Williams Poto: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliams Poto: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8185. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Firstly I just want to make a comment on something that the previous speaker Alfred Ngaro mentioned. They have included the technical correction of this error as a way of saying that the Government is actually doing things for beneficiaries. I find that totally bizarre actually. It should be doing this. This is an error that needs correcting. You should not be crowing Mr Ngaro that this is part of the Government’s programme to support beneficiaries; this should have been done in the first placeactually. They are completely owed what this bill intends to do.Hon Anne Tolley: Nine years of Labour didn’t pay it back either. Nine years of a Labour Government didn’t pay it back.POTO WILLIAMS: Minister must I remind you that 1998 was the date of the error. There have been many Governments since then.David Shearer: Seven long years.POTO WILLIAMS: Absolutely—absolutely. So let us not quibble about which Government is responsible. We know that the National Government likes to blame everything on Labour because it takes no responsibility itself—it takes no responsibility itself. Hey we have got broad shoulders. We are taking responsibility. When we come to the Committee stage I want the Government MPs to take responsibility and take some calls which they did not do on the other bill that went through today under urgency. So let us see. We will see what happens. We know that the Government has forced us into urgency on three bills but its members are not even prepared to stand up in the Committee stage and take calls to defend the Government’s position. It has gone quiet over there. Thank you—thank you for that. I will continue with my second reading speech thank you very much.We all know that this bill has come out of a need and a desire to correct a technical error but I want to ask a question and during the Committee stage I hope Minister that you will answer it. Why was this bill actually part of the Social—now what was the name of that bill Carmel?Hon Ruth Dyson: Extension of Young Persons Services.POTO WILLIAMS: The Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill—thank you. Why was this—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I will just remind the member to address other members properly.POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you. Ms Sepuloni—thank you very much. Why was this bill part of that piece of legislation? Why was that?I think it is amazing and it is great that that significant piece of work was actually taken out of the original bill so that we can actually discuss this properly. It should not have been part of that bill. Was it actually an attempt to cover up the fact that this error had come to light—and not come to light in recent times but actually a year and a half ago? It was a long time ago that this error came to light but the Government sat on it. It sat on it until November 2015 in order to actually force the bill through under urgency. Then we get to the point where people have got until 8 January to apply for a review—7 weeks. We all know that if people are looking to apply for a review we have got a couple of weeks of closure at our Government offices; so technically that is going to cut a couple of weeks from their ability to get their applications in for the review process.Why is this happening now? What is so urgent about doing this right now? According to Mr Ngaro the cost of this is $3.5 million. Is that going to change if we pass this piece of legislation today or if we pass it at the beginning of next year? I say: not significantly. So what is the hurry to get this bill through under urgency? Is this an excuse to hold us in the House to pass this piece of legislation—and the one before and the one following? No one has really justified this to us as yet. I would be really interested to hear your comments on that Minister when we come to the Committee stage—if you would take a call on that.I really recommend supporting the extension of the commencement date of this bill which will give people adequate time to find out whether they are able to apply and to then put in an application for review. The Greens are advertising the fact. I think that is a great idea. It shows real openness and transparency. It could do on the Government’s part to actually capture those people who need to look at whether they want to respond. Indeed Carmel Sepuloni did say that the people she has spoken to probably will not—that they will not be bothered by it. But at least it gives them the opportunity to do that. When we come to the Committee stage I will be really interested to get some answers from the Minister about why she will not be looking at an advertising programme and at an extension of the commencement date which actually makes a lot of sense and whether the ministry has done any work on how many people have actually been captured by this going back to 1998—and not just Labour Governments but National Governments as well. I know that we will have plenty of opportunity to traverse this through the Committee of the whole House and I look forward to doing so. Thank you.