Ball Darroch: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBall Darroch: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading[Sitting date: 02 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2888. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DARROCH BALL (NZ First):I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to once again oppose this bill. We actually share the same sentiments as the Green Party in so far as we understand that this bill is designed to sort out some loopholes but it is the ramifications and downstream effects of those loopholes that we are concerned about. What is ultimately concerning as well is the fact that the National Government is ignoring the fact that those ramifications and downstream effects are actually having real effects on people. In this particular case the clause I am talking about will affect students in particular.I have been in this seat for only about 6 months but this bill has surprised me on a number of levels. Firstly there is the fact that its first reading came through in 2011 and it has taken this long to get through to the third reading. But the second reading the Committee stage and the third reading took only a couple of weeks. Not only that but the Supplementary Order Papers that were put in were very recent. In fact the Supplementary Order Papers were larger than the bill itself. Logic dictates that with such large Supplementary Order Papers affecting the original bill the bill should have gone back to the Social Services Committee but it did not.We heard on Tuesday when this was being rushed through by the Government that the first speaker who was the Minister for Social Development took 45 seconds in the first speech. That reeks to me of trying to push this bill through very quickly with little or no fuss and with total ignorance of the effects downstream. That is what New Zealand First cares about and it is why we are opposing this bill.What is also surprising and interesting to me is the fact that Labour is supporting this bill too. In fact during every speech that Labour members make when they stand up they say the exact same things on that same clause that New Zealand First members say but they are deciding to support this bill. We have got submissions from the New Zealand Union of Students’ Association which is opposing this bill. It is very surprising to me that Labour wants to support it. However like I said we agree that the principal legislation does need to have the loopholes tied—that is the intent of this bill—but if we are looking at the student allowance and the accommodation clause there are real concerns for New Zealand First.The Minister during the first speech in the second reading used the word “equitable”—as have National backbenchers in every speech since. Being equitable is definitely a matter of perspective. I have an analogy that I want to use here for the benefit of the National Party. If we have got 100 people in the deep Pacific right in the middle of the Pacific who are keeping their heads above water and only a few of them have life jackets it would be equitable for all of those 100 people if we took those life jackets away from the few. That would be equitable but is that the right thing to do? Is that fair? What the Government is doing at the moment is proposing—and it looks like it will go through—to take away the life jackets of students who are just keeping their heads above water trying to survive and trying to get the basic necessities in life. That is why New Zealand First is not happy with the effects downstream and that is why we are not going to support this bill.I would like to remind the House that there were only two submissions. Both of them were against the specific clause I am talking about. These are the words of those students who are keeping their heads above water. This is a submission from the New Zealand Union of Students’ Association and might I remind the House that it represents 14 universities and polytechnics including Auckland Massey and Otago. This is the very first sentence that it has in its submission in its general statement: “NZUSA is opposed to the changes proposed to students’ access to accommodation costs support in the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3).” That is the very first sentence that it has.It goes on to say: “These days student rents are high and rising student employment is much scarcer and particularly in the larger cities where many tertiary institutions are situated.” This submission was put forward in 2011. You can imagine what it is now. It also says: “[the] NZUSA rejects the assertion in the Regulatory Impact Statement that implies that students are not low to middle income earners.”—whereas in fact they are.This is the most disappointing part of the submission that the New Zealand Union of Students’ Association put forward: “It is disappointing to note the Ministry of Social Development undertook no consultation with either students or student representatives and advocates when exploring this proposal. This appears to be driven by cost-saving measures rather than a genuine concern for quality engagement with stakeholders or in upholding the principles of consistency and fairness.” So the Government is standing up there with all its rhetoric about equitability and fairness for all students and here are the students themselves—the ones who are being affected by the legislation that the Government is putting through—saying that is it not equitable; it is not fair. They are getting the raw deal.Bringing this into real terms is an article in the New Zealand Herald dated Monday 30 March—just this Monday. It says that renters are paying up to $60 more a week—this is in Auckland. Areas of Auckland are up 13 percent. Some areas are up 10 percent for a two-bedroom house—costing $531 a week. Across Auckland City costs are growing by an average of between 3 and 6 percent. People are finding it hard to get homes and the next option is to look for somewhere else to rent. So what this article is saying is that—especially in Auckland where we have got one of the largest universities—we are making it harder for students to afford to rent.Here is the kicker. The New Zealand Union of Students’ Association put out a poster on 1 April. It stated that on 1 April students received a 90c—90c—increase to their weekly loan or allowance payment. Average rents are skyrocketing—in Auckland by over $8 in Hamilton by over $3 in Wellington by over $11 and elsewhere by similar figures. So where is the fairness in that? Where is the equitability in that? Where is the brighter future for these students that this Government has promised them for the last 6 or 7 years?Bringing it back specifically to the bill I want to look at the regulatory impact statement. In Part B paragraph 38 it states: “The government provides assistance for full-time students through allowances and loans. Underpinning the design of this assistance is the fact that returns from tertiary education accrue to both the individual and the nation”. So the allowance that students are currently getting already accommodates for the accommodation allowance. What this is pointing out is that first of all rents are skyrocketing but students are getting a 90c increase per week for their accommodation allowance. So where is the fair share from the Government? This legislation is changing the ability for these students to be able to afford to study and to better their futures.Lastly what I would like to say is that there is nothing wrong with expecting students to work part-time and supplement their allowances and their income—to work their way through university. I had to do it a lot of people in here had to do it and a lot of students are doing it currently. New Zealand First considers students to be the future of our country. We need to ensure that we invest in our students and not see them as an expense. They are quite literally low-income earners. We need to give them the most support possible and not ensure that they get the least amount available. That is why New Zealand First opposes this bill.