edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Sepuloni Carmel: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSepuloni Carmel: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8232. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CARMEL SEPULONI (Junior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Is this a new point of order?CARMEL SEPULONI: It is a different point of order. I am just seeking your advice because you have been privy to the debate that has gone on here tonight. I just want to get clarification from you. Given that the point was made that the technical error that we are here debating tonight was made because the same sort of legislation went through under urgency 17 years ago I just wonder—
Tisch Lindsay: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8232. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I have heard the member yes. I look very closely at relevancy; I look very closely at repetition. In that period of time the Labour Party has taken 26 calls of the 34 that were taken. It has been well canvassed. I have listened to all the points that have been raised in the last hour that I have been here and that is why I am prepared to accept the closure. The Committee will decide whether that is accepted or not. So I intend to put it.
Lees-Galloway Iain: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8232. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. At the beginning of the debate the member who has actually moved the closure motion sought leave for this debate to be taken as one question or at least to have a single debate. That then elicits a wide-ranging debate and it also restricts the number of calls that members can take. A number of members have reached their—
Tisch Lindsay: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8232. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes I am going to accept the closure motion. We have had 2 hours 50 minutes. We have heard 34 calls. It has been well canvassed over that period of time.A party vote was called for on the question that the question be now put.
Ross Jami-Lee: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoss Jami-Lee: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8232. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.
Ross Jami-Lee: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoss Jami-Lee: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8229. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.
Lees-Galloway Iain: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8220. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Yes that is clear.
Mallard Trevor: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8220. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I can answer that relatively easily for the member. The member cannot refer to the advice but the member can use the advice to inform himself or herself—all right. Is that clear?
Lees-Galloway Iain: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8220. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just seek some clarification around the official advice on the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill that Carmel Sepuloni earlier on sought leave to table and to be debatable. As you have correctly pointed out to members we do have the ability as members to share that advice with other members of Parliament. What we are unclear about on this side of the Chamber is whether we are able to use that official advice as the substance for debate in the Committee given that it is still part of a select committee process.
Mallard Trevor: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8216. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No the member will not because he has had four calls.
Mallard Trevor: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8215. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Because otherwise I would have to stop you. I think that is relatively clear. Is there any objection to that material being provided? There is objection. It cannot be.
Sepuloni Carmel: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSepuloni Carmel: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8214. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CARMEL SEPULONI (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek the leave of the Committee of the whole House to have the officials’ advice provided under the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill that is related solely to the matters under consideration in the Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill excised from the select committee and provided to the Committee of the whole House.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member might want to add a little bit more: “so that members can use it for debate purposes.”CARMEL SEPULONI (Junior Whip—Labour): So that members can use it for debate purposes.
Tolley Anne: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTolley Anne: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8212. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Thank you to the member Chris Hipkins who has just resumed his seat. Thank you for that nice try. But in fact it is very clear that the Government policy that was developed in 1996 was in the legislation enacted in 1998. It has been Government policy since 1998 that the stand-down period would cover a full week. So a 7-day stand down meant 7 days without State support. That is what was intended.I do not know how the legislative error was made—none of us were here at that time—but the policy intent is clear. The operational intent has been clear and has been carried out. What the Government has said and we are talking about liability is that once the agency knew—so from that first appeal—that the legislation did not support the operational policy those people are entitled then to a review and that is what is protected in this bill.I do have to say to clarify a statement I made earlier that as at this morning just over 8500 people have asked for a review. That is not just from May of last year. They are perfectly entitled and protected under this legislation to that review going right back to 1998.
