommodation supplement, because they are not making ends meet.

What I can see economically is that we are not out of the woods by any means. We have a situation where those people, if they are renting, have absolutely no advantage in terms of interest rates coming down, because they just aren’t in that market. They don’t have that kind of comfort. What they are in is a situation of crisis, and so they have been able to have a boarder. And that is something that, actually, I pointed out, I can do myself. As someone who doesn’t get an accommodation supplement, the law allows me to, if I can’t make ends meet, get a boarder, and it is not something I have to declare. Now, the New Zealand law allows that to happen at a certain level. It says $213, I think, I’m allowed to get before I declare it to Inland Revenue, and I’m allowed several of those boarders before it gets declared as income. So I can do that as a citizen and I’m allowed to, and the law and this Government lets me do it, because it’s seen as good for me to be able to make ends meet. But people who have an accommodation supplement cannot do that under this law.

This commencement date of people coming in for the mandatory review—which was declared in the paper that we saw on the last bill before to be something that needed to happen to make that legislation work, because nobody knew who had boarders and who didn’t—would allow us to go out four years. This Government is saying it’s going to fix everything, and the cost of living crisis is going to be addressed. Four years is enough time for either this Government to do it or for us to get into power and to start to do it and look at it, so why don’t we change the commencement date into that four-year period? I genuinely mean it. Let’s do this later. Let’s make sure people can make ends meet in the next little while.

I’d also like to ask the Minister about the title, and I’m actually going to make a comment on several of the other titles here. There is a legal question in here that I’d like the Minister to answer that’s relevant to the title of the bill. What I see is some of the amendments that are made list all of the different benefits that this bill is capturing. They do that because it’s considered a better and more appropriate title to have in it—a title that reflects the benefits captured. But when I look at the bill, I have always been concerned that we have a list here of benefits that should be in, but those are only in the explanation. So my question is: does the explanation, which talks about it, include them, given that we’ve only dealt with the benefits that are covered by saying that they are covered by regulation?

It says here—and I’ll go and I’ll show the Minister where to look: if you look at page 2 of the bill, you’ll see it says here “Specified benefits that will be included for mandatory reviews are”—that’s the ones that will be included. It says there they “will be included”, but it doesn’t say that that is an exclusive list. In fact, it clearly can’t be, given the regulatory power. But it’s also not even that those are listed in the legislation. So if, in fact, these will be included, does that mean that they are actually reflective in the title—are the people who have put in the amendments right and they’re reflective of the title—or, in fact, can the list grow, and can it shrink? Because it says they “will be included” and so I’d like to know.

My legal question is really a clear one: if you’ve got it in an explanatory note, you’re saying it “will be”—I take the Government on faith that that’s what they want to do; it will be reflected in the Hansard that that is the intention—what is the legal status of that when you’ve got a regulation and you’ve got no list in the actual bill? Are we tied to this explanation or not? Because I think it’s necessary to reflect in the title what is actually going on here and what’s captured, and I just have not been able to—I simply do not know the answer to that question. I’d like the Minister to tell me: is that right?

Now, the last point I want to make is this: I made a point to the Minister earlier about the risk for people who are under an accommodation supplement versus people, like me, who can have a boarder. Is it more appropriate for us to have a title which captures the fact we are creating a two-class society? Because that’s what I think we’re doing here. We’re saying people who get an accommodation supplement, they must turn up every year to the offices because they’re poorer than I am. People who get an accommodation supplement must not have a boarder, because they are poorer than I am. I can have one, we recognise it’s a great idea, but, no, you can’t have one if you’ve got an accommodation supplement. So are we actually better to reflect in our title that, that we are creating a two-class society here? We have moved the goalposts. Two classes of society: one that receives any kind of help from the State, and the other that doesn’t. Is that what we’re doing here, and should we be reflecting that in our title today? I’d like the Minister to answer those questions. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In terms of the way the benefit system works is that anyone who is receiving assistance has to already provide a change in circumstances. It’s fascinating what the Opposition are trying to do in terms of filibustering a very, very straightforward bill that most New Zealanders would actually think there’s already a mandatory review. And so, the title and commencement, this is a mandatory review—as I said, most New Zealanders would expect it’s already in place—which comes into effect on 2 March; the IT systems will be in place. As with any change, people will be advised in advance; but as I said, other than that, in terms of the title and commencement, it’s pretty straightforward.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s answers to that, although I don’t really appreciate the disdain with which she is querying our genuine questions, given that we have not had a select committee stage for this.

I would like to pick up on some of the elements around the title, because the Minister herself referred to what the bill does, and she says it’s “social security mandatory reviews”. I’m wondering, in what I’m hoping will be a backwards and forwards exchange with the Minister, whether she would consider some of my alternative titles which I offer very genuinely.

