Sepuloni CarmelSecond ReadingHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I move That the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill be now read a second time.This is a landmark bill rewriting a piece of legislation that is more than 50 years old. It will be only the second time that the Social Security Act has been rewritten. The first Social Security Act was passed in 1938 and rewritten 26 years later in 1964. The 1964 Act is long overdue for a rewrite. When it was first passed it had 135 sections. It has since grown to well over 500 sections and of those only four remain unchanged with other sections repealed or amended sometimes hundreds of times. Altogether that makes for a very disjointed and confusing Act and there have been many calls both from within this House and outside of it for it to be completely rewritten.The previous National-led Government introduced the rewrite bill to the House. The Hon Christopher Finlayson said It is [time] that we have this rewrite because the Social Security Act 1964 is a shambles. It is unintelligible … The public do not know what it means in a critically important area of law". Labour Green and New Zealand First MPs all spoke in favour of this sentiment. All parties in the House were united in thinking the Social Security Act needed to be rewritten. Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Professor John Burrows members of the Law Commission even identified the Social Security Act as the worst statute on the book.When the bill was being considered at select committee many submitters expressed the same sentiment and supported rewriting the legislation to improve its clarity and accessibility. It was therefore concerning that the select committee was given a shortened time frame for consideration of this bill—slightly ironic given the debate this afternoon—in the expectation that the bill would be passed by the end of 2016. Despite this the bill languished on the Order Paper throughout 2016 and 2017. It was not given the attention it deserved as one of the most significant pieces of legislation in New Zealand.The previous Government had indicated the rewrite bill would be a neutral legislative clean-up. When the bill was introduced however there were several new policy proposals. The principles of the Act had been amended to include a principle relating to the investment approach. The emergency benefit was reformed and two benefits were merged together amongst other changes. In the Labour Party's view these changes were significant and should not have been included in a rewrite bill. The Green Party and New Zealand First also stood in this House at the time to express similar views.At the select committee submitters expanded on these concerns with the vast majority of submitters opposing the policy changes. More generally they noted a deep concern with the direction of New Zealand's welfare system. In the Labour Party's minority view set out in the select committee report we noted our disappointment that their advice was not taken on board by the National-led Government of the time. Labour Green and New Zealand First joined with the vast majority of submitters in opposing the rewrite bill. Whilst we all committed to rewriting the Act the significant policy changes included in the bill made it impossible for us to support it. At that time I submitted a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to include our own policy changes as it was clear the original rewrite bill presented by the previous National Government had a political policy agenda. I want now as Minister for Social Development to progress this bill as a genuinely policy-neutral rewrite of the Social Security Act. To ensure this I have withdrawn my own earlier Supplementary Order Paper which I introduced following the select committee stage as I did not want these policy changes to derail this critical piece of legislation. In further support of a neutral legislative rewrite I have released a new Supplementary Order Paper that will be considered at the committee of the whole House stage which removes the significant policy changes from the bill.This could have all been avoided if the previous Government had had a truly policy-neutral rewrite of the legislation when they had the opportunity to do it. This builds on the widespread support for rewriting the Act whilst removing the contentious parts of the bill.There are seven policy changes that National included in the original rewrite bill which are taken out through this SOP. These are one a new regulation-making power to identify specific client circumstances where compulsory redirection of benefit payments is deemed appropriate. This would have reduced the security for beneficiaries and allows these changes to be made outside of the public arena—which is of significant concern. Two merging the orphan's benefit and unsupported child's benefit into a single benefit named supported child's payment. The policy settings were to be aligned so that step-parents would not be eligible. Three renaming the emergency benefit as the exceptional circumstances benefit. Four case managers being given discretion to apply work or work-preparation obligations to a person granted the exceptional circumstances benefit—emergency benefit. We deemed this inappropriate given the nature of this benefit payment especially as most recipients are over the age of 65. Five both parents in split-care situations—which is when a parent cares for at least one dependent child from the former relationship—are to be eligible for sole parent support. Submissions during the select committee outlined concerns that this may encourage children to be split up between parents which is something we do not believe is in the best interests of children. Six including the objectives of the investment approach and the overarching principles of the Social Security Act 1964. The former Government's investment approach was seriously flawed and had a narrow focus on fiscal risk and liability.The seventh policy change which has been taken out with this Supplementary Order Paper is the one that was about a single rate of sole parent support for single carers who are paid the supported child's payment orphans benefit and unsupported child's benefit. While we acknowledge that that was a positive step it does not belong in a policy-neutral rewrite. We believe on this side of the House that it is essential to clean up the legislation first without rushing through policy changes that haven't been properly thought out. What we see the role of this being is basically prior to an overhaul—it's like sweeping the floor before we put the furniture down.I want to make progress in this rewrite as it will bring the old patched-up Act into the modern era where legislation can be read and understood by people without years of legal training. The bill looks very different to the 1964 Act. It has a logical structure and flow. For example in the 1964 Act the various main benefits are separated and supplementary assistance is in seven different parts and assistance for young people is tacked on at the end. By contrast in the rewrite bill all the financial assistance measures are grouped together.This bill uses a modern drafting style and provides more explanation and guidance for users. There is a full contents table at the start of the bill and a further contents table is provided for each part and each schedule of provision. Taken as a whole the bill is easier for people to navigate use and understand. This will help ensure New Zealanders understand and have access to their entitlements. A modern clear and accessible Social Security Act will provide a solid legislative platform for changes that stem from this Government's overhaul of the welfare system. The focus of the overhaul will be on making substantive policy improvements to social security. Completing work on the rewrite bill separately will ensure that potential policy improvements can be considered without any distractions arising from questions about the Act's clarity or structure.This Government has already taken steps to improve the fairness of the current system through the Families Package we've provided more targeted assistance through Working for Families to make it easier for people to work and raise a family we've introduced the Best Start tax credit to help New Zealand families and whānau to give their children the best start in life and we've got a new winter energy payment that will help about a million people with the cost of heating their homes in winter. The Supplementary Order Paper includes the relevant changes from the Families Package legislation including the winter energy payment.I would like to acknowledge the work of the Social Services Committee ably—at the time that this went through the select committee—chaired by the Hon Alfred Ngaro. I'd also like to acknowledge the 121 submitters including the 52 who gave oral submissions. Their evidence was invaluable in scrutinising this bill. In order to maintain momentum on the bill I support the adoption of the recommendations of the select committee. The recommendations were predominantly minor and technical improvements to the bill. I have tabled a Supplementary Order Paper which amends the bill to create a truly policy-neutral rewrite. I commend the bill to the House."