King Annette: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKing Annette: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8201. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): This is the question and answer time when the Minister in the chair gets to answer the questions posed by the Opposition. So Minister Wagner I have a couple that I would really appreciate you answering. First of all was the Minister aware that the original legislation passed in 1998 was also passed under urgency and does she think maybe that accounts for the fact that perhaps we—all the parties in the House—made an error at the time? And hopefully can the Minister assure the Committee that we are not going to be making another mistake and that we have got this absolutely right?I would also like to know what the financial impact is of this change because I have read what the Minister has said. She said: “We’re talking a day … it’s not a huge amount.” So if it is only a day and it is not a huge amount what would be the costof that—taking it back to May 2014 for the people who are allowed to apply—to the Government? I thought that work would have been done because the Government has known about this problem since May 2014 and 4 or 5 months ago it introduced a bill the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill that had this particular part hidden in it. I thought it would have done this work for the Social Services Committee and perhaps the chair of the select committee might be aware of what the financial impact is. Was that provided to the select committee? Because if it was not it seems to be a strange way to go about making a change to the law.But I suspect there was no work done on what the financial impact was because the departmental disclosure statement actually asks “[Is] there analysis available on: … the size of the potential costs and benefits?” and the answer is “No.” So this has been put together on the word of the Minister—and Minister Bennett is mouthing to me. I am not quite sure what she is mouthing but maybe Minister Bennett knows as she is in Cabinet what the financial cost of this is. Was the Minister for Social Development correct when she said that “We’re talking a day … it’s not a huge amount.”? If we are talking a day and it is not a huge amount quantify the huge amount. If it is not a huge amount what is it? Could the Minister—either the Minister who is in the chair Minister Wagner or maybe Minister Bennett if she would like to take the chair because she is in Cabinet—tell us what the financial cost is.Carmel Sepuloni: She was the Minister.Hon ANNETTE KING: I think she was the Minister for Social Development in May last year. Was that correct Minister? So did the Minister at the time seek to find out what the financial costs would be? Did she seek to find out what the costs would be if you allowed a period of time to allow anybody who was affected back to 1998 to put in a claim?We have put up Supplementary Order Paper 142 which I support saying why not allow this very small window—this very small 6-week window—to allow those people who might be affected back to 1998 to put in a claim. Did the Government do any work on the financial cost if there was a period of time during which people could put in a claim? Were there any costings on that? Because maybe the Government would find that it was not very big at all if we go by the Minister saying that it is only a day and we are not talking about a huge amount. So if that work has not been done why was it not done? What we are getting here is a closing-off of natural justice. That is wrong and I would have thought that before the Government closed off natural justice to people who had been affected by an error it would quantify what that impact is. What is the financial impact of it?The other thing that I wonder whether the Minister could answer is why there has been no advice provided to the Attorney-General on any provisions of this bill that appear to limit any of the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Minister in the chair may or may not be able to answer this: was any advice sought by the Minister of the day on whether there would be any limits to the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders? I would have thought that was pretty fundamental when you are going to carry out retrospective legislation—that you would want to know whether there was any limitation on the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders. Could the Minister in the chair tell us whether any advice was provided to the Attorney-General to let him give some advice? Because I believe that Christopher Finlayson would have looked very carefully at this.Grant Robertson: As he does.Hon ANNETTE KING: As he does. He is a very meticulous man and very well related. He would have looked very carefully at this legislation to see whether it did limit their rights and freedoms. But he was not given the opportunity—because the departmental disclosure statement said he was not asked—so we do not know whether it does or not. So Minister in the chair I would like to know whether any advice was provided or sought from the Attorney-General. Would that or would that not have been an important issue for a Government that prides itself on human rights and democracy? Would that have been an important issue?I urge the Government to reconsider Supplementary Order Paper 142 provided in the name of Carmel Sepuloni who has said in this Chamber: “We will support this bill. We understand the problem. We know it has to be fixed.” But will the Government reconsider her Supplementary Order Paper to enable a window of time for anybody who is affected to put in an application? I would lay odds on that there would not be very many of them. I do not think a lot of us keep such good records that we can remember when we stopped and started work and went on a benefit and did not go on a benefit. “Was it 1999 or was it 2001? Was it on 29 March?”. I mean what are we talking about? Let us get real. How many—[Interruption]Chris Hipkins: Pre-pubescent; doesn’t have that problem.Hon ANNETTE KING: Oh well I do not believe the member from Clutha would have a clue when he stopped and started work! Give us the dates that he stopped and started work.I think they have made a mistake here and I am saying: correct the mistake now by accepting Carmel Sepuloni’s Supplementary Order Paper. You would get the broad support of the parties in this House Minister. Perhaps the Minister in the chair does not have the authority. I know she is not the Minister in charge of the bill—she is in the chair; good on her for being in the chair. But maybe she has not got the authority to make this decision. I suggest a little whisper to Minister Bennett—Minister Bennett is a very powerful Minister. She may be able because she was there when this mistake was discovered to persuade the Government to accept the Supplementary Order Paper. It would not be the end of the world for the Government if you did. I can promise you that we would not crow very much if this Supplementary Order Paper was accepted because you know what? We would be providing natural justice and fairness to New Zealanders.I wonder whether we would do this if it was something that affected a business. I wonder whether we would have the same approach. But this is about people who are on a benefit and I just hope Minister that the Government has not been blinded by the words “benefit” and “beneficiaries”—that this is not just some sort of approach where because they are beneficiaries it is easy to deny them natural justice and fairness. I hope that is not the case. Give them the benefit of the doubt in this House. So I say Minister Bennett do your best: see whether you can accept the Supplementary Order Paper. Give a 6-week period and we would support the bill.