Williams Poto: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliams Poto: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8228. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I look across the other side of the Chamber and I see several members of the Social Services Committee—Government members who were part of the discussion for the substantive part of this—where we were discussing the wider bill from which was extracted the component of the bill that we are now discussing. Not a single member has stood to give their view on this bill—not a single member. They have been in the Chamber for hours probably looking at Facebook and not actually taking this seriously. I challenge them—[Interruption] Oh you are actually reading some other things. Have any of you got the legislation in front of you so that you can actually track what the Opposition members are saying with regard to this bill? I suggest you have not.Let us talk about the people who are impacted on by this who could be positively impacted on by this: the beneficiaries of New Zealand who were denied a day’s payment because of an inaccuracy an error that was made 17 years ago in a piece of legislation that was rushed through under urgency. We cannot stress enough that here we are back to the future doing it all over again 17 years later.What kind of information has the Government provided for us to make and pass and debate this piece of legislation? A flimsy departmental disclosure statement but no regulatory impact statement no idea of the cost—there is nothing on which we can base the assertions of the Minister for Social Development that the policy intent of this legislation is clear. There is no clarity. There is very little information. There is no evidence. There is no select committee process. There is no ability for anyone to feed into this process. It is only for the members of the Opposition to stand and take calls to review old Hansards and actually to do the work the Government should have done before this piece of legislation hit the Table. It has not been done. Where have you been? Why are we debating this under urgency when the Government clearly has not done the work?When I was taking my last call I was starting to refer to a beneficiary advocate Kay Brereton who according to Minister Tolley has run out of electricity in her attempt to ensure that beneficiaries are made aware that they actually have a process that they can apply to. Surely it is the job of the Government and the Ministry of Social Development to do that work and not to rely on someone—at their own cost at their own expense—to find people who may benefit from this bill. It is extraordinary that the Minister actually congratulated Miss Brereton for her work but has done nothing to support her in doing it. The Government has got the resources with which to advertise for people to come forward.I want to just quote something that Kay Brereton has said: “Beneficiaries are not able to fix a mistake they made which created an overpayment in any way but by repayment of the debt. If a person’s benefit ceases a day later than it should have under law that person must repay the overpayment in full. There is no clemency shown to people who owe Work and Income money. This is a debt to the Crown and will be collected from the person their estate or any other party that can be held liable. This money currently owed to beneficiaries by the Crown would make a significant difference in the lives of many and would be a windfall albeit small and only a day or two’s payment for families and individuals struggling with bureaucracy that gives them no leeway.”However when the Government underpays them what is the response from the Government? It is to actually change the legislation so that it actually does not have to meet its obligations. Clearly what is happening here is that when the Government found it had made its mistake it put the line in the sand. It put the line in the sand and said that from this point forward until the legislation is passed—