Dyson Ruth: Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5731] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak in support of the Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill going to a select committee at the conclusion of the speeches tonight. I add my congratulations to those given already by previous speakers to Sue Bradford. In my view this issue is overdue for consideration. It was certainly looked at quite rigorously during Labour’s time in Government including looking at the different forms of reviews that operate in the various Government departments whether in housing the Police Complaints Authority or the accident compensation scheme. So it is an issue that in my view has been ready for consideration for some time. 
The speech made by the Minister for Social Development and Employment has confirmed that the recession can be now used officially as an excuse for just about anything including the inability to support a bill in this Parliament going to a select committee for consideration. The Minister said that she could not support it because we are in recession. We have pretty well heard it all now. That is the weakest excuse for backing off a debate for being scared to listen to concerns and for not being able to front up to real alternatives that I have ever heard. 
In my view part of the entitlement within our social security system should be the timeliness and the fairness of any review and appeal process. In theory that has always been the case and in my view a number of our benefits review committees work very well; they certainly try their best. But it is beyond doubt that the perception is that they are not fair that the majority of the committee are Work and Income staff members that they have a community person who relies almost entirely on Work and Income for consideration of the facts and that reviews are certainly not performed in a timely fashion in many parts of the country. If the Minister was genuine in saying that people are entitled to their full correct financial entitlement then she should also consider that part of that entitlement under the Social Security Act should be the review and appeal procedure. 
For many people the perception becomes the reality. The theory is that those review committees are independent they are neutral they listen to every case on its merits and they do not make a decision that is biased towards the ministry. The perception is impossible to relate to that theory because of the make-up of the review panels. So for both the benefits review committees and the medical appeal boards which this bill deals with I am strongly supportive of the theory finally moving to the perception and a new regime being established. I am not sure that this is the right regime but it may well be. It could certainly give us the framework for a decent debate to hear from some of the people whom Sue Bradford referred to in her introductory comments: people who deal with beneficiaries superannuitants and family members of beneficiaries and superannuitants and people who are frustrated by the system and believe that they could provide a better way forward. 
I urge the House to give consideration to one other thing in relation to the model that Sue Bradford seems to have adopted in her bill and that is the Dispute Resolution Services model from the accident compensation scheme. I do not believe that that system is perfect either. It often feels weighted against a person who does not have the ability for whatever reason to hire a lawyer or who may not think it is necessary to do so and is then up against a department that has a lot of resources behind it. That is one of the considerations we need to make. The other is whether we need a lower-level process for resolution such as the one the accident compensation scheme has adopted. In my view the earlier and lower level the intervention engagement between the Government system and the individual the more likely we are to get a successful sustainable and fair outcome for everyone.