Hipkins Chris: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHipkins Chris: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8211. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I want to deal with a number of issues in this contribution the first of which is that I note that this bill at clause 3 refers to the principal Act. It states that this Act amend
Dyson Ruth: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8210. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not doing this to trifle with your earlier considerations. I am doing it because the Minister for Social Development who is responsible for the bill is now in the chair. The point of order that I raised earlier which I now wish to repeat and seek further guidance on from you was that because this bill was introduced as part of another bill that is still at the Social Services Committee—this part of the bill has been taken out of the select committee process and is now before the Committee of the whole House under urgency going through all stages—we do not have the benefit of the officials’ advice. [Interruption]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The first thing is that Ruth Dyson will resume her chair. The member who interjected while I was on my feet will stand up withdraw and apologise.David Bennett: Withdraw and apologise.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Withdraw and apologise?David Bennett: I do withdraw and apologise yes.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Thank you Mr Bennett. I am ready to rule on this. I have previously ruled. I think the first time the matter was raised the Minister was in fact in the Chamber. It was raised by Jan Logie. What I ruled at the time was that I suggested that the chair of the select committee—and it would have to be a committee member I think to have the material—excise that material from a report and seek leave of the Committee in particular terms so that members are able to debate it. Then it would be up to the Committee. It would have to be a unanimous decision of the Committee and members would be able to do that. No one has done that and therefore I am going to rule that I have got nothing further to rule on.
Ball Darroch: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBall Darroch: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8207. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DARROCH BALL (NZ First): I would just like to speak on the Supplementary Order Papers that have been put forward. I can understand the rationale behind why Labour and the Greens have put the Supplementary Order Papers forward based on their perspective on their argument that beneficiaries are owed a day’s stand down. That is obviously not what New Zealand First believes.The theory of the Supplementary Order Papers I can understand just not the execution of them or the justification for them. So a couple of the justifications for Labour’s Supplementary Order Papers are that it will not cost much because there will not be many people who will apply—the majority will not apply. If it is a matter of principle like we have been hearing about the Supplementary Order Papers and it being a matter of natural justice if it is a matter of a fundamental right by law if it is about trusting the Government then based on the principles in the Supplementary Order Papers from Labour and the Greens should not everybody be getting that day’s stand down extra? They should not have to apply for it. Should they not be getting it automatically?The Minister says that on average at the moment it is $105 per payout and we are talking about 2.7 million benefits that have been paid. Of course not all beneficiaries will be eligible but if we take even half of that even a good chunk of that where would that money be better spent than retrospectively thinking that a beneficiary should be owed that extra day’s payment when in fact the intent of the bill was fulfilled in the first instance?Like I said previously if the mistake was not made in the writing of the law beneficiaries would still have received the same amount of benefit as they did. That is because the intent was fulfilled. The Supplementary Order Papers from both Labour and the Greens—New Zealand First cannot support them because fundamentally that would be going against and contrary to what we are agreeing to with this bill and why we are standing and supporting the bill. We believe that the intent of the bill was fulfilled and that there is no money owing to the beneficiaries.I have just put a typescript amendment on the Table. If we are talking about natural justice then the point from where the Government knew that there was an issue—which was May last year—is the point where people should be eligible. They are and the Government is giving 7 weeks for them to apply. We actually believe that everybody who received a benefit who is eligible and who was not given that 1-day stand down should be automatically paid that amount. That is the point in time—from when the Government knew—that every beneficiary should be paid from. That is the natural justice aspect and the perspective that New Zealand First stands by.
Ross Jami-Lee: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoss Jami-Lee: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8197. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for all clauses in this bill to be debated as one question.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The matters will be debated as one question.
Dyson Ruth: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8196. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I raise a point of order Mr Assistant Speaker. I was momentarily distracted by reading your earlier contribution in the 1998 debate actually Mr Assistant Speaker. Earlier I raised a point of order in relation to the advice from the officials at the select committee and you indicated then that Parliament was in its own hands—we are the masters of our destiny or words to that effect. You suggested that a member could move that we agree that the advice on this bill that is still stuck at the select committee and that we cannot access could be made available to us. You indicated it would be appropriate for the chair of the select committee to do that. He has not been able to do that so far. I am keen to have that advice if we are going to get it before Committee stage. Can another member move it is my question.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I do not think that I indicated that a member could move. I did indicate that with the appropriate caveats leave could be sought. To be absolutely clear the mere tabling of advice does not mean that members can refer to it. If it were to be tabled it would have to be with leave sought for it to be tabled for the purpose and for members to have permission to use that advice. I also indicated that it is not for me to recommend that any member do that.
