Bradford Sue: Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bradford Sue: Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:10861] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill through its first reading and its referral to the select committee. But I would like to make it clear that we reserve our position on subsequent votes as we do have some reservations about certain implications of the bill. 
The overall purpose of the bill as presented here is laudable. People should not be paid assistance that they are not entitled to receive and subsequently end up heavily in debt to Work and Income. A lot of so-called benefit fraud in the past has in fact happened as a result of Work and Income—in its previous incarnations as well—overpaying people when their life situation changed thereby creating debts and overpayments through no fault of the beneficiary. It is in no one’s best interests least of all the interests of newly released prisoners to end up with a substantial overpayment debt. The Green Party also understands that the Ministry of Social Development should be able to locate debtors readily in order to facilitate repayment arrangements. 
However we do have some concerns about this bill that we would like to see addressed during the consideration process at the select committee. Payment of a welfare benefit while someone is in prison is in some circumstances discretionary under section 76 of the Social Security Act 1964. Immediate suspension of a benefit as laid out in this bill will unreasonably negate or fetter the exercise of that discretion. Safeguards need to be included in the bill to ensure that this discretion is properly exercised as soon as is practicable after a benefit is suspended because the beneficiary has been imprisoned. 
A secondary concern is that the bill confers powers and obligations on the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development by way of amendments to the Corrections Act which is not an Act that that chief executive officer is responsible for administering. Amendments in that regard to the Social Security Act and the Student Allowances Regulations 1998 would actually be more appropriate. 
I would also like to note that although this Government like its predecessor is always quick to bring in laws that tighten up the administration of the benefit system it is not always as easy to see related activity happen on the ground that takes into account the side effects of new legislation and regulation and the impact that that has on the lives of beneficiaries and their families. In this case I am referring to the situation of beneficiaries who are supporting a family and who find themselves in prison. If their benefit is to be cut off immediately as this bill provides for then I would hope that Work and Income and the corrections authorities will work closely together as quickly as possible and in every prison in the country to ensure that the adults and children left behind receive their full and correct entitlements in their own right should they have entitlements—which is very likely in the circumstances—rather than leaving them destitute even for a short period. Often the sorts of things that happen in difficult circumstances like those are too quickly seen by the State as deliberate malfeasances when in fact all that is happening is that desperate people are struggling to survive as best they can. 
I look forward to hearing some assurances from Work and Income during our work on this bill that no family of a prisoner will suffer unnecessarily or incorrectly in terms of the social welfare regulations as a result of this legislation and that safeguards will be maintained to ensure that in some applicable circumstances discretion is properly exercised as per the existing law.