Henare Peeni: Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHenare Peeni: Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10903. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill in its first reading. The member who has just resumed his chair Christopher Finlayson likes to quote leaders from around the world. I want to bring one right back here into Aotearoa. Meri Ngāroto is famed for having said “He aha te mea nui o tēnei ao māku e kī atu he tangata he tangata he tangata!”.[What is the most important thing in this world? I say it is people people and people indeed!]I have already mentioned in this House that at one point in time in a former life I was a case manager. In fact I was a case manager at Work and Income as it went through a rebranding process and the rebranding process plastered Meri Ngāroto’s phrase all across the walls right across the country. The intent of that was to put people at the forefront of what we did to put people at the forefront of the services we provided to them as they came in off the street or as they came in out of their homes to seek much-needed assistance because let us be very clear: people actually do not want to come into Work and Income if they do not have to. We know that it is a safety net.In 1964 a bit of a groundbreaking piece of legislation really was passed to make sure that those who do need that assistance are able to get it. If I can cast the minds of this House back to 1964—just very briefly for somebody like myself who was not even born in the 1960s but this will be familiar to many of the members on the other side of the House. In June 1964 the Beatles arrived in New Zealand—something a little bit interesting. On 30 May 1964 the Marsden Point oil refinery plant was opened after several years of construction. There were so many things that happened in those times—exciting times—but we do acknowledge and we support the fact that a rewrite is required in modern times a rewrite that will allow more accessibility and a clearer understanding for those who are affected by this particular piece of legislation. We want to see that that information is available to them so that they are able to understand exactly what they are eligible for. But more important—I have mentioned those who need to receive the services. Just as important I want to remember are those case managers who are there and have to carry out the new policy directions—despite the assertions of this Government—in some of the rewrite that is in front of us today.We do have some concerns on this side of the House. We are supporting this bill. Let me be clear—I will say that again—we are supporting the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill but we do have some serious concerns. My colleague here Carmel Sepuloni mentioned—despite the assertions of this Government that it is a policy-neutral piece of legislation—that this is about modernising what is essentially old legislation. We on this side after having read through many of the proposed changes—and there are many—would argue that in fact some of the changes go a little bit too far. They are not as neutral as the Government is asserting. We would argue on this side of the House that in following true democratic process we will be here to make sure that we hold this Government to account. We are here to read through these things to make sure that (1) yes people are put at the forefront of all policy decision-making around social welfare and that (2) things are clearly accessible coherent and easily understood by those who are (1) affected by the piece of legislation and (2) those who are asked to carry out this piece of legislation. Also we will be here to challenge any part where we think there is a bit of a hidden agenda.One of those parts I want to talk to is the introduction of a new power to make regulations specifying groups of beneficiaries whose benefit instalments can be redirected without their consent. Redirected without their consent—I wonder how that might impact on the individual’s rights. We know as MPs in Tāmaki-makau-rau—my colleagues here on this side of the House—that for many of those Work and Income clients who do come into our offices quite often it is admitted by Work and Income that “Sorry it was an administration error.” or “We are really sorry about that. We were under the impression that we could redirect these.”Although that is something that can be sorted with the case manager one of the fears I have is that if you take $20 out of a person’s benefit where does that leave them? In even more hardship. It takes kai off the table. It takes away some of the things that we would like to think our families can provide for our tamariki and for our mokopuna.Redirecting $5 is a huge difference and I would argue in this House that redirecting $2 is a huge difference. To just simply redirect money without the consent of a client or those most vulnerable in our community is going to make a huge impact—I say that again: a huge impact—because the assertions by this Government are that it is policy-neutral that there is not going to be significant impact and that if anything it is going to make things a lot easier. I would argue that it will not. That particular case is a very clear example of how things will not get easier for those families who are affected by decisions like this decisions that simply redirect their money to other places. What does that do? I reiterate it takes money away from the families who need it.We support this bill. We are always keen on seeing sensible legislation pass through this House—sensible legislation that makes things easier. I wonder though—speaking from experience of the SWIFTT benefit payment system. SWIFTT is an acronym for Social Welfare Information for Tomorrow Today which was groundbreaking stuff back in the 1980s and 1990s when they introduced it.However because of that piece of technology and the assertions by this Government that it will make things easy in terms of the technology I would argue that that is actually not the case because the benefit payment system—and I have worked with this benefit payment system. I have spoken to many of the case managers who are currently working at the front line today and they say that the benefit payment system is so hard-wired that any flexibility is stripped from it. I understand why it has to be that way because you are dealing with billions of dollars. You are dealing with payments to beneficiaries to—Carmel Sepuloni: Superannuitants.PEENI HENARE: —superannuitants and to those who need these services. The Government is telling us that it is going to make things easier in the technological space and I am going to argue that it will not simply because the benefit payment system does not allow that.What then should we be doing to make things easier? We have already mentioned some of those things: do not redirect payment without people’s consent and make things clearly understood by the clients and those who go in to receive those services. Although we acknowledge that this rewrite will do some of that we still maintain that there is another policy agenda here and we are going to be making sure that as this bill passes through its first reading in the House—with our support today—we will be holding this Governmentto account. We will be making sure that all of those who are impacted on by these types of omnibus bills as I like to say—even though this is a big piece of work we have seen it time and time again in this House that omnibus bills come in and the devil is in the detail. We know that yet time frames are being circumvented—time frames are being circumvented—so that we can push these things through. It does not allow the public and those who are affected by these types of legislative changes to come in and make sure that they clearly understand what is being proposed here and that they have a say on what is going to affect them. We on this side of the House will be sure to make sure that this Government is held to account as this bill progresses.In conclusion I started with the proverb from Meri Ngāroto—“he tangata he tangata he tangata!”—and I want to return that way. I want to make sure that it is people at the forefront of these decisions. Although I am all for making legislation such as this—in particular large pieces of legislation like this one the social security legislation—easier more understandable and more accessible we will be here to make sure that it serves the people it says it will. He tangata he tangata he tangata. Kia ora.