Smith Stuart: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSmith Stuart: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8195. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well I do have to give credit where it is due. I think that was a masterful speech from a person who I think that the 150-odd people who were in Palmerston North the other weekend would prefer to see as their leader of the Labour Party Annette King. But that was a great speech.Hon Ruth Dyson: What an arrogant prat.Chris Bishop: A good speech from a good member.STUART SMITH: That is right.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): No I am going to require the member to withdraw that interjection. [Interruption] Carmel Sepuloni.Carmel Sepuloni: I didn’t say anything.Hon Ruth Dyson: I think it was me. Probably me.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Who used “arrogant” and then another word?Hon Ruth Dyson: Me.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I require Ruth Dyson to withdraw.Hon Ruth Dyson: I withdraw and apologise.STUART SMITH: Well I am going to take that as a compliment that I have had someone withdraw and apologise.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Now the member will resume his seat. I am going to remind the member as I probably should have reminded my old friend Annette King that when the Speaker has ruled members do not refer to that ruling; they just get on with business.STUART SMITH: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker—lesson learnt. This piece of legislation corrects a 1998 legislative error. It is quite clear. Everybody agrees there has been an error and that 7 days actually is a week to everybody except for the courts in this case and we are fixing that piece of legislation. Retrospective legislation has been discussed for quite a bit of time here this evening and there have been some holier than thou speeches given across from the other side. But as to the residency provisions that were referred to by my colleague earlier people have been in the queue for 2 to 3 years—they did not get 6 weeks. It was summarily dismissed overnight. Sometimes you have got to make decisions around what is responsible what is right and what is good governance. That is what the National Party stands for and it is with that in mind that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Parmar Parmjeet: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParmar Parmjeet: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8193. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the second reading of the Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill. I am taking a short call just to talk on one component of this bill and that is the retrospective component. I see that members opposite have very short memories and I am going to revive their memories. It was the previous Labour Government that amended the Immigration Act in 2003. That legislation was rushed through the House. That lapsed tens of thousands of applications that were in the queue for 2 to 3 years. The applications were in the queue for 2 to 3 years.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Sorry; I was temporarily distracted but I do want to remind the member that we are talking about the Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I was just reminding the Opposition members that they have passed legislation that was retrospective. That legislation was surprise legislation and it was labelled monstrous legislation.If we look at this bill before the House we can see it provides a fair opportunity to those who want to seek a review of the decision about the commencement date of their benefit as long as they seek that review within the allowed time frame. Having this provision in the bill is not going to undermine the original intent of the policy. The intention is that the benefit should commence after the stand-down period finishes. It is great bill. I support this bill and I commend it to the House.
Naylor Jono: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNaylor Jono: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8191. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONO NAYLOR (National): I just want to limit my contribution on this particular occasion to addressing a couple of things that were raised by the previous Green member. There were a couple of accusations in there levelled towards the Government that were pretty much unfounded and I think need to not go unchallenged.There was the way the bill was talked about in terms of the Government trying to save money. I think that is the role of the Government to a certain degree is it not? The only money that the Government actually has control of is in fact the money that it has received from the taxpayers of New Zealand. Sometimes they are not necessarily that willing to part with that money and so it is beholden on us to ensure that we look after it in the most prudent possible way. [Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I will just ask the member to sit. Could I also ask the junior Opposition whip not to interject as she walks along. Thank you.JONO NAYLOR: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. As I was saying I think it is really important for us to actually act in a prudent way on behalf of the taxpayers of New Zealand.The other point that was made was that originally this legislation was somehow buried in another piece of legislation and was just being referred to as “remedial matters”. Well if there ever was anything that was a remedial matter this matter is absolutely it. What we are trying to do is remedy something that was done—as the previous speaker from New Zealand First Darroch Ball said—in a legislative drafting error. We are just wanting to remedy that get it tidied up and get it sorted out. It is really important for us to get this legislation through to get things back on track to the way that they were always intended to be and that is why I think it is important that we do this under urgency and get it through in the best possible time.
