Logie Jan: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8212. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAN LOGIE (Green): Following on from that I really have had some of my concerns echoed in those raised by the Labour member Chris Hipkins around the interpretation of the law and whether that is the problem or whether it was a drafting problem. I am grateful that the Minister is here in the Chamber and is speaking and engaging on this bill. However we have heard from the Minister as we have heard from other members on this side of the Chamber that the policy intent was clear that it was for a 7-day stand down.But I believe if you are bringing retrospective legislation to this House to say what the intent of the law was when it is so clearly different from what was written in the law and from what the courts have decided is the meaning of the law then the onus really I believe should be on the Government to provide us with some evidence of that assertion. We have had no evidence of that assertion. We have not had anything in the Hansard debates. We have had nothing on paper from the Minister. We have just had the oft-repeated assertion that that was the intent. We have nothing to back that up whatsoever.I would now like to speak in my contribution to our Supplementary Order Papers which we have been hearing about that we have put forward on this bill. We have been hearing from Government members again that the Greens are being irresponsible for asserting people’s legal rights to access their legal entitlements. Somehow that is fiscally irresponsible and a certain definition of fiscal responsibility obviously overrides the rule of law and people’s access to their legal entitlements.I do want to just point out that actually our Supplementary Order Papers clearly demonstrate that we are willing to work with the Government to ensure the certainty that they seem to be seeking with this legislation and that we believe that that certainty can be balanced with what I believe is the primary responsibility of Government which is to seek to build trust in this Parliament and in our public institutions. So what we have proposed in our Supplementary Order Papers is to allow a 6-month period for everyone to be able to lodge applications for a review and to require the Government to advertise this opportunity. So if it was a genuine mistake it is OK to fix that in the future. If the Government has a particular policy intent that it would like to see implemented then we will debate that policy intent on its points. But if you are going to introduce retrospective legislation to deny people their legally established entitlements then I think a bit more should be required than what is in front of us with this piece of legislation.I really think that the proportionality—the Government needs to offer more particularly when we look at the balance of this and at somebody who is accessing the entitlements of Work and Income who may have missed a bus whose bus may have been late or who may have been at a tangi or in hospital for a psychotic episode and who misses an appointment at Work and Income and gets their entire benefit—or if they have children half of their benefit—cut. The severity of that penalty for what is in most people’s minds I would suggest a completely reasonable situation or mistake—for it to be penalised so harshly and then for the Government to come to this House and say “Well OK a mistake has been made. We’ll take that and we will give some of you 6 weeks to be able to put in an application and we are not going to mention it.” is completely unnecessary. And we have to point out that this will be reported in the media tomorrow and there will be people who would be entitled to money now if they had heard about it today who will hear about it tomorrow potentially after the Royal assent who will not be entitled to money.That is setting up a situation of grievance that is completely unnecessary when we could actively seek to build people’s trust and confidence and see the Government as recognising its wrongs and seeking to right them and give people access to an entitlement. That is possible in this debate and members can choose to support our Supplementary Order Papers to be able to deliver that.What we are going to get at the moment—and I do need to speak to that kind of process around those who have missed out on money because of the misapplication of the law from 1998 until May 2014. When they hear this in the news potentially tomorrow they could think: “Oh I’m an educational support worker. Actually the way the Government funds our schools means that I need to rely on a benefit outside term time. Gosh I might be eligible over each year for three lots of quite a lot of money coming up to this Christmas while I am really struggling to feed my family and doing a fantastic job in schools in helping schools run and our children being able to learn. Gosh I’d be entitled to this—but oh I’m a day too late. It’s all over the media today and I didn’t hear this in time and I’ve missed out.”I do not see how anyone in this Committee can think that is fair when we have educational support workers and we have seasonal workers in some of the lowest-income areas in this country who we know—you know there are not many job choices in particular areas in this country. There is seasonal work particularly in the area the Minister is from I think where we know that a lot of people are stuck into seasonal contract forestry work. They will have been on and off benefit and their legal entitlement as of today would be for quite a significant amount of money. But when this bill goes through and gets the Royal assent—probably tomorrow; I cannot be sure—they will not be entitled to anything.That is setting up quite a significant impact. We do not have a regulatory impact statement because we are being told there is no significant impact from this legislation. Well I would like to hear the Minister or anyone else tell me how it is not a significant impact for somebody in the community to have heard about this and then find out from their auntie tomorrow that they were able to claim some money and then they are not able to. That—in real terms in real life—is a major impact and I am at a complete loss to understand how that is not considered a significant impact.I would also like to speak about the fact that the law was interpreted by the courts in May 2014 and the Ministry of Social Development did not change its interpretation of the law or the way it enacted it knowing—and it was given two court rulings telling it this—that what it was doing was in effect illegal. The ministry continued that practice. The Minister has told me that she was shocked to find that out. Despite this law change apparently having gone to Cabinet at around the same time—so knowing that there was a problem there and there had been a court ruling—she had not checked whether the ministry had changed its policy. That to me raises some pretty significant issues relating to either the Minister’s oversight or the ministry’s responsibility in informing the Minister. That does seem to me a very worrying breakdown of relationships. I am particularly worried that it may not be isolated to this point.There was a report put out by the Child Poverty Action Group last year looking at the interpretation of relationships there is a very famous case Ruka v Department of Social Welfare and then the report by Frances Joychild which was instituted by the then Minister Ruth Dyson I understand looking at whether the Ministry of Social Development had implemented the changes that were signalled by the court at that time and it found out that it had not. So I am very worried and the Child Poverty Action Group report indicates that it still may not have implemented the changes. I would quote if I had the report right in front of me some of the strength of language of the report. It is deeply worrying for me when the courts have the role of interpreting law and the ministries and the Government have the role and the responsibility to implement it as it has been interpreted. If that fundamental relationship is being broken on a consistent basis by this Government or any Government then we have an absolutely fundamental problem that should worry many people.