Moroney Sue: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third ReadingText is subject to correctionMoroney Sue: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading[Sitting date: 31 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2704. Text is subject to correction.]SUE MORONEY (Labour):That was indeed a brief call from the Minister in charge of the third reading of a bill but I think that probably shows a little bit of the disregard with which this bill has actually been put forward by the Government. It is not surprising really because it is a bill that makes busy work. We have got all the way to the third reading of this bill and we have yet to hear some examples of why it is important that these loopholes be closed. The Labour Party does support the closing of these loopholes but we are still unconvinced that anyone has ever used these loopholes. We are still yet to see the evidence as to whether that has happened. None the less it has been an important occasion on which to be able to talk about some of the issues that might drive people to look for loopholes because of their personal circumstances.But before I get on to the substance of that can I just take the opportunity to welcome Chris Bishop back to Parliament and to congratulate him on his special skills. It is something quite special to turn a 9000 majority into a 4000-odd loss but—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Reluctant as I am I am going to ask the member to come back to the bill.SUE MORONEY: And now I will come back to the bill of course Mr Assistant Speaker and thank you for that guidance.This bill when it went through the Social Services Committee—and I regret that I was not on the select committee at the time—did give people an opportunity to talk about some of the circumstances that might lead people to look for such loopholes. One of the loopholes that is being closed off by this bill is the ability for students to claim the Work and Income accommodation supplement instead of the student allowance in instances where that might be more generous. I think that in itself begs the question that if the Work and Income accommodation supplement may in some cases be more generous for students than the student allowance then I think that describes the very tough circumstances that some students actually find themselves in.In fact when the two submitters came in front of the select committee—and the Minister when proposing this bill did make mention of those two submissions. But what she omitted to say was that the reason why the issues they had brought before the select committee were ruled out of the scope of this bill was that in fact because they were there to tell the select committee that the student allowance has flat-lined under this Government. That meant that many students were living in situations of hardship. So closing off this loophole that we are not sure anyone has ever used—it might have been actually of some advantage to students because of the very difficult situation they find themselves in of not being supported to undertake their studies as this current Government has put those students in that position. Those submissions were ruled out of scope by the select committee quite rightly; but none the less they were raising important issues.The other loophole that this bill is designed to close off is again something that we are not sure—we have yet to be convinced—has ever actually happened. But it is a loophole that apparently would mean that for people who are being paid ACC compensation by way of a third party provider—or as we sometimes call them partnership employers or approved employers—rather than directly by ACC itself they could also claim a benefit from Work and Income as well as getting an ACC payment from a third party insurer or a partnership employer. Clearly that was not the intention of the law and so therefore Labour does support that particular loophole also being closed.But I do want to take the opportunity to ask the Government as we are talking about different rules applying to people getting their ACC payments directly from ACC as opposed to people who are in the ACC Partnership Programme—it has come to my attention in the select committee recently that there is not as much monitoring going on of the partnership programme as there is of ACC and its dealings with its clients individually. It is one thing that I would like to take the opportunity to ask the Government to do because this bill is showing an inequity in the way partnership employers’ payments have been treated in the past as opposed to payments directly from ACC. So I take the opportunity to ask the Government to put in some good monitoring processes for the partnership programme so that we can know more about how those claims are being dealt with. Are they being dealt with as equitably as when dealing with ACC itself? Are there more claims being turned down? Are there more being approved? Are there more reviews being held? These are things that I think we need to know about when it comes to the partnership programme because it is the part of the ACC programme that seems to have less scrutiny on it. Our ACC programme is a very very good one. It is of course not perfect but internationally it is admired for the sort of support that it does give to people.I am not going to take up too much more time on this bill. I am pleased that I have made a more substantial contribution than what the Minister was able to make but I just want to lend Labour’s support for this bill which is not very substantial and probably will not make a difference to the way anyone is living in New Zealand. But none the less on technical grounds it does close off some loopholes that were unintended. Thank you.