Mallard Trevor: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8190. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The answer to the member’s question is no. I am not going to ask the Government to do anything. It is a matter for it to do something if it so wishes.
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:8189. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the departmental disclosure statement. Where it says “Were any regulatory impact statements provided to inform the policy decisions that led to this Bill?” the answer says “NO”. So could I ask you to ask the Government to clarify whether we have a regulatory impact statement on this bill or not.
Mallard Trevor: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8189. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am sorry. I did rely on the assurance from the chair of the committee that the regulatory impact statement did cover this particular clause and I apologise if I misinterpreted him. If the member is saying that it does not and the member said it did that is a debatable matter on which I am not going to rule.
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:8189. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder having heard your ruling whether you could give some advice because we are told in the departmental disclosure statement that there is no regulatory impact statement available and then we have a regulatory impact statement called Extension of the Youth Service dated February 2015. Is it possible to direct us because we cannot find it in this regulatory impact statement. Either one there is not one or we are told this is something and we cannot find where this part of the bill is mentioned in here. So have we got a regulatory impact statement that relates to this part of the legislation or not?
Dyson Ruth: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8189. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During Jan Logie’s contribution she made the point that the advice to the Social Services Committee is obviously still with the select committee and cannot be part of the contribution of the House because the bill is before the select committee. This legislation that we are debating now has been removed at the select committee from that bill the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. So the primary bill remains with the select committee. We have got a bit of it here but we are not able to access the officials’ advice. It is not a usual situation and I wonder whether you could give that consideration and some contribution on whether we would be able to get particularly in the Committee stage access to that officials’ advice—just on the part that is relevant to this bill because that bit is no longer before the select committee; the rest of the bill is.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I was listening to Jan Logie’s comments and she was I think accurate in her summation of the situation notwithstanding the fact that the chair of the Social Services Committee Alfred Ngaro has assured us that this bill is substantially the same in its effect as part of the bill currently being considered by the committee and in fact he referred to the regulatory impact statement and referred members to that which is available. I am advised that the advice because it is still with the committee is not available to this House for continued debate. I think that is a matter that at some stage it would be appropriate for the Standing Orders Committee to have a look at.The other point that I would make is that in the end the House is the master of its own destiny and if a member especially the chair of the select committee thought that there was useful advice available on the effect of this legislation from departmental officials then it would be within his right to seek the leave of the House notwithstanding the particular Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings for that material—just that material—to be made available and I would put it if he did so.
Muller Todd: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMuller Todd: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8186. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise this afternoon to support the second reading of our bill the Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill. I would like to start by making a few comments about responsibility. I found it very interesting listening to the previous member lecture us in respect of responsibility. I think it is the height of responsibility actually to put this bill in place as we have this afternoon.The bill corrects this technical error with full retrospective effect back to 3 June. It is the height of responsibility and fairness to have included in that bill an acknowledgment that those who have lodged a review of decisions relating to a benefit commencement on or after the 1998 amendment can still have their review processes seen to in the normal manner. It is an extremely responsible and fair bill and Government that acknowledges and puts in under Supplementary Order Paper 141 a 7-week review period where clients have benefits that commenced after the Social Security Appeal Authority decision of May last year. But in my view it is completely irresponsible to be holding the view that because of this technical error every benefit commencement going back to 1998 should be included. It is irresponsible from a logic perspective and it is irresponsible from a taxpayer perspective.Also I do go back to the core view that I have in this debate. It relates to the Government in 1998 successive Governments since and the Ministry of Social Development and its predecessors from 1998 through to today all holding the view that a stand-down period particularly when applied to a particular week—it was at the end of those 7 days that you were stood down and then on the eighth day it began. Everybody was under that assumption. Those who made the law those who were administering the law and every one of the Ministry of Social Development’s clients who came to the door were equally under that assumption. So everyone assumed that that was what the rules were until of course this particular Social Security Appeal Authority decision from last year.This is a responsible Government which has put together a comprehensive bill that reflects the policy intent ensures that it is retrospectively validated and then has in my view very fair and natural justice for those who are caught up in this process to have their interests looked at and protected. It is a good bill. I look forward to future debate and discussion. I commend the second reading to the House. Thank you.
