Nash Stuart: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNash Stuart: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8220. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I would like to talk on clause 4(2) of this bill which refers to section 80BA(4)(b) of the Social Security Act 1964. But just before I do I would like to read just one statement from the departmental disclosure statement. What the departmental disclosure statement says is a rationale of why we are putting in retrospective legislation. It says that this: “could be seen as contentious as generally legislation should operate prospectively not retrospectively. However in this case the retrospective provisions can be justified to ensure: … financial costs to the Crown that were not anticipated are avoided.” And that is important.So what the Crown is seeking to do is to avoid costs that were not anticipated. Let us look at section 80BA(4)(b) of the Social Security Act 1964. Let us look at the sort of people that this piece of legislation is potentially going to disadvantage. We are not talking about middle-class New Zealanders who can afford things and we are not talking about the wealthy for whom $20 means nothing; we are talking about these people.The Act actually outlines the people whom this is going to disadvantage: people who are on the benefit for “(i) sole parent support; or (ii) a supported living payment; or (iii) jobseeker support granted on the ground of sickness injury or disability; …”. We get the picture. These are the most disadvantaged people in our society. These are the people whom Parliament has decided need support from the Government. Therefore what Parliament has mandated is that we give these people a level of support that allows them to live a life of at least dignity or certainly allows them to stand on their own two feet while they get out of their circumstances.Section 80BA(4)(b)talks about “(iv) jobseeker support granted to a sole parent; or (v) jobseeker support granted to a person who has recently lost the financial support of his or spouse or partner by reason of death the spouses or partners commencing to live apart or the ending of a de facto relationship; or (vi) a youth payment; or (vii) a young parent payment.” Again I would like to emphasise that the people who we are looking at really screwing in a way or certainly denying natural justice to are those who are the most disadvantaged in our society. We have heard that that is about 8500 New Zealanders. In the scheme of things that is actually quite a lot of disadvantaged people in our society who could well do with this payment if they decide to take it up.The term “natural justice” has been used. Let us have a look at what that means. It is actually a legal term andwhat it actually means is the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing. That is what natural justice means. That is why we are in this Parliament standing up for those who have an inability to stand up for themselves. We are the voice of these people who are disadvantaged and who look to us to do what is right. And when the honourable member Catherine Delahunty said that she was becoming cynical I disagreed. I am not cynical. I am hopeful that we are here for the right reasons and I am hopeful that we can actually do the right thing for those who are the most disadvantaged in our society and who need us to stand up for them and to do what is right.I listed a group of quite specific people under the legislation that is being amended by clause 4(2) of this bill. We can see that these are people who yet again are possibly—let us make an assumption here—some of the most disenfranchised. I would wage a bet that the vast majority—well a good number of them—will not know that this debate is going on.Some of them will have advocates in the community who when this law is passed—if we do the right thing and Carmel Sepuloni’s Supplementary Order Paper goes through—will contact their networks and who will go out to these people as defined in section 80BA(4)(b). They will say to them: “Let me help you. Let me help you get that money back because it’s coming up to Christmas.” This bill is going to receive its Royal assent before Christmas of that there is no doubt. And they will say: “So let me help you and it might make a bit of difference.”Again I suspect what will happen is that the word will slowly spread out. When I see here that one of the three reasons for this retrospective legislation is that—