Bradford Sue: Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bradford Sue: Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5739] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 First of all I thank members who have spoken kind words about my own work and about the Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill. They include those who will vote against the bill. 
I will say a few words about what the Minister for Social Development and Employment Paula Bennett said. Her main argument as to why the Government will not be supporting the bill appears to be that she thinks that it will be costly and that it will add another layer of bureaucracy. I believe that this argument is absolutely wrong. If the Government had been open to picking up this bill and working with us on it at the Social Services Committee if it had heard the submissions from all the groups around the country had listened to advice from officials and had looked at the options of what might be possible with a much more independent review and appeal body it would have found that it was a much more cost-effective way to go. 
It is a myth that the current system would be less expensive than a system like the Dispute Resolution Services process which the Accident Compensation Corporation uses. Unfortunately in the short time since my bill was drawn I have not had time to extract all the figures to prove this but I strongly suspect that a system like this would be much cheaper than what it actually costs the Ministry of Social Development at the moment to run its rather ineffective and time-consuming process. A lot of it is false economy. For example the fact that the department is using departmental staff—who are totally biased—appears to be a cost saving because they are already employees of the department but their time costs something and it is at the expense of having a review and appeal system that is unbiased and fair. 
The Minister also talked about the legislation adding a layer of bureaucracy. Again I think it is the opposite: it would actually streamline the system by taking it out of the department. We would not have all that business of having to get on board with the community reps who may or may not be the unbiased and neutral people they are supposed to be. In fact the bill would strip out bureaucracy and make the whole system much simpler to run. My proposition also would get rid of the medical boards which is another layer of bureaucracy. I believe that the Minister has got it all round the wrong way. 
I welcomed the Minister’s comment that the department does not always get it right and that timeliness is an issue. I am glad she picked up on that issue; she has access to a lot more information than I do. I hope the Minister acts on her words takes up that issue with the ministry and looks closely at what is happening. I hope that if she does an investigation like that she will find out the reality of what I Labour members my colleague Catherine Delahunty and Hone Harawira have been talking about tonight which is that the system is not working well. The Minister has only to listen to the voices of the advocacy groups the community law centres the citizens advice bureaus and others who deal with people coping with the system to learn that the process is a long way from working well. I hope that even though the Government is rejecting this offering it will begin to look seriously at reforming the benefit review and appeal system which is well overdue for consideration. 
I turn to my colleague Ruth Dyson who said that her Labour Government looked at this issue rigorously in its term of office. I say to her that I am sorry that her Labour Government did not pick this up. I regret that my member’s bill was not drawn during Labour’s term of Government. I hoped that it would have gone to the select committee and received due consideration there. But I am very grateful for the Labour Party’s support tonight and for the Maori Party’s support. These parties understand the failings of the ministry. I take on what Ruth Dyson said. She is not sure that the Dispute Resolution Services model is the right one. I am not sure either. I put it up as only one way forward; I am not at all sure that it is the best way and I am well aware that accident compensation claimants have issues about Dispute Resolution Services. It is far from a perfect model but I think it is a lot better and potentially a lot cheaper than the current one. 
I thank those who have supported the bill tonight and I hope the Government picks up the issues I have raised even though it is not voting for the bill.