Dyson Ruth: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8177. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I just want to commend Marama Davidson the member who has just resumed her seat for her contribution to this debate. I say to the member Darroch Ball from New Zealand First who spoke before her that I think he should have listened to her contribution and figured out that actually the law as written in 1998 did not make it clear that the way it was operationalised after that was in fact the intent of the law. Nothing in the Hansard records would lead one to assume that that was the case. But I do not think that there was a deliberate attempt either by the Minister at the time—who was the Minister in 1998?Carmel Sepuloni: I’m trying to find out.Hon RUTH DYSON: OK. I cannot recall who the social welfare Minister was in 1998 but I do not think the Minister at the time or the current Minister for Social Development or the department have made a deliberate decision to underpay beneficiaries—to start people getting their benefit a day later than they were intended to.This is an error. This is legislation interpreted 18 years later in a different way than it has been implemented. So that is not the challenge for this House to debate. In my view the challenge for us is to say: how should we fix what has been determined through the appeal process to be a misinterpretation of the law? So of course you have to say that either we are going to change our operation or we are going to change the law. The Minister has decided to have a bob each way and that is where I disagree with her.I think that it is fair enough for her to take a call as the Minister and say “Well we’ll start the payment the day after the stand down ends as we will do as we have been doing.” or “We will start it as the original law intended. We will leave the law as it is and start it on the last day of the stand down.”—that is the difference. That is where the 1 day comes from. But to then say “We’re going to change the law to the way it has been interpreted”—that is leaving all those beneficiaries with a day less of their payment than they would have had if it had been interpreted in the way that it was intended—“to retrospectively take that off them.” is unfair. It is saying “We interpreted the law wrongly for 18 years. We found out 15 months ago that we were doing it wrong but we are going to retrospectively take that entitlement off”—how many people? We do not know. It could be thousands. It could be hundreds.The Minister Anne Tolley sort of dismissed it in a radio interview that I heard. She said: “Oh it’s only a day so it won’t be very many.” Well actually over 18 years it could be quite a lot. If teacher-aides for example are employed term by term they may be on a stand down four times in 1 year and over 18 years that is quite a few days’ payment they would be entitled to. But the Minister has said: “Oh we’ve got to balance changing the law with financial responsibility.” Well I say actually our job is to comply with the law or to change it but not to change it retrospectively to suit—what? The Budget? Convenience?People were left out of their legal entitlement because of a misinterpretation and I do not think they should have that 1 day’s pay from their benefit taken off them by a retrospective law change. So that is where I strongly disagree with the determination that the Minister has come down on. Retrospectively taking away an entitlement is bad law. It is unfair it is wrong and I would not want my name to be marking alongside it. I do not understand if it is as few people as the Minister has said why she is happy to go along with it.So I think we should stick to the facts of this case. The idea that some have raised that there might be worthy beneficiaries and not-so-worthy beneficiaries—I do not agree with that at all. I think that is a disgraceful slide into value judgments which is not appropriate for this Parliament.The idea that Parliament should fix a misunderstanding only from the day that it discovered it is just plain nonsense. The courts would never do that. The courts would never say: “This is our determination and from now on you will interpret it.” The courts operate in a way of interpreting our law from the time that a law has passed. That is the standard that is set by our judicial system and I think it is a standard that this Parliament should follow.