Smith Stuart: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSmith Stuart: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8181. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): We do not take this as a trivial matter at all on this side of the House. I think the reason we are debating this bill today is that the policy intent back in 1998 was very very clear and due to drafting errors or poor wording we have ended up with the legislation not matching that policy intent. That needs to be addressed for many reasons but not the least being a fiscal one. Although there has been a little bit of politics from the Labour Party in this particular debate I think the contributions from the Green members underline for those who were in any doubt that they certainly are not ready for the Treasury benches. It would be certainly a cruel and unusual punishment should they ever get the opportunity to be unleashed on us in that area.This is a very timely bill. It is very good to get it done at this point. It absolutely nails the problem that we have of getting the legislation lined up with the policy intent. I commend it to the House. Thank you.
Parmar Parmjeet: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParmar Parmjeet: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8178. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the first reading of the Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill. The matter being dealt with in this bill under urgency is a very urgent matter because there are a number of people who go on benefit each day and it is dealing with that number of people. This bill is to clarify the Social Security Act about the commencement of benefits and to ensure that the Government’s policy intent is upheld.This Government is committed to our welfare reforms. We know hundreds of people are getting off benefit every day because they are getting into jobs. When people go on benefit there is a stand-down period. The current practice—when I say “current practice” the practice I am referring to is the one that started in June 1998 and ran until 29 September 2015 because from 29 September 2015 we have changed the practice to reflect what is in the legislation. The current practice has been what the intention of the legislation was which is to start the benefit after the stand-down period finishes—that is the next day after the stand-down period finishes.So the current practice is in line with the intention of the legislation but if I look at the legislation it says that Work and Income people should start benefits from the last day of the stand-down period. So there is a big discrepancy in the legislation and the intention of the policy and it is important that the legislation reflects the intention of the policy. It is a great bill. I support this bill and commend it to the House.
Tisch Lindsay: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8177. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The Hon Ruth Dyson—5 minutes.
Tisch Lindsay: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8176. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. I call Marama Davidson—5 minutes.
Naylor Jono: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNaylor Jono: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8176. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONO NAYLOR (National): I would just like to acknowledge the contribution made by Darroch Ball because he did highlight the fact that this is actually a very technical bill and not one that we need to get too carried away on in terms of the wider impacts on families who are dependent on benefits or otherwise. This is a technical bill. There is a technical error in some of the drafting that needs to be fixed and that is exactly what we are looking at.Some people have talked about the fact that there was nothing compelling in Hansard or in the debates when the initial legislation was put in in 1998. I think the issue here is that you have got to look at the intent. When you have a stand down people would normally acknowledge that actually after a period of a stand down then that kicks in and not necessarily on the day on which it ends or otherwise.But there have been some conflicting ideas about this and so today through this legislation we are going to put it right. When you are putting things right you have got to make sure that things are in essence fair and practical and I believe the balance we have arrived at with this legislation is both fair and practical. It is not practical for us to for ever and a day keep taking people’s challenge of things going back as far as 1998 and so what we are saying is actually from the point at which this legislation comes into practice you will not be able to go back to 1998.However I think it is fair and reasonable for us to acknowledge that actually since May of 2014 perhaps things should have been done differently. So there is an option through until January this year for people to apply for a refund for where they have been unreasonably treated perhaps and that is exactly what will happen. Thank you.
