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:8216. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I want to expand upon the arguments that have already been made in the Committee this evening about the potential conflict. Are we talking about the issue of drafting errors or are we talking about the application and the implementation of policy? I think it is very clear from what my esteemed colleague has already provided that when we talk in clause 4 of the bill about section 80BA(4) of the Social Security Act which talks about the end of the stand-down period we have not included the previous subsection which talks about the commencement of the stand-down period and has the fullness of that period where the language in one talks about ‘the day after” and the language in the other talks about “the day on which” the period ends. We obviously have an issue here. The issue has been around the original drafting of the legislation which was rushed through the House under urgency and as another of my colleagues has noted we are again in a process of urgency to correct what may have been either a drafting error or a policy implementation error.I just want to pick up on the policy implementation part of this. We are in a truncated process and we have not had the ability either to have the input from officials or the input from people who will see the fullness of the application of this bill when it becomes law and is implemented in the workplace. There is obviously a problem a concern with that. If we had had the opportunity to have that if we were not in a truncated process and if we were not in urgency we would not be heaping in my view a problem on top of a problem on top of a problem. We could be doing this correctly. We could be crafting the legislation appropriately and doing what we should do which is to ensure that we either amend what happened in 1998 or amend the application of this policy this legislation in its application on the ground.We have heard very clearly that there have been calls from this side of the Chamber after the issue was raised initially by Jan Logie and then by my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson for an opportunity for us to have the information from officials as part of this process which would certainly add an opportunity to debate this more fully. The previous Minister in the chair Anne Tolley has been saying that the intent of the policy is clear. Well we are not sure of that because we have not been given the evidence of that. It would be in the best interests of ensuring that we get the legislation right to have that information. Clearly it is needed. Clearly the members on this side of the Chamber would like that information but unfortunately it appears that we have not been able to get access to that.But there is a real issue with what happens with bills over time when they become enacted and when the legislation is then interpreted by the courts and then we have the opportunity to implement that at the coalface. This legislation actually has a significant component within it that may provide opportunities to people to gain back what they are owed. It might come as a surprise to members but there are people who are watching this debate at home who actually contacted me during the dinner break asking about their ability to become part of this process. Would they be able to apply? The Minister spoke earlier of 8500 people who have applied for this process. What will happen this evening is that by virtue of the fact that this legislation will pass we are putting a stop to a whole lot of people being able to apply for what is owed to them. That is hugely unfair when the Government has not as it should do made every effort to contact people and to advertise the fact that this is a process—