Ardern Jacinda: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee[Sitting date: 25 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2623. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):It is my pleasure to speak on the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). Labour is supporting this bill which I would describe as essentially a kind of omnibus bill—and had it actually not had quite so many retrospective changes made to it which are necessary because there have obviously been drafting issues it may potentially have qualified as a statutes amendment bill. But there are a number of changes that we are making in this bill some of which I do think actually point to some wider issues within the Social Security Act and which I think deserve robust debate.I want to start by speaking to the Short-Form Departmental Disclosure Statement prepared obviously by the Ministry of Social Development to clarify whether or not any of the changes in this bill have any impact retrospectively on the freedoms rights or obligations of a department or an individual. Of course Parliament has an interest if we are doing anything in this place that retrospectively takes away an individual’s rights freedoms or entitlements. What this departmental report demonstrates is that obviously this bill is correcting a number of errors because most frequently you see retrospective legislation when we are amending policy intent to fit with what the Government wanted to do but did not quite draft correctly.When we look at that departmental report we can see for instance that clause 5A clarifies that new section 79 applies only to a person who with regard to a period of overseas employment had tax deducted or withheld under New Zealand’s PAYE rules. Clause 5A is coming into effect retrospectively. Clause 6A amends schedule 6 of the Social Security Act and clarifies that “the $20 personal earnings exemption only applies to beneficiaries granted Supported Living Payment”—a very recent amendment obviously to the Social Security Act—“due to total blindness or permanent and severe restriction in capacity for work …”. And that again is also coming in retrospectively—obviously clear drafting errors. We come then to clause 6B. It amends schedule 18 of the Social Security Act to “reinstate the income threshold for non-beneficiary sole parents receiving Accommodation Supplement …”. That comes into effect retrospectively. The report goes on. There are a few other errors. But you take my point that these are obviously the things that the Government intended to do in the original drafting but did not.One of the other things that the disclosure statement states is that the provisions do not result in the retrospective creation of a criminal offence. Obviously there is the chance here that someone who may not have been entitled to something within the Social Security Act may have been because this legislation was not drafted correctly—and the Government has been very explicit obviously to point out here that the provisions do not result in a criminal offence. Why would you need to point that out? Well probably because there has been a tendency in the way this Government has treated the Social Security Act since it came into Government to be quick to criminalise—very quick to criminalise. In fact some might argue that it is quicker to criminalise under this Act than it would be under tax fraud or any other form of what could be considered theft under tax law. We have only ever argued that the Government treat those two groups equitably and it is a point I just wanted to make.The piece that I wanted to speak to specifically though in my first contribution relates to Part 1 of the bill. Overall the bill is basically trying to ensure that people—as it itself proclaims—in similar circumstances are treated equitably. I would argue though that the amendment we are making in Part 1 does not necessarily fit with that purpose. Clause 4 in Part 1 relates to the accommodation supplement. Section 61EA(4) is amended by inserting the following new paragraph. New paragraph (ab) states: “would be eligible to receive a basic grant or an independent circumstances grant under the Student Allowances Regulations 1998 if he or she were to apply for the grant;”. In and of itself that does not sound like it is saying much particularly. What that amendment does basically is say that a young person—presumably a young person—or any person who has applied for the accommodation supplement through the student accommodation support system is not then eligible to go through Work and Income to apply for an accommodation supplement. The reason that is important is that those two things are set at quite different rates.What the bill is trying to amend is the fact that it therefore implies that if you are a student and you have not applied for accommodation support as a student then you could go to Work and Income and make an application for the accommodation supplement just because you have not made any other application. I think what the Government’s intention here is is that basically if you are eligible for accommodation support as a student regardless of whether you have applied or not you are not eligible to then go to Work and Income at all. That is obviously meaningful from the Government’s perspective—because of course why would you seek to access accommodation support under Work and Income? Because actually it is attached much more closely to the actual cost of accommodation. It looks at where you might be based it takes into account that costs are higher for instance in Auckland and it does not have the same caps as accommodation support as a student.One might then ask the question: would a better way to deal with this not be simply to bring the two accommodation support entitlements into alignment? It is a very fair question and something that obviously rang true with the Government for one particular set of beneficiaries—and that is those who are on sole-parent support. We had the ridiculous situation after the welfare reforms where those who are on sole-parent support—they might have had a child who was aged say 5—and who might have been studying might have been told by Work and Income: “Well you’ve now got to seek part-time work.” And the parent might have been in nurse training for instance—and this is a genuine case I had. Work and Income then because its focus was on ensuring that person was seeking work in a part-time capacity told that sole parent when a dishwashing job came up even though it clashed with that individual’s study to quit their study and be a dishwasher.Anyone in this House I am sure would say that that is a ridiculous set of circumstances. Why would you have someone remove themselves from study which means that in the longer term they will withdraw from their need to access Government support in order to go and take a part-time job as a dishwasher where they will need their income supplemented? It is a very good question. Well the reason she was on sole-parent support was that the accommodation supplement was more generous. If as a student she had transferred her payment as a sole parent would stay the same but her accommodation support would change because students do not get the same accommodation support. That meant that she was basically in a rut where she ended up being faced with the position of quitting her nursing in order to fulfil the obligations for Work and Income.Thankfully the Government saw that this was a crazy situation and brought more equity into the systems for accommodation support so that you could get a sole parent transferring over to the student scheme—which also means thankfully that you bring down your benefit statistics which is obviously one of the goals that the Government had. It has done that for one group but it has not done it for anyone else. That is what raises questions and I have serious questions about this amendment. If we are saying that actually for sole parents it made sense to create equity between accommodation support and accommodation supplement why can it not be the same for say a job seeker? What is the difference between a job seeker who is given a 16-week training course by Work and Income and a job seeker who actually goes into full-time training and transfers over to student support but is not eligible for that same level of accommodation support? I think it is a really relevant question and it is one that I think the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations is right to raise. Why is it that we are using two different schemes to assess the kind of support that someone is eligible for?I would really seek a view—and thankfully and actually helpfully it is the Minister for Social Development the Hon Anne Tolley who is in the chair. Minister I really would welcome hearing from you about the policy rationale for that differentiation because in the departmental report on this the ministry actually really remains pretty silent on why we can have these differentiated schemes and I would be interested to hear from her on that.