Logie Jan: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee[Sitting date: 25 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2630. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAN LOGIE (Green):I rise to take my first call on the Committee stage of the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). The Greens are opposing this legislation because it seeks to make things just that much harder for people who are trying to get ahead through study people on ACC who are also on a benefit and people who are caring for family members who would otherwise be in care. To put it as simply as I can this legislation specifically clauses 4 and 5 and Supplementary Order Paper 56 runs counter to the well-being of our society as a whole. To be honest they come across as just mean-spirited. In this contribution I would like to specifically address the changes for students and we will hopefully get the opportunity later to address other concerns with Mr Chair’s permission.This legislation closes a loophole for students who are currently eligible for a student allowance but who choose not to apply for it because the accommodation supplement will offer them a higher income. This legislation will remove that option and prevent them from applying for the accommodation supplement so it will prevent them accessing a higher income. The Green Party wants a well-educated and a well-paid society and we believe that it is up to us collectively to support students especially students without much in the way of financial resources. This is pretty essential when it comes to that concept of social mobility. If we are serious about addressing our crisis of inequality we need to be doing a lot more not less to support people on lower incomes to get through tertiary education to get higher qualifications and to be able to get ahead in life.The adequacy of student support we are told is separate to the accommodation allowance because that has a different purpose. We have heard that just now from the Minister for Social Development. To me that seems a pretty arbitrary distinction and strange packaging of policy parameters. The accommodation allowance is available to some low-income workers and it is available to those who are out of paid employment and on a benefit. Why exclude people in the same or even greater financial stress just because they are trying to get ahead through tertiary education? I have heard the policy rationale is that that is a different issue. I do not see why that is a different issue if our concern is our population and the well-being of people as a whole.We have had advice from the New Zealand University Students’ Association which has told us a bit about the situation for students in New Zealand at the moment. It estimates that as many as one in six students would be better off turning down the student allowance and applying for the accommodation supplement instead. This is because their allowance has been abated due to parental income and the support available for the accommodation supplement is so much better than support targeted to students—again students who are trying to get ahead or who are trying to gain more knowledge to be able to contribute to our society.If you live in Auckland and are on a low income and pay the average student rent of $220 a week then you would be entitled to $118 a week in the accommodation supplement. The New Zealand University Students’ Association survey of students’ income and expenditure in 2014 showed that almost one-quarter of Auckland students currently getting an allowance receive less than that due to the abatement regime. It needs to be pointed out again: these are not privileged people. If you are privileged and you come from a family with a lot of financial resources you do not get anywhere near a student allowance. So we are talking about the group of people who are coming along who are wanting to get ahead and whose parents do not have the resources to be able to support them through. And here in this piece of legislation we are saying: “Well there was an option where you could support yourself a little bit better to get ahead and we’re going to take that away. We’re going to remove that option and restrict you to an even meaner existence make it harder to be able to feed yourself to get to your course and to be able to pay your rent.” To me that is not good policy.The New Zealand Union of Students’ Association also raised I thought a really interesting point by saying that the need to close this legislation loophole came to the Government’s attention over 4 years ago which means that there has been the potential for those people to access a higher level of entitlement for 4 years. It also questioned how many of those students had been informed of that option because the number of students in 2010—when this legislation was first introduced—who were taking advantage of the so-called loophole was only two. If there are not that many students who have managed to find out about this loophole and who have been able to be told about the option then actually if we have a system of entitlements there is something wrong with our system—again if the department was aware of it and it was not informing them.I would just like to point out too that students who are receiving the allowance are by definition unable to support themselves and their parents are not in a position to support them. Even ignoring the levels of parental income that are currently part of the regime of means testing which takes place until students are 24 years of age—which to me is ludicrous when you think of youth development processes—they can get a maximum of $40 a week of accommodation assistance called the accommodation benefit. Think of that in Auckland where the average student rent is $220. That is a maximum of $40 for the people whom we really want to help get ahead the people whose families really want their kids to be better off than they were. I have said recently in this House that we need to be acknowledging this. We are being told that this is the first generation post-colonisation where our young people are likely to be worse off than their parents. Here we are discussing that very group who is trying to fight against the odds to get ahead to be able to push ahead from their parents and we are taking away from them options to be able to support them through that process. I have said it seems mean-spirited. It runs counter to our concept of collective good.The Greens will certainly not be supporting this bill. We hope that the Government will see and listen to the arguments on this side of the Chamber around our collective good and around supporting the mobility of young people and change its mind on this point.