Rurawhe Adrian; O'Connor SimonSOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION REWRITE BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 23 May.Part 3 Obligations (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): When we were last considering this bill we were debating Part 3. The Hon Carmel Sepuloni had the call and she has 1 minute 42 seconds remaining. I call Simon O'Connor.SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I'm clearly not the Minister but I'm delighted for this opportunity to speak to Part 3. As I've noted before this is a rewrite of 10 parts. Part 3 is around obligations and I'd like to start around Subpart 1. As might be indicated in the word obligations" this is setting out the social welfare framework of what's expected of not only the Ministry of Social Development but most importantly those who are receiving assistance from the Crown. I want to start in Subpart 1 which is the introduction. As those of you know as I go through a bill in the committee stage I like to be quite ordered so I'm wanting really to start around clause 91 "Failure to comply with obligation under this Part" and I'm really questioning why a moral rather than ethical phrase is being used here or perhaps suggesting to the Minister if he chooses to answer perhaps why we don't introduce both.Clause 91 in Subpart 1 of Part 3 says "(1) A person who is subject to an obligation under this Part and who fails to comply with that obligation without good and sufficient reason is"—and so on and so forth. I'm querying the use of the words "good and sufficient". Good as I say is a moral word—"good/bad" versus something that's ethical "right and wrong". So I think it would be useful if the Minister can clarify why we're continuing to keep—Hon Andrew Little: You're not at the seminary now Simon.SIMON O'CONNOR: Oh I hear the dulcet tones of the Minister of Justice speaking here. It's good to be in the House with you Andrew—without our flak jackets.It really is a question to the Minister: what is a good reason? Again that's a moral distinction—if something's good or bad. Is that a judgment that the ministry is going to have to make—whether their obligations were good or not—or really is it a matter of something ethical? Are there reasons are there obligations something that should be right or something that should be wrong? So it's a minor point in some ways but I'm a little bit of a pedant when it comes to language and getting these things right.Moving then into Subpart 2 "MSD's obligations" clause 92 and its paragraphs say that "MSD"—the Ministry of Social Development—"must take reasonable and appropriate steps to make a person to whom an obligation under this Part applies—(a) aware of that obligation … (b) aware of the consequences"—and so forth. I'd just like some clarity from the Minister in the chair Peeni Henare around how available Map is. The Minister in the chair will know exactly what this is and I'm sure his officials do too. I'm not going to put the Minister in the chair on the spot by trying to explain what the acronym stands for but Map is well known to those working within the Ministry of Social Development. I'm really keen to know how accessible Map will be made to the general public. I know it's available online at the moment but it takes quite a bit of searching I've found.If MSD is rightly to take reasonable and appropriate steps to make a person aware of their obligations obviously that will be done verbally in letters in emails and so forth but there is in behind this thing called Map—manuals and procedures or processes; I might have to stand corrected on that as well. That effectively—particularly for members of the House—lists all the aspects of available assistance through the Ministry of Social Development. I think that's all the rules. The question there in Subpart 2 clause 92 is should we be having something more clearly around Map or maybe it's just some assurance to me—if you don't mind Minister—that Map will be made more available and perhaps in time something that can be written more in plain English.I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Minor thing but the clock? Sorry just some indication of—I do apologise. We're there now.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I do apologise. It was running out.SIMON O'CONNOR: Splendid. That's all right. I can just get a bit emotional around time. So that's the second point there. The first is around clause 91 and the second point is around clause 92 about making Map more available. Look clause 93—and I do assure the committee I'm not going to go clause by clause—is around the steps to explain the overseas absence rules. Again there's a request here that MSD "take reasonable and appropriate steps to explain to every person who is or appears to MSD to"—well in effect to have been away from New Zealand. Again that's a minor point Minister but how is that to be done? I suppose in the general scheme of things if someone comes to their case manager and says they're heading off overseas—you can think of superannuitants in particular—an explanation can be made. But I suppose I'm beginning to theorise in my head: how does "reasonable and appropriate" apply and to what extent? So to try and illustrate it what are the elements—I'm trying to find the exact right words here. How do we appropriately judge what is reasonable and appropriate for MSD? If someone who is on a benefit has chosen to go off to I don't know Indonesia or to Germany Japan or Britain to what extent does MSD have to try to track them down to make them aware of their obligations? What are the mechanisms? So clause 93 explains the intention which is quite right and appropriate I would suggest but exactly how is that going to play out? I suppose I want to avoid at least one of two things here or perhaps two of two. The first is that MSD is going off constantly chasing down New Zealanders and those overseas trying to reasonably explain the steps required; or the flipside that very little is going to be done because it's all just put in the too-hard basket. So I think that would be useful to have that explained.Look the fourth element—and it might be of note to the committee that I'm now jumping a few clauses ahead because I want to touch very quickly on clause 97 "Beneficiary must hold and give MSD details of bank account". Again it might seem trivial and minor because most Kiwis have bank accounts—and rightly if they want to access MSD or particularly Work and Income support they need to have a bank account. In fact the Minister might want to indulge me and let me know if we still use Social Welfare Information for Tomorrow Today and the Unified Customer View too. I'd be interested in that. I know that's not directly part of the bill. God forbid if we are still using both—but anyway. The question is not every Kiwi has a bank account. I know universalism is sort of de rigueur on the Government side at the moment. Well unfortunately not every Kiwi has a bank account and as the various things like anti – money-laundering laws come through—rightly and properly—it does make life a little bit harder to set up a bank account. How are we going to capture those beneficiaries those people we're here to serve and help? How are we going to help them if they do not have a bank account? Are there are other mechanisms in place because to me clause 97 looks well pretty clear and pretty definitive that they absolutely must have a bank account. So there are really two elements to that: what happens Minister if they do not have a bank account? Secondly if they have an account with a non-bank entity—you know there are credit agencies and the like—it probably fits but there are those institutions which are not formally banks. So some clarity around those four things would be useful.So the first one is again around clause 91: why are the reasons deemed to be "good and sufficient" and why are they framed within a moral rather than an ethical framework? Again why does it effectively not say "an obligation" without right and sufficient reason? So I'm not immediately suggesting that we remove the moral and replace with ethical but perhaps it's both.Clause 92 is basically discussing that MSD is to rightly make people aware of their obligations and therefore to follow them which importantly follows. I think that's one of the challenges for the Government—and not necessarily for the Minister in the chair—but if we're going to put obligations on people then there have to be consequences as well. I've heard some indications from other Ministers that you know "We'll put these obligations down but we won't really honour them." which makes it a bit odd. Clause 92: how easily and readily will people have access to Map? Clause 93—that's the whole question of being overseas: to what reasonable levels and to what steps is MSD required to chase up people absent? And then the fourth one is around the whole bank account issue. So that's I suppose my first two contributions. I do note that in this part I have two other Supplementary Order Papers—well actually two are tabled amendments. One is around the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the other is around the New Zealand Business Number. But I know that the Chamber will be excited to hear a different voice so I'll return to those later in the debate."