Sepuloni Carmel: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSepuloni Carmel: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8235. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): We are really disappointed on this side of the House. We engaged with the Government in good faith over this matter recognising that actually this was an error that occurred under both National and Labour Governments. What has come to light during this process is actually that that technical error occurred during a very similar process that we have gone through today. It occurred under urgency. It occurred because of the fact that due diligence was not given to that bill a select committee was not called to look over it and submissions were not made. Clearly when we rush things through in urgency like this then we increase the chances of technical errors like that being made. So it seems ridiculous that we are here 17 years after that bill passed going through the same process that saw that bill fail in the first place.All we had asked with this bill all we had put to the Minister for Social Development and all we had put to the National Government MPs was that they support our Supplementary Order Paper 142 to delay the commencement so that natural justice could prevail. Unfortunately the Government could not even do that. We have seen very little argument put up during the Committee stage against what we were saying. We have seen in the departmental disclosure statement that there were fiscal considerations here and yet we still never got an answer from the Minister or from the National Government in the House today about what exactly those fiscal considerations were what the dollar amount was that the Government was so concerned about in respect of the claims that could come forward.We heard from the Minister that there have been 8500 claims made by people who think they may be eligible to claim back that day and I say to those people and to the beneficiary advocates out there who have pushed them to put their claims in well done good on them. I am glad that at least those 8500 people will have their claims honoured. Who I am very disappointed for are the other thousands of New Zealanders who are now going to be denied the opportunity to put a claim forward because it does not suit the Government’s agenda. What the Government is doing here tonight is legislating retrospectively to deny them the opportunity to claim what they will be entitled to up until the point that this bill passes and commences.We had so many concerns raised at the Social Services Committee when the elements of this particular bill were still in the other social security bill. Those concerns should have been taken into consideration here because clearly there was no select committee opportunity to hear submissions on this particular bill. But we have discussed the intent of this particular bill during a select committee for another bill and we should have taken seriously the concerns that were raised.There have been numerous reports about the numbers of people who may have been affected. One number we heard come from the Minister was something like 2.5 million people who have gone on and then off benefits over the last 17 years. I guess that acts as a reminder to the whole House that actually a large number of New Zealanders at some point in time are going to need to rely on that welfare safety net. I think that that is something that we need to be reminded of. It is not about people wanting to be long-term dependent on the State necessarily. It is about the fact that we have a lot of New Zealanders who at some point in time are going to find themselves out of employment and needing to rely on the State during that period.So many other elements of this bill are concerning such as the fact that it never went to the Attorney-General and the fact that there are concerns that it may not be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act as pointed out by so many of the submissions made to the other bill in relation to this subject. We have made it really clear that our concern too is for the people who work in jobs that are more likely to have been in and out of work over a period of time. We referred to teacher assistants teacher aides seasonal workers and those who go in and out of temporary work. Those people are the ones who stand to lose now because of the decision that the Government has made.Actually for many of them they have gone in and out of work over a long period of time. Some teacher aides are employed term by term. Some at the end of each term go on that stand-down period as they wait for their benefit to come in during the 2 weeks or whatever it is during the school holidays that they are no longer getting paid from the school. Those workers deserved the opportunity to make a claim. The Government has now denied them of that.I say that they deserve it because of the level of insecurity in the work that they do the expectations on them in terms of the service they provide the children—our children—whom they are looking after on a daily basis the fact that they are so poorly paid and yet this Government was so mean-spirited that it could not take into consideration workforces like those teacher aides like the seasonal workers like the temporary workers. It could not take into consideration that actually those workers had something to gain here. It was not just a matter of 1 day—and the Minister has pointed out in press releases that it is only 1 day and that it is not much money. Well to these people it actually would have been a lot of money and actually to many of these people it would have been more than just 1 day.Here we are in November heading into Christmas and that Government is so mean-spirited that now it has denied them the opportunity to make that claim and what a difference it could have made to their families. I have spoken to so many people out and about. There are lots of people who may have gone on a benefit once over the last 17 years maybe even twice who actually have said to me: “I wouldn’t have made a claim.” But it is not about whether or not they would have made it; it is about ensuring that natural justice does prevail and that they were given the opportunity to actually do it.That is why we put the Supplementary Order Paper up. We understand the Government’s need to correct this technical error in the legislation. We support that. But what we could not support is the fact that it was going to deny the groups of New Zealanders whom I talked about in this speech the natural justice that they deserve. All we asked was for a 6-week window for those people to be able to put in a claim. All we asked was that the Government provide that 6-week window by delaying the commencement date of the bill by 6 weeks and it is so mean-spirited that it could not even agree to that one small ask from us. We have nothing to gain in doing this. We did it because it is the right thing to do and all we hoped was that the Government would acknowledge that it was the right thing to do as well.We have had several speeches tonight from my colleagues and from colleagues in the Opposition parties talking about this idea: what if this was retrospective legislation that applied to businesses? Would the Government be so quick to enact such retrospective legislation if that was the case? Of course it would not. And do you know what? The unfortunate thing is that if it was retrospective legislation that might apply to businesses they would have the means by which to take out a case against the Government they would have the influence to change the Government’s mind or to force it not to do it. But unfortunately we are talking about New Zealanders here who do not necessarily have the means they do not necessarily know what is happening in Parliament and they do not necessarily know how the decisions we make affect their everyday lives. The Government knows that. The Government knows that the beneficiaries we are talking about who stand to lose here are often unfortunately the people with the quietest voices.I want to finish this final speech by just again expressing my disappointment in the Government. We really did want to work with the Government on this. I also want to just thank people out there who have been pushing this as quickly and as hard as they can to anyone who might be eligible—all of the beneficiary advocates. Particularly I want to acknowledge Kay Brereton who brought this to my attention who brought this to the media’s attention who brought this to the attention of the House. She has done a fantastic job advocating for beneficiaries. There are 8500 beneficiaries who now have their claims in. The only reason they really started to come in in numbers is because the Ministry of Social Development did start to pay out and people realised that actually this is not a hoax and they may actually be eligible for some money and Kay Brereton is responsible for getting the word out.I also want to acknowledge the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. It put the word around to the unions as well. The meatworkers union I know put the word out because it has a lot of workers who are on work and then off work and then forced to have to go on benefit and so may have a number of stand-down periods as well. To all those who have tried to get the word out there I want to acknowledge them. And finally I just want to say “No thanks.” to the National Government for being so mean-spirited and I am very disappointed—