Salesa Jenny: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSalesa Jenny: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8229. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): Thank you for the call on the Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill which is proposed to amend the Social Security Act of 1964 with retrospective effect.I feel compelled to speak to and to address clauses 4 and 5 of this bill. Clause 4 of the bill would amend the principal Act to entrench in law the so-called day after principle so that the benefit starts to run a day after the benefit stand-down period ends. Clause 5(1) provides that the “day after” amendment will have retrospective effect up to and including 3 June 1998. Retrospective effect is not something that Parliament should be taking lightly particularly in passing legislation. We are here today discussing a fix and this is something that my colleagues Carmel Sepuloni and Grant Robertson as well as others have spoken about previously. We are trying to fix legislation that was actually passed under urgency by yet again passing a bill under urgency without going through the full process of this House.The Legislation Design Committee and Legislation Advisory Committee was established to provide advice to departments and agencies on the design and content of Government bills. In its guidelines in 2014 it notes that legislation should not affect existing rights and that New Zealand law operates on a presumption against retrospectivity. The general rule is that legislation should have prospective not retrospective effect. Clause 5(2) carves out expectations to the “day after” amendment in certain cases but the retrospective effect of this bill would deprive many vulnerable New Zealanders of their right to a payment. Retrospective effect in this instance is designed to take away a full day’s benefit from many Kiwis who over the last 18 years have been owed money by this Government.Just today the Salvation Army came out with a report that basically said that particularly in Auckland we have so many vulnerable families. I know that many members in this House—I am not talking about members on this side of the House—prefer to walk around with their eyes closed to the fact that there are so many vulnerable families in New Zealand. What the Salvation Army report found was that 50 percent of these families are children—those who are homeless and living in cars today in Aotearoa New Zealand in the biggest city that we have the city of Auckland. This Government is trying to change the law that would wipe the rest of the arrears so that those who are not in the know will miss out.The current unsightly scramble under urgency to change the law is clearly ruled more by economics rather than by concern for people or for the welfare of some of our most vulnerable citizens. Beneficiaries advocate Kay Brereton told Radio New Zealand National recently that this legislation would apply to almost every benefit that has been granted in the last 18 years. For some people they might have gone on and off the benefit a number of times. Every time that they have gone on again they have been short-paid by a day. These are clearly underpayments under the law. The Minister has admitted that for nearly two decades this has been the standard practice. The Minister has been quoted as saying: “We are talking a day so it’s not a huge amount.” I can tell this Committee that although it might not be a huge amount to someone on a Minister’s salary rectifying these underpayments could make a real difference to people’s lives—the type of good people who live in South Auckland in my electorate of Manukau East those who are struggling every day just to feed their kids clothe them and to pay their rent.It is appalling that the Government is acting in this way to take away the need to pay money owed to people on the lowest incomes who need every cent to make ends meet. This situation has been known since last year yet here we are today watching this Government scrambling under urgency without the benefit of proper scrutiny to manufacture a patch simply to save money. This is yet another instance where money comes before people. Thank you.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.