Sepuloni Carmel: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSepuloni Carmel: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 17 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1638. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I want to join with my parliamentary colleagues from across the House in acknowledging the passing of Celia Lashlie. As a mother of two sons I can say that I have been given that book the book that she wrote about raising sons. Unfortunately it is maybe 16 years too late but it is good for the 2-year-old whom I have and the 17-year-old I can say is OK despite the fact I did not get the book until much later. But she was an amazing woman. She has contributed a lot to New Zealand and I think that is shown by the number of people who today have stood to acknowledge her before they have launched into their speeches.Following on from the previous speaker I just want to point out something that was said—that was Parmjeet Parmar. One of the comments she made was in respect of people choosing to be on benefits. She said that those people are on benefits by choice. There is just a general attitude from so many people on that side of the House—including the Minister for Social Development herself who recently said that those people on the East Coast are getting a little bit of dole a little bit of kai moana and living off their cash crop and actually have quite a good life. That reflects a general attitude from that side of the House in respect of beneficiaries and those who are experiencing hardship. It is not a healthy attitude. To say that someone would choose to be on a benefit or that that lifestyle is in some way a desirable lifestyle is incredibly arrogant of that side of the House because we know that living off $200 or $300 a week is not an easy task. There are a lot of families out there that are living on a minimum amount of money like that trying to raise children not by choice actually—I aim that at the previous speaker—but because of the fact that they cannot find work or because of the fact that their family circumstances do not allow them to go and work. So perhaps that previous National Party speaker needs to rethink some of the lines from its research centre that she reads out before standing up in the House and sharing them with the rest of the country.I say that but actually in going back to the bill it is one of those bills that we agree on with the National Party. We do support this bill just not the general attitude towards beneficiaries and towards New Zealanders experiencing hardship. But we do support the bill. We support this bill as it makes some minor but sensible changes to remove loopholes in the Social Security Act. This bill will ensure that those receiving ACC payments from their employer are treated the same as those receiving ACC payments from ACC itself. Labour supports equal treatment so we do support this bill. As the law stands those people receiving an ACC payment from their employer could also challenge Work and Income to provide them with a full benefit payment.What we do wonder on this side of the House is how many times if any this has occurred in the 4 years this bill has languished on the Order Paper. Similarly how much extra has been paid out in accommodation supplements to students over the last 4 years as a result of the loophole this bill intends to close? I point out the 4-year period because as has been mentioned by several of our colleagues today this bill was actually introduced in the House in November 2010. Looking at the National Government how many times during the last 6 or 7 years that it has been in power have we heard National members talking about the need to have a tighter welfare system and to look for ways in which to cut costs across our public sector with regard to all public spending? And yet here we have loopholes that would have cost the country money in some way but they have been allowed to continue for the last 4 years despite the fact that the National Government knew this was happening and despite the fact that this bill was introduced in the House in 2010. I just want to point out the fact that despite that Government’s rhetoric around wanting to save the taxpayer money wanting to cut costs and wanting to protect public spending and everything else there are so many instances like this one where it has allowed things to continue—for 4 years in this instance—which has actually cost the taxpayer money.So going back to the bill we do support the bill. We are disappointed that it has been allowed to languish for the last 4 years but we do support the bill. This may be a small bill but the fact that such easily fixed loopholes have been left unattended for so long does show the ineptitude of this Government.Hon Simon Bridges: Good things take time.CARMEL SEPULONI: It is a Government that has lost its way caught up in MP scandals and casino deals gone wrong instead of doing the basic job of governing. Mr Bridges said that it is a Government that takes its time. Well unfortunately it takes too much time with things that matter and tries to speed through on things that New Zealanders are actually concerned about and that should actually have some time spent on them. As submitters alluded to in the select committee sessions it is a Government that has lost its way—it was the submitters who alluded to that—on support for students and tertiary education.This bill closes a loophole that allows students to claim the Work and Income accommodation supplement instead of the student allowance in instances where it is more generous but frankly who can blame students for looking for a little extra wherever they can as this Government has put the squeeze on this already low-income group over the past 6 years? There are a few instances where I can point out where the squeeze is being put on students in this country—students whom some of the National MPs have been celebrating the successes of but at the same time National has actually made it a lot harder for them to be able to achieve those successes over the last 6 years that National has been in Government.The first example of where the National Government has made it difficult for these students has been where student allowance rates have barely increased while the price of rental accommodation has skyrocketed. We really see that in places like Auckland where the student allowance is almost exactly the same as what it was 6 or 7 years ago but rentals have just gone through the roof. How can these students possibly be expected to pay their rent and to pay all of their expenses when their actual allowance has not increased at all? Another example is students have seen course fees increase by up to 5 percent every year and they have had to absorb that hike. Student loans have been cut for part-time students. We have seen that student loan repayment rates have been increased by 20 percent. A new $40 annual student fee has been tacked on and Steven Joyce has professed his desire as the tertiary education Minister to dampen demand for university—so actually the Government wants to put people off going to university. That is a dismal and short-sighted view for the future and is symptomatic of a Government that has lost its way. That is what the submitters pointed out when they came to the select committee.I want to add just another couple of examples where that Government has not been supportive of students being able to achieve the successes that it wanted to talk about celebrating earlier and that is in respect of students over 55 who have been denied access to living costs or course-related costs. And to be quite frank I actually think that is discrimination. It is discrimination based on age. The Government is saying there that actually once you get to a certain age you do not deserve to learn and you have no further contribution to be able to make to this society. It is actually quite sad because before Labour left office there was a focus—a general focus—around the importance of adult learning and lifetime learning but once National took office that was gone.Another example of where the Government has shown itself to be unsupportive of students is in respect of the time limits it has now placed on how long you can access student allowances for. I want to point that out because the ones who are really affected by that are actually students who come from low-income families. They are the ones who actually cannot afford to pay for their living costs and everything else. Perhaps they want to go on to postgraduate studies after they have finished those undergraduate degrees but because of the time limits that that Government has put on they are no longer given the opportunity to do so. I have heard National MPs point out the fact that “Well they can go and get scholarships. They can go and get all these other things.” Well actually scholarships and access to funding outside the State are not as available as some of those National MPs might think.So we do support this bill but I wanted to take the opportunity to point out that it has not been easy being a student under the National Government over the last 6 or 7 years. Here it is at the moment closing a loophole but what we would really like to see—and I am sure students across New Zealand who are aspirational and trying to get to a better place would like to see—is the National Government actually demonstrate that not only is it supportive of those students once they reach that aspirational level but it is supportive of those students along the journey to becoming successful. That is what that National Government has not shown today. Thank you.