Wall Louisa: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWall Louisa: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading[Sitting date: 02 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2890. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa):Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to this third reading debate on the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). I do note that Labour does support this legislation and we do so because the bill has two primary purposes the first of which is to ensure that those receiving ACC payments from their employer are treated the same as those receiving ACC payments from ACC itself and we believe in equal treatment.I do have some questions however around the second aim of the bill which is to correct and I quote from the Bills Digest “an inconsistency between policy and legislation as set out in Section 61EA of the Social Security Act 1964 which has the unintended effect of giving access to Accommodation Supplement to some full-time students when the policy intent is that financial assistance for students is provided under the Student Allowances Regulations 1998 and the Student Loan Scheme.” The interesting thing about section 61EA which is entitled “Accommodation supplement” is that subsection 4 says: “No person shall be granted an accommodation supplement if that person (a) is receiving a basic grant or an independent circumstances grant under the Student Allowances Regulations 1998;”. So essentially it is saying that if you are receiving a student allowance you cannot additionally receive an accommodation supplement. But it does not say that you do not have the right to choose—that as a low-income person you do not have the right to choose whether or not you want a student allowance or want to receive the accommodation supplement as a low-income person. So fair enough that you cannot get both but actually what is the issue about choosing the one that best suits your circumstances?The regulatory impact statement highlighted that this whole legislation was designed because there was a loophole and it was inequitable for the loophole to be left and for different payment levels to be available. Well the definition of “inequitable” is that it is unfair and unjust. I actually cannot see what is so unfair and unjust about a person deciding whether they want to apply to Work and Income as a low-income citizen of our country or as a student citizen of our country.I want to highlight also the research that the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations did. On 10 September 2014 it highlighted that one in six students would actually be better off not receiving student allowances. They would be better off being a low-income person and receiving an accommodation supplement. That totals about 13500 students because we have approximately 82000 students receiving student allowances in our country. So the relevance from their point of view is that if they are living in Auckland for 23.1 percent of the students receiving a student allowance it would be better if they did not. It would be better if they got a low-income accommodation supplement. If you are a student in Wellington for 16.2 percent of you again rather than getting a student allowance it would be better if you were a low-income person and you received an accommodation allowance. If you were in Hamilton or Christchurch 14.3 percent of you would be better off to receive an accommodation supplement. So if we look at the principles that this piece of legislation is built on—those of what is equal what is equitable what is fair what is just—actually it seems pretty unjust that students do not get to choose based on their circumstances.What I also want to highlight is that the Social Services Committee made a very interesting I believe comment in its report. What it acknowledges is that the two submissions that it did receive which were about student allowances said that allowances were inequitable and they were inadequate—but to quote from its report the committee felt that “this bill would not be an appropriate vehicle to make significant changes to the assistance levels provided to students.” I think it is incredibly profound of the select committee to actually put that in its report because I believe there is an acknowledgement from the members of that select committee that our students are actually being hard-done-by and that something has to change. I guess my challenge to the Minister for Social Development is: if it is not this bill if this bill is only going to correct that anomaly then what is the bill that is going to meet the needs of our students to make sure that they are studying in a supported environment? Students who are having to work 30 to 40 hours a week in order to continue to pass their courses and actually achieve the qualifications that we need as a country to move forward—what is the National Government going to do to address that situation? Kia ora.