Logie Jan: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee[Sitting date: 25 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2637. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAN LOGIE (Green):In this contribution I would like to speak to the changes in relation to ACC compensation payments which are in clause 5 of the bill and also specifically to Supplementary Order Paper 56 and some of our concerns around that. In relation to ACC at present weekly ACC compensation payments are deducted from benefit payments on a dollar for dollar basis. However a loophole was discovered through a case that went in front of the Social Security Appeal Authority that revealed that in law weekly compensation paid directly by employers accredited with ACC should be treated as income and therefore deducted from benefits at a different and more favourable rate. So this bill is seeking to remove that anomaly and bring the compensation abatements back to a dollar for dollar basis—on a retrospective basis. It is seeking to retrospectively validate Work and Income’s misapplication of the law.This will result in someone who has been on a benefit while working part-time suddenly having their benefit reduced to zero after an injury that entitles them to access ACC. I would just like this Committee to dwell on that for a moment and—I am sure there are a number of stories and letters that you get into your office or people coming into your office to talk to you about the struggles they are having with ACC or the struggles they are having to be able to survive on a benefit or negotiate between those two systems—and reflect again that this legislation will result in somebody who has been on a benefit while working part-time suddenly having their benefit reduced to zero if they find they are entitled to ACC compensation after an injury. I would suggest to this Committee that this is again mean-spirited and cruel and is increasing the level of hardship for some of the most vulnerable people in this country.I doubt that any of us would want to be in their situation. In some ways that is possibly a test in terms of legislation. If we were in the place of the people whom this legislation is applying to would we want to be in their situation? Would we feel that we were able to manage in their situation? I would suggest to this Committee that we would not and that we possibly most probably could not manage in those situations. So the Greens are certainly opposing these amendments.To speak specifically to Supplementary Order Paper 56 we also find it quite problematic because what it will do is provide a less generous residential qualification for New Zealand superannuation and welfare benefits than is provided under the current interpretation of the legislation and it will do so retrospectively dating back to 23 June 1987. This is in response to another Social Security Appeal Authority decision which interpreted the current section 79 of the Social Security Act in a more generous manner than had been and is Ministry of Social Development practice. The proposed new section 79 inserted by clause 5A reflects past and current Ministry of Social Development practice and will apply retrospectively except in the case of people who had filed proceedings before 6 July 2013. The only person in this category is likely to be the successful applicant in the Social Security Appeal Authority case that this amendment is in response to. So that is quite a bizarre situation really and another example it would seem to me of this House spending time fixing up some degree of incompetence and also penalising the people in the most vulnerable situations in this country. Supplementary Order Paper 56 also amends schedule 6.