Twyford Phil: Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTwyford Phil: Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10915. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I am happy to be able to take a call in New Zealand Sign Language. [In New Zealand Sign Language.] It is my pleasure to take a call in this debate and to begin that call using one of New Zealand’s official languages New Zealand Sign Language in recognition that this week is the official week for New Zealand Sign Language.It is also I think particularly appropriate in this debate to acknowledge the passing of Dr Merv Hancock who as colleagues earlier in this debate have noted was a pioneer of the development of the social work profession in New Zealand. He founded the school of social work at Massey University in Palmerston North—he actually taught my wife when she did her social work degree at Massey—and he really did more I think than anybody else to develop the practice of family therapy in New Zealand. But what the previous speakers did not say is that Merv Hancock was a lifelong member of the Labour Party and in fact he stood as a Labour candidate in the 1972 election that swept Norman Kirk’s Labour Party to office in New Zealand. Merv missed the Horowhenua electorate by only 200 votes so there we go. I want to pay tribute to Merv Hancock and give my condolences on behalf of the Labour Party to the Hancock family.There have been some interesting contributions in this debate so far and those following it will know that Labour is supporting this bill the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill with reservations. I want to stress that we are supporting its referral to a select committee but we do have reservations and we are somewhat disturbed by the attempt by the Government to push this bill through with a truncated period for review by the select committee. This is a big bill. It is a big and complex bill rewriting the principal Act for our social security system. It is not good enough for the Minister to come here today and propose that the bill should get only 4 months at the select committee when 6 months is the norm.It is a large and complex bill and I note that Government members have tried to argue that it is—I think the term that has been used is “policy-neutral”. Well there have been enough contributions already in this debate I think to put to rest that notion. There is plenty of contention about the provisions of this bill and we strongly believe that it needs the normal 6-month period at the select committee so that it can have proper scrutiny by members of the committee and the officials and of course public submissions.It is a bit of a no-brainer that an Act that has been in place since 1964 and has had numerous amendments and changes over the years as the social security system has evolved and developed—I think it is a reasonable argument that the Act needs some streamlining and to be brought into the 21st century. We have got no problems with a rewrite exercise that is designed to bring clarity and consistency to the legislation. The principles of accessibility and cohesiveness that are included in the bill are great but you do not have to get very far into this exercise to realise that there are significant substantive changes that are worthy of debate and detailed scrutiny.The bill writes into the legislation the so-called social investment approach. On the face of it Labour and I think most people would not have any problem with the professed intention of the social investment approach. Do we want to spend taxpayer dollars more wisely? Of course we do. Do we want to help the people who need it most—do we want to prioritise the provision of services and the spending of money? Of course we do. But what we observe about Bill English’s investment approach is that it is a little bit more about investment and a little bit less about the social side and we would feel a lot more comfortable if it truly put people at the centre.I think the inconsistency of this Government’s approach in relation to social investment can be seen in its stewardship of State housing where it is proceeding to sell off billions of dollars’ worth of land and housing that is there for the purpose of putting a decent roof over people’s heads. It justifies it with the rhetoric of social investment but actually the practice is something totally different and what we witness is a running down of the State housing system and a selling-off of the resources and the consequences of that are predictable: an explosion in visible homelessness all around the country. So forgive us for being sceptical about the intent in this bill to write into the legislation the so-called social investment approach because in fact what we see is typical National small government and a winding back of the social development mandate of the Government in the interests of actually just cutting spending.Some other points that I wanted to make are that we currently see a real mismatch between the way that the welfare system currently operates and the principle in the bill about so-called best possible outcomes for beneficiaries. The problem here is that adequate data is simply not being collected on what the outcomes are. So the Government is out there in a very punitive and controlling way chucking people off the benefit and incentivising staff to throw people off the benefit but it is actually not tracking the employment outcomes. It is one thing to actually try to reduce welfare numbers by pushing people off the welfare rolls but who knows what kind of life situation they are going to end up in? So unless the Government is actually serious about tracking employment outcomes how are we in this House to take seriously the idea that the Act should be about best possible outcomes?We support having a much stronger focus on promoting the welfare of children but the failure in this bill of any serious attempt to assess the likely impact on children of the various changes that are made in this bill to benefits and payments to do with child policy really begs the question of whether this is just a rewrite—whether it is just a streamlining and just about modernising the legislation.An additional concern we have is that this bill extends the ability of the Government to amend the regulations. It puts more extensive powers with the Government of the day to write regulations to put into practice the mandate of this bill. That raises real concerns about the potential lack of accountability and transparency in relation to this. It reduces the Government’s exposure to public feedback and scrutiny and it is yet another thing that undermines our confidence that this is a policy-neutral rewrite simply designed to modernise the legislation.We are worried about the changes to the emergency benefit. It is renamed the exceptional circumstances benefit through this bill but on top of the name change there are actually some substantive changes as well that would allow the department to impose work obligations on people receiving the newly named exceptional circumstances benefit. There is a lot of good data that shows that fewer than 10 percent of the people who currently receive the emergency benefit are able to meet work obligations and given the track record that this Government has of taking a punitive and controlling approach to the administration of the system of social development that rings alarm bells for us.We recognise the need to update this legislation. We are supporting this bill with reservations to go to the select committee. We are going to be voting for and supporting the amendment that Carmel Sepuloni has put on the table which would extend the time that this bill is at the select committee by 2 months on top of the regulation 6 months. It is indefensible that the Minister is proposing that a bill as large and complex and important as this is pushed through with a truncated time frame at the select committee.