McKelvie Ian: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMcKelvie Ian: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8172. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]12.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister for Food Safety: What initiatives has the Government put in place to encourage the food and beverage industry to reduce the sugar content of their products?Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for Food Safety): Last year the Government introduced voluntary front-of-pack labelling called the Health Star Rating system. These labels make it easy for shoppers to understand the nutritional value of the food that they are buying so that they can make healthy choicesmore easily. This has created a competitive environment in which the industry has reduced sugar in order to obtain more stars.Ian McKelvie: How has the industry responded to this labelling system?Hon JO GOODHEW: Very well. Already there are more than 600 products on supermarket shelves. They are using these labels already. The number of products being rolled out with new labels is growing so fast that the product lists are almost out of date when I receive them. Well over 1000 products will be on the shelves by the end of the year and that will continue to increase as the phasing-in periods for the new labels come along. Very important more than 95 percent of all juice and non-alcoholic drinks will soon have the Health Star Rating labels and our two largest supermarket chains are rolling the labels out on their home-brand products and the bulk bin sections of their stores.Ian McKelvie: How are these labels encouraging the food industry to reduce the sugar content of these products?Hon JO GOODHEW: The voluntary system has encouraged food businesses to look carefully at their recipes in order to reduce sugar fat and salt to improve the nutritional content. Many of our staple products like breads and cereals now contain less sugar. This is just far too much good news for the Opposition to possibly contemplate it seems. Due to this initiative 70 percent of all breakfast cereals have been reformulated to reduce sugar content—and they did it voluntarily members of the House. Nestlé last night announced on television—Mr SPEAKER: Bring the answer to a conclusion.Hon JO GOODHEW: —that it has doubled the fibre level—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer is going on too long.
Carter David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8172. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are nearly there. One question to go. Question No. 12—Ian McKelvie.
McKelvie Ian: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMcKelvie Ian: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8172. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): My—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order!IAN McKELVIE: Apologies Mr Speaker. I cannot hear myself think. My speaker is to—[Interruption]
Carter David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8172. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 12—Ian McKelvie.
Peters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8171. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Deputy Prime Minister: Is he confident that the money spent on the Flag Referendum is appropriate and lawful?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Perhaps the Minister can explain how much was spent on this advertisement in the Air New Zealand inflight magazine last month containing only four of the options which meant it was a total waste of public money?Hon BILL ENGLISH: All the advertising and publicity is under the control of the Flag Consideration Panel to ensure that it is independent of the Government. I am happy to take that issue up with the member but it is quite possible that some of the material was produced before Parliament’s somewhat sudden and unexpected addition of a fifth flag. [Interruption]Hon Gerry Brownlee: Air New Zealand’s man on the inside.Mr SPEAKER: Order—to Mr Brownlee.Rt Hon Winston Peters: In your case it would be a blessing.Mr SPEAKER: Now we will have the question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why was it necessary for the Electoral Commission to advise New Zealanders that they should not cast an informal vote which is their choice if they want to have it or to spend in a desperate 24-hour flag-athon with Newstalk ZB and the New Zealand Herald such huge amounts of money just because they are two leading media handmaidens in New Zealand?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not sure just what the member is referring to but I do not think there is any question about the lawfulness of the spending as he asked originally.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can he explain to New Zealanders why there is no silver fern in any of the alternative flag options or is this a deliberate deception given this is Fraud Awareness Week?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not want to oversimplify the explanation but the reason there is no silver fern in the alternative flag options is that there is no silver fern in the alternative flag options.iqsFood and Beverage Industry—Sugar and Food Labelling