Lees-Galloway Iain: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8226. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I would also like to take the opportunity to have a closer reading of clause 5 of this bill principally because of a comment that was made by Minister Tolley when she was in the chair in response to a point raised by a number of us on this side that this legislation acts retrospectively and that people will not be able to seek compensation for having been denied some of their benefit income. The Minister seemed to be saying in her comment that that was not correct and that people would be able to apply retrospectively. However I do not believe that that is what clause 5—Hon Ruth Dyson: They can apply but they’ll be turned down.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: My colleague says that they can apply but they will be turned down. That may be an accurate reading of what the Minister meant.But I just want to explore the Minister’s statement looking through clause 5. Clause 5(1) says that “The principal Act must be read as if the amendments to section 80BA(4)(a)(i) and (b) made by section 4 of this Act had come into force on 3 June 1998.” In other words this legislation acts retrospectively and we are to imagine that the changes made by this legislation came into force back in 1998 when the National Government rushed its amendment through under urgency and stuffed this up in the first place.That to me appears on the face of it to mean that people cannot seek retrospective compensation. However we have clause 5(2) which reads: “However subsection (1) does not apply in the case of any decision or determination made before the commencement of this Act—”. Then we have a series of paragraphs: “(a) that affects the appellant in Social Security Appeal No. SSA 001/14 and SSA 002/14 ([2014] NZSSAA 39);”. I have no idea what that means and that is the issue with doing these things under urgency. Here we are debating this legislation and I have absolutely no idea at all what that clause means. I would be grateful if the Minister or any member opposite could get up and explain that because I have zero understanding of that clause.Then there is “(b) that affects the appellant in Social Security Appeal No. SSA 115/14 and SSA 134/14 ([2014] NZSSAA 106);”—ditto paragraph (a)—“(c) that is a decision to commence a benefit on the day on which the stand down period ends;”—again I am not sure how that will be implemented—“(d) that relates to the commencement of a benefit on or after 20 May 2014 and is the subject of an application for a review under section 10A of the principal Act made at any time within 6 weeks after the commencement of this Act;”—that bit I kind of do get. The Government accepts that it was acting illegally for a year and a half and it will accept applications from people who were treated in a fashion that was illegal during the period in which the Government knew that it was acting in a fashion that was illegal. I get that one.Finally there is “(e) that relates to the commencement of a benefit at any time on or after 3 June 1998 and is the subject of an application for a review under section 10A of the principal Act made at any time before the commencement of this Act;”. I understand that one as well. I get that. It means you have to get your application in before this legislation receives the Royal assent which is probably why the Government is pushing this through under urgency—so as to reduce the opportunity for people to actually get their applications in.So I challenge what the Minister said which was that people will be able to apply although maybe Ruth Dyson is right. They can apply—apply away to your heart’s content—but the law will say that you cannot actually get compensation. I understand paragraphs (d) and (e) and I do not think they operate in the fashion that the Minister led the Committee to believe they would operate. I have no idea what clause 5(2)(a) through to (c) actually means and I would really appreciate a member opposite rising to their feet and actually explaining that. We are here in the Chamber debating legislation attempting—