Bennett Paula: Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bennett Paula: Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5729] 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I stand and commend the member Sue Bradford for the advocacy role she has played over a number of years for beneficiaries and for those people who are vulnerable. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: But you’ll vote against it? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Would Mr Hodgson like to say something or is he leaving? What an odd man—quite seriously! Let me start again. 
I congratulate the member Sue Bradford on the advocacy that she has played over a number of years for beneficiaries and for those who are vulnerable and at the margins of our society. I also want to congratulate her on her capacity to get members’ bills from the ballot. She seems to have a certain advocacy for that. I saw some of the work that Ms Bradford did in the 1990s and how conscientiously she has moved to promote the rights of those who really are the most disadvantaged and the most vulnerable in our society. I think that the Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill in many ways continues the member’s focus on ensuring that those who rely on Work and Income for their weekly incomes get their correct entitlements. I know that she has been working on this bill for quite some time. I also—and she will know that I do not mean this condescendingly at all—quite enjoy the debates I have with her over social issues. They are well researched she has strong opinions and she respects that I do as well. We may not always see eye to eye on what they are but we can at least go to battle and have a good debate on those issues and sometimes even agree on what we need to do to go forward. 
I am concerned about this bill though as I think it makes changes that will have a very costly impact on us in this economic climate where we are having to make tough decisions focus our resources and prioritise our spending more to the front line and to those people who really need it at the moment. Essentially it is my belief that this bill will add another layer of bureaucracy to the review process. It will fundamentally change the nature of this process and result in huge cost at a time when perhaps we need to be concentrating more on those people who need our help. As such there are a number of reasons why the Government does not support this particular bill. 
First and foremost it proposes to amend a review and appeal process that I believe in essence currently works well. This bill proposes changes based on a view that the current process is biased favouring the Ministry of Social Development. I do not believe that the current process is biased; I believe we have an adequate process in place to assess decisions made by the ministry. Currently a person who is unhappy about a decision made by the chief executive can apply for a review of that decision. We see about 4000 formal review requests each year that seek a review of a decision under this process—about 65 percent of these are resolved at this stage. If the outcome of the review decides that that original decision stands correct the person can then ask for a benefits review committee to consider the decision. The benefits review committees are made up of two employees from the ministry as the member has previously said and a community member. If the benefits review committee also agrees with the original decision the person may then appeal to the Social Security Appeal Authority before deciding to take a judicial route. The process is balanced; it is fair and equitable to all concerned. Indeed the Supreme Court has confirmed that it is appropriate for an administrative review as currently provided by the committee to take place. 
The bill proposes that the committee should be replaced by an independent reviewer who is under contract to the ministry. In effect this introduces a quasi-judicial review which is not needed in the process. Independent reviewers would have to be lawyers or experts in particular fields. In any given year the ministry holds over 1000 benefit review committee meetings. The cost of contracting people to do these reviews instead would be significant. In fact a conservative estimate that the department did was that it would be over $4 million. On top of this cost would be the cost of indemnity insurance. This would also be quite considerable. That is money we can put to much better use than changing a system that works well particularly when we are in these tough times. We want to see our spend and resources go into assisting people those who are in hardship to ensure that they have the support and backing they need to get back on their feet and into work. 
Another significant change the bill proposes is that the reviewers will be able to award costs and not just when a person is successful in getting a decision overturned but also when a person is unsuccessful if the reviewer thinks the unsuccessful application for review is reasonable. The bill does not provide direction for what these costs might be awarded for nor does it propose any limits on the costs that could be awarded. This opens the Government to fiscal risk that is totally unacceptable. The bill proposes the abolition of the medical appeals boards which review decisions in relation to the medical assessments required for some benefits. They were established so that where a benefit was declined on medical grounds that decision was reviewed by people with the appropriate knowledge and expertise. Abolishing those boards and having a decision reviewed by an independent contractor with no medical expertise would cause considerable difficulties. Inevitably for those reviews the Ministry of Social Development would have to contract in specialist advice and that again would add to the cost of the process. The bill proposes to legislate the current practice in a number of areas. I do not believe that it is necessary to introduce legislation for processes that are best covered in administrative or operational guidelines. 
We do not always get it right within the ministry and I note that the member Sue Bradford brought up issues of timeliness in terms of how long it takes for people to get a benefit review when they need one. Those are matters that I would be happy to take up with the member and discuss further if her bill does not go through tonight. We want to get it right as much as we possibly can and if I was making a judgment on the staff whom I have met over the last few months—in fact over the last few years but predominantly those working within Work and Income—I would say they predominantly want to help people. They want to give them their correct entitlement as much as they can and to make sure those people get what they want and what they deserve. 
The Ministry of Social Development sends out about 5 million letters each year about decisions that have appeal rights attached to them. From those 5 million letters about 4000 formal requests for review are made each year. That is about 0.1 percent of the decisions made by the ministry and certainly the internal review process resolves about two-thirds of those. That means we are getting it right; for that small percentage of decisions where we may not be there is a process that people can go through and 65 percent of cases are dealt with in the first review. The others are dealt with in the second review. We are in fact taking it seriously and getting it right. 
I finish by acknowledging Sue Bradford for the issue that she brings to us. I acknowledge there is stuff that we can do differently and we can do better. I would particularly like to look at the timeliness issue. I do not think it is fair for people to be hanging on and trying to find out whether they will get that review and what it might mean for them particularly in cases where I think we make mistakes and that is human error as well. So I wish her luck.