The first one is “Entitlements (Checks) Act 2025”. In my view, this would better reflect the fact that these are entitlements from people who have gone through a process that shows that they need the safety net of the State or they are able to actually claim an accommodation supplement due to their circumstances. So rather than vilifying the beneficiaries, just capturing the word “entitlement” to recalibrate what feels like a very heavy-handed bill, I think, would be good. Then, to counter that would be “(Checks)”, meaning that with an entitlement comes a responsibility, and so therefore both of those elements of entitlement and responsibility would be captured. I’ll pause for a moment in case the Minister would like to respond; if not, I’ve got a couple more titles.

My next title that I was hoping she would look at would be the “Social Security (Limit Discretion) Act”. Again, I think this better captures what the purpose of the Act is, which is to really nullify any discretion that I can see that the Ministry of Social Development has in relation to people’s entitlements. Not only are we going to an automated system, but the words “may” have been changed to “must”. There seems to be no wiggle room for there to be any kind of humanity in this Act where people can take into account circumstances. If we were to capture that in the title, then “(Limit Discretion)” or maybe even “(Nullify Discretion)” might be more accurate. I think that would better describe what this does “on the tin”, using the Minister’s own words. I’ll pause in case the Minister would like to respond.

My third one, given that she’s rejected those two, would be the “Social Insecurity (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Act”, because what this does do, as we have heard, is create huge insecurity for people who are captured by it. I’d like particularly to reference seniors who have been used to putting forward their paperwork, understanding their entitlement, who get really thrown by having to go and review things year after year. It’s incredibly stressful for them and it does make them feel terribly insecure. I think my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor spoke really eloquently about the impact it would have on seniors. And so I wonder if the Minister might better call this the “Social Insecurity (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Act”. [Minister does not reply] She is not going to do that.

I’ve only got two more. The next one is “Social Security (Yearly Review) Amendment Act”, because I think “mandatory review”, again, is so heavy-handed. It doesn’t really describe and give people an idea of what their responsibility is. If we spell it out very clearly in the title, it’s a yearly review and everybody knows what is required. I don’t think it’s as good as the previous ones that I have offered, yet perhaps the Minister would consider that, but she’s not engaging with that one.

My final one is the “Social Security (Automated Decision-Making) Amendment Act”. Now that one, I think, is really good because this shows the huge change that this Act is bringing in, which is around automating systems and only providing exemptions and provisos when the automated system comes down, which we have just been discussing in Schedule 2. So, you know, this really negates the human discretion, negates the human element, creates a huge amount of work. But then it’s odd: “We won’t worry about staffing; we’ll just bring in all these automated systems and they’ll do it.”, even though it’s going to cost something like $13 million by the time you get the equipment and the staffing resource set up. I mean, what a fundamental waste of money. But that would be a title that I think would really capture what this does and would make it very clear to the public that this is the kind of governance that this National Party Government want to bring in. Because they don’t trust beneficiaries, they like to beneficiary bash, and there’s no humanity in what they’re doing.

I’m going take a call from the Hon Willie Jackson, but I do want to note that this is “Title” and “Commencement”. I feel like there are some fairly fair questions on commencement and preparation and readiness that haven’t yet been answered, but I will take a call from the Hon Willie Jackson.

I just wanted to add to the titles. I thought the member Ingrid Leary was right on a real roll there, and she had some really fascinating titles for the Minister for Social Development and Employment to respond to.

Joseph Mooney: Fascinating titles!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’ve got another one here that I’m sure Joseph Mooney would—and it’s an amendment, Madam Chair, that you’ll see. It’s to amend clause 1 from the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Act, to “This Act is the Social Security (Make Life Harder for Beneficiaries for No Reason) Amendment Act.” That’s just following in line with Ingrid Leary over here. I would have thought the Minister would be very interested in that.

Now, I think there have been some really good questions through the process—and this is not about filibustering or anything like that—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I take that type of allegation personally. But we say this because, as we keep saying, the impact on beneficiaries has been huge.

One of the constant questions that has been asked throughout this debate is the effect on Māori particularly—that the Minister has not responded to, really, at all. We’ve talked about Māori strategy. We’ve talked about consultation with iwi. We’ve talked about consultation with pan-tribal organisations. We’ve asked constantly, “Where does the Government stand in that area?” And we have not had adequate responses from the Minister in this area. That’s why this type of amendment is being put up.

No one wants solo mums and kids and homeless people on the street. That’s why we need to have a clause that is reflecting what is going on here. I think it’s an appropriate clause. Recently, just a few days ago, myself and my college Kieran McAnulty were in Rotorua, and people were expressing firsthand to us their reservations over this type of legislation, and also the effects that it’s having on the street in terms of homelessness. We continue with this type of legislation and we’ll see the effects firsthand. More people are homeless in Rotorua than there has ever been.

