Delahunty Catherine: Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Delahunty Catherine: Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16437] 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena koutou e te Whare. I first thank the Minister for Social Development and Employment for her consultation with the Green Party prior to the introduction of the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. I advise the House that the Green Party will support it in all its stages. 
It is pleasing to see the Government’s commitment to rectifying two longstanding anomalies with regard to New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension. The first of these is that the living alone payment payable to New Zealand superannuitants and veterans pensioners who live on their own or in some cases with no one other than a child who is still dependent is technically a separate benefit from New Zealand superannuation or a living alone payment itself. That previous sentence did not make a lot of sense to me but I think it makes sense in the long run. 
Hon Member 
: Sing it. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY 
: I would sing it because I have a fabulous voice but I think I would make everyone else feel a little bit weak if I sang it. I will sing when I have finished. 
However the Green Party agrees that this is an unnecessarily bureaucratic— 
Hon Member 
: Sing of good things. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY 
: Here I am supporting the bill and now everybody is giving me a hard time. That is so unusual. 
The Green Party agrees that this is an unnecessarily bureaucratic state of affairs which is so surprising with regard to Work and Income! It has resulted in a small number of people who were entitled to the living alone payment missing out on receiving it when for example their partner has died and they have transferred to the single rate of New Zealand superannuation. No one at Work and Income has told them they also need to apply for the living alone payment. As a former beneficiary advocate I can say that that was the norm. Unfortunately Work and Income New Zealand often did not tell people what they were entitled to hence the need for clarity. 
The other anomaly this bill corrects is the provision under which the children of New Zealand superannuitants and veterans pensioners cease to be classified as dependent when they reach the age of 18 whereas children of working-age beneficiaries continue to be classified as dependent until the end of the year in which they turn 18 as long as they are still undertaking study. The bill will apply the same more generous definition of dependent child to the children of New Zealand superannuitants and veterans pensioners as is currently applied to those of working-age beneficiaries. 
The Green Party welcomes both of these changes as they correct anomalies that although they affect only a small number of people impact on those people quite severely. It is pleasing to see this Government’s continuing commitment to fairness and social justice for those eligible for State social assistance as a result of their age or of their incapacity due to military service—and military service only in many cases. 
However the Government’s approach with this bill is in stark contrast to its treatment of working-age beneficiaries who are incapacitated for employment for reasons other than military service: those whose ability to participate in the paid workforce is restricted because of their childcare responsibilities and those who want to work but cannot find a job because our economy does not provide enough jobs to go around. 
The Government has recently enacted Future Focus legislation—or as I like to call it future unfocused legislation—that introduces anomalies into rather than removing them from the benefit system. It increases the likelihood of people falling through the cracks in our welfare State being wrongly assessed as having the capacity for work when they clearly have not and losing part or all of their benefit entitlement under the sanctions regime that the legislation has introduced. 
Further down the Order Paper there are more bills like this one. They purport to rectify anomalies but because some of them deal with accident compensation they take an exactly opposite approach to the approach of this bill. 
Hone Harawira 
: Come on Catherine we want to go home. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY 
: I know Hone wants to go home. I want to go home too but I have a passion for social justice. 
This bill addresses legislative anomalies by taking a fair and generous approach which is a contradiction of the approach in many other bills such as the accident compensation legislation and such as what has been done to students in recent legislation which is much worse. 
I have had the opportunity to read the Government’s Welfare Working Group report and its options paper. Interestingly bigger-picture issues relating to New Zealand superannuation were outside the terms of reference for the Welfare Working Group. One of the most significant issues of our time is outside its terms of reference. That I guess reflects the Government’s commitment to treating that group of New Zealanders fairly and with compassion! 
The Welfare Working Group launched into a wholesale attack on working-age beneficiaries. It set out four options for strong signals to discourage the semi-permanent use of the benefit system. 
Hon Member 
: Too long. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY 
: I have to talk about this because somebody has to talk about it. It is really really important that somebody cares about the vulnerable in society. I know that Hone agrees with me when I say that we have major problems with the benefit system. I am afraid I am just going to carry on until there is recognition of the problems that the benefit system has created. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am one person who does want to hear what the member is saying. Can we just quieten it down slightly please so I can hear Catherine Delahunty. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY 
: Thank you so much Mr Deputy Speaker; I am now inspired to talk for a whole lot longer. 
There are increasing conditions with benefit duration including work-for-the-dole regimes for longer-term beneficiaries strict income management for long-term beneficiaries time-limited benefits and benefit step-downs under which components of the benefit are removed when a person has been on a benefit for a period considered “too long”—the Welfare Working Group suggests a year. These suggestions are appalling. 
The Welfare Working Group put forward only four options to discourage semi-permanent use of the benefit system. That is what they called it. It is a shameful description for what was once a proud country that committed itself to looking after the vulnerable. None of these suggestions are acceptable in a caring compassionate and fair society. 
Although we support this bill we say that this Government exhibits a double standard in its treatment of those in receipt of State social assistance. As shown by this bill it treats those who receive assistance on account of their age or their incapacity due to military service with fairness and compassion. On the other hand working-age beneficiaries are victimised and harassed under this Government’s policies. 
With that statement of the contradictions I will finish this brilliant speech. It is very important that members show their appreciation because somebody has to stand up for the poor in this bloody Parliament—and that is me. Kia ora.