Ngaro Alfred: Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNgaro Alfred: Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10905. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call on the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill in its first reading and firstly I do want to commend the Minister for Social Development. As has been mentioned by the Hon Chris Finlayson for over 50 years this legislation has been in existence and over that period of time I imagine there have been a number of opportunities for there to be a rewrite to address the inconsistencies and the lack of clarity that are in the legislation and yet people have passed this by. Possibly it has been a bridge too far in the too-hard basket or maybe too difficult or too complex and yet this Minister has taken the courage of her convictions to believe that it is an important piece of legislation that does need to be rewritten.It is important that this be taken on board in the context of not just a rewrite in other areas such as the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act but also an overhaul of the system. Many people have talked about the system of its need and of its concern but at the same time talk is cheap but action actually is what counts. That is what our communities look for. This piece of legislation is a piece of action not just talk although there have been a number of conversations that have been taken part in. This bill is an important part. It is “a technical revision or consolidation of existing legislation” and improves clarity and especially the ability for others to be able to navigate the legislation whether they be in the legal fraternity or others who are there as advocates. It is important that there is clarity and the ability to be able to work through the system as well. But most of all the bill as a whole in its majority—there are parts that do as has been mentioned by the previous speaker Peeni Henare—“does not change the effect of [the] existing law.” I think that is important to point out.I just want to talk about a few things. I may not talk about the Beatles because like the previous member I was not even a twinkle in the eye at the time of 1964 but the intent of the legislation as it was written at that time was clearly to provide for those in need. It is one aspect of our law that I am sure that all New Zealanders would say that they are proud of. Why? Because it makes provision for those who are in need. For those in undue circumstances they need the support of the State to provide a form of protection and provision for them at that time.In some particular areas I want to give some examples of reasons for that rewrite in particular of the Social Security Act. If we talk about income assessment Work and Income case managers carry out close to 1 million transactions relating to income in a year. Nearly half of those relate to income received in the previous pay period. Changing the rules around how income is recorded and assessed could save huge time and also resources for beneficiaries and also staff. Another example is calculating the stand downs. Complicated income calculations are required to assess whether a beneficiary will have a 1- or 2- week stand-down period before getting a benefit payment. Onerous processes are required for every application when only 3 percent of beneficiaries will actually have a 2-week stand-down applied to them.The last example I would like to give is the use of letters. More than 6 million letters were sent out in the past year to beneficiaries and superannuitants at a cost of more than $3 million. The Electronic Transactions Act 2002 already enables information that is required by statute to be provided in writing to be delivered electronically ensuring the Act is permissive across a full range of communication methods. These are just three examples of how this bill will reform and modernise what we believe is the Social Security Act 1964.We have heard of different examples of those in the sector. I know that there has been other commentary about wider consultation. The fact is that there have been a number of consultations with the sector and with key stakeholders. I think it is quite critically important when we go into this to hear from those commentators. I would like to quote from one organisation in particular that has been quoted. It is not commonly an organisation that we on the other side here would quote from but this is from Auckland Action Against Poverty which did make a statement on 4 November 2015. This is taken from the statement that it made: “Government is due to introduce a rewrite of the Social Security Act into Parliament next month …“MSD should focus on supporting unemployed people into decent work rather than cutting the benefits of sole parents …” and “This is a golden opportunity for National to reconsider the entire thrust of its”—in Auckland Action Against Poverty’s words—“punitive and pointless welfare strategy.” But even in that form there is obviously unanimous agreement that there is a need for the rewrite.I also want to quote from an article written by Kate Newton “Major welfare changes not planned”. She quotes from the law lecturer Māmari Stephens who said that an overhaul of social security is long overdue: “Ms Stephens said the current legislation was messy but that should not be used as a chance to reform social welfare by stealth. ‘I know how difficult it is to understand and I can see how difficult it is to navigate … so part of me thinks it’s a fantastic opportunity to come up with a piece of legislation that works a lot better than the current one does’ ”—in her own words. So I think that is quite important as well.We have heard from Minister Tolley herself who actually said that—I mean previously in 1964 in June there were 135 sections to that legislation. There are now 491 sections 187 have been repealed and only four remain unchanged. That is a huge amount of change in this piece of legislation and that goes to the heart of proving why this legislation is important.I want to conclude my remarks just on a couple of remarks that have been made by Mr Peeni Henare especially in regard to I suppose the aspect of redirecting from those who are clients who come into the system and the question of whether this is a just cause and action that should be taken. I would like to just remind the member that this is actually what currently happens at the moment anyway in certain circumstances for that. So the bill makes it clear that the exceptional circumstances benefit is to be paid at the rate of a main benefit. Rates of New Zealand superannuation are higher than the main benefit levels and are linked to average wage levels. People have to live here for only 10 years to qualify at the age of 65. It was never intended that a person who does not qualify for the New Zealand superannuation would get a benefit paid at the same rate as people who qualify for it. The bill makes that clear.So what we are talking about are minor changes. They are not changes that we would say would constitute—and I am sure that that would raise the interest of the Attorney-General—a breach of any form of human rights at all. I know that the concerns that have been raised have talked about this but we believe that this not only complies with current human rights but it is also appropriate as well.As the chairperson of the Social Services Committee I look forward to the bill coming to our select committee. I look forward to opening the committee up for submissions and to hearing a further expression of both concerns and issues but also to opportunities for this bill to truly make a difference to the lives of the families whom we serve—and especially through the department as well—for which this legislation has been intended. I commend this bill in its first reading to the House.