Joseph Mooney: Is this a general debate speech?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, it’s not a general debate; this is totally in relation to this amendment bill that’s been put up, because the vulnerable, Mr Mooney, are suffering. So we want to know how the Minister would explain how she is going to ensure that the vulnerable are being looked after. We haven’t had adequate explanations on that.

Joseph Mooney: By getting a proper assessment of their entitlements.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, no, it’s not a proper assessment. The problem with this is it is just too punitive, so we need a title to reflect the harshness and the ruthlessness of this Government—

Joseph Mooney: It’s actually an assessment of sanctions, under this bill.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —at this time, Mr Mooney. It’s already been said that sanctions are not the way to go. It’s already been proven.

Hon Rachel Brooking: The word is there. “Sanctions” is in there.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We need to have titles that reflect that.

Joseph Mooney: I had a good look at that, Rachel; it doesn’t bring in sanctions.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: One of the things we need to do, Mr Mooney, is we need the Ministry of Social Development to identity—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m trying to hear the member that’s speaking, and I’m hearing first names being shouted across the Chamber. We use two names in here. I’m not growling at the speaker; I’m growling at the people that are shouting across the Chamber.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s shocking—shocking—behaviour from the other side! Shocking behaviour, interrupting me as I’m speaking. All I’m trying to do is offer the Minister a reasonable way forward in terms of a change of title which would appropriately describe the situation at the moment.

As I said earlier, this Act is the “Social Security (Make Life Harder for Beneficiaries for No Reason) Amendment Act”—

Joseph Mooney: Completely out of order. As an experienced member, he knows that.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: It is an appropriate title, Mr Mooney, given what’s happening with beneficiaries, given the response of our communities who are saying they have not had enough consultation on this, who are saying this is too punitive, who are saying that they want opportunities, who are saying they want a strategy with regards to employment, with regards to Māori, with regards to housing. We would like the Minister to respond to these very reasonable proposals that have been put up from this side, with regards to the title, with regards to the change of date, with regards to the Schedule. I think it is a very appropriate response from this side of the Chamber.

As I said before, in answer to the question around IT systems: yes, they will be well in place by 2 March in terms of commencement. The date is also clear in terms of changes to the accommodation supplement legislation that was passed last week that was signalled in Budget ’24, so there’s been plenty of time and plenty of warning. There is already a requirement that people provide a change of their circumstances to the Ministry of Social Development, and this just makes a mandatory review every 52 weeks.

I’m not going to cover things and answer questions that are outside the title and commencement. I’m sure the members can come up with all sorts of names about things that have got nothing to do with this bill, but it is very straightforward. As I said before, as with any change, clients are notified in advance, and this commencement date allows sufficient time for that to happen.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing the title with “Social Security (Yearly Review) Amendment Act” be agreed to.

The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing the title with “Social Security (Regular Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Act 2025” be agreed to.

The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing the title with “Social Security (Annual Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Act 2025” be agreed to.

The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing the title with “Antisocial (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Act” is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing the title with “Social Insecurity Act 2025” is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

The Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing the title with “Social Security (Make Life Harder For Beneficiaries For No Reason) Amendment Act 2025” is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing the “Mandatory Review” with “Increasing Checks on Benefit Entitlements and Other Matters” be agreed to.

The question is that Benjamin Doyle’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing the “Mandatory Review” with “Additional Yearly Review of Benefit Entitlements and Other Matters” be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing the “Mandatory Review” with “Extending the Use of Automated Decision Making and Other Matters” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 deleting “Mandatory Review” be agreed to.

The question is that Scott Willis’ tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing the “Mandatory Review” with “Additional Measures to Address Inaccuracies in Benefit Entitlements and Other Matters” be agreed to.

The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing the “Mandatory Review” with “Using Automated Decision Making to Review Benefit Entitlements and Other Matters” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing the “Mandatory Review” with words starting with “Mandatory Reviews of Supporting Living Payments” be agreed to.

Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “Mandatory Review” with words starting with “Mandatory Reviews of Supporting Living Payments” is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “Mandatory Review” with “Measures to Implement the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill and Other Matters” is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “Mandatory Review” with words starting with “Expansion of Automated Decision Making from Child Support” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “Mandatory Review” with “More Blue Tapes” is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “Mandatory Review” with “Mandatory Money Management Making Measures” is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 2 replacing “2026” with “2027” be agreed to.

Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 2 providing for the Act to come into force on 1 January 2030 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 2 providing for the Act to come into force on 1 April 2026 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 2 providing for the Act to come into force on 1 July 2026 is out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Kahurangi Carter’s tabled amendment to clause 2 providing for the Act to come into force two years after Royal assent is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 2 providing for the Act to come into force on 2 March 2027 or by a date set by Order in Council is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Benjamin Doyle’s tabled amendment to clause 2 providing for the Act to come into force on 2 March 2028 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.