Williams Poto: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliams Poto: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8154. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koe e Te Whare. Thank you for the opportunity to rise and take a call on the Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill. Firstly I just want to raise the matter that the previous speaker Alfred Ngaro touched on: when does owing something to somebody become a “technical matter”? As my colleague Carmel Sepuloni pointed out in the case of an individual owing the Government it is not technical but the other way round; when the Government owes the individual it becomes a “technical matter”.We are pleased that the Government saw sense to take this portion of the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill out of that particular bill and craft it as a piece of legislation on its own because it is an important aspect and it is a stand-alone one-off situation that needs to be dealt with separately. There were concerns when this was discovered within the aforementioned bill that it would become a matter that would not receive the full attention that it requires.What we are concerned about are the rights of those who are seeking to make a claim and that their right to seeking those arrears has been curtailed for those people who may have been able to make a claim for arrears that have occurred between 1998 and the period halfway through 2014 when this original technical matter was found by the ministry. That is an important issue because it has not really been fully explained or justified why the ministry has decided on this period. I know that the technical matter was discovered at one point and the ability to fix it happened at another point but that does not excuse the ministry or the Government from looking at what was actually owed to those people from 1998 and having a conversation with them.We have had no information provided about what the cost of that might be. How many days are we actually talking about? There is no information to give us a real sense of what is going on here and how many people might be impacted on by this. In that case I find this really unfair. There will have been people who may be entitled to claim only 1 day but there are people who have for example seasonal work who may be on and off benefits on and off stand-down periods over the course of many years and who would be owed quite significant amounts of money. So in terms of that aspect of natural justice those people will not get an opportunity to make a claim whatsoever and that is technically unfair.So here we are in urgency again with a truncated process without the ability to get really really sound information particularly from submitters—people who may have a slightly different perspective and who should be given full consideration of those views. Yet again we are not able to take full opportunity to hear what those views might be. So there will be no full select committee examination but we do want to look at what people are already saying out there in the public about what is going on and I just want to quote from something that was in the Waikato Times—that illustrious publication. It says that “The Ministry of Social Development takes a dim view of benefit fraud.”—we all know this—“It has … about 100 specialists who investigate abuses of the benefit system or accusations that some welfare recipients have pocketed money” that they are not entitled to.So the overpayment of benefits is one reason why money might be owed and this can arise where changed personal circumstances affect a beneficiary’s entitlement. Underpayments are another matter. The Government can simply write a new law to validate the short-changing of beneficiaries as it is now doing to deal with the costly implications of serious maladministration. Yes this is a matter that has been discovered in recent years but it is not an issue that relates to just that time period within which that matter came to light. It is an opportunity to review more fully the implications for those people who may have been affected earlier on.Just in relation to the departmental disclosure statement—because there is no regulatory impact statement—I want to look at a couple of aspects: points 4.3 and 4.9 about retrospective effect. Point 4.3 states: “Provisions in the Bill have retrospective effect which could be seen as contentious as generally legislation should operate prospectively not retrospectively … The amendment to section 80BA [of the Social Security Act] to correct the commencement date of a benefit so that a benefit commences on the day after a stand-down period ends will be retrospective to 3 June 1998 in order to validate the Ministry of Social Development’s previous practice …”. However in point 4.9 we now note that: “To acknowledge that the Ministry of Social Development’s operational practice should have been amended when the error was discovered on 20 May 2014 clients whose benefits were commenced on or after 20 May 2014 may apply for a review of decision …”. That is the statement that I find of most contention. The date at which the error was discovered is the date from which claims can be made and that is blatantly unfair.Members of the beneficiary advocacy community such as Kay Brereton were very hopeful when the error was first discovered that the Government would look at the legislation being retrospective to 1998. Sadly she along with other beneficiary advocates is saddened to hear that the period has been brought forward to 20 May 2014.We are not likely to support this bill unless my colleague Carmel Sepuloni’s amendment is supported by the Government. Her amendment would allow a period of time 6 weeks in order for those affected beneficiaries to make the appropriate claim as they should do. This is right and we should allow that period for that to happen. I do not see any reason why the Government would delay that. It is certainly not giving us any indication that there is an issue with not wanting to pay what is owed to beneficiaries for that period of time yet we are not getting the indication that the Government would support that amendment. It is a fair amendment and it should go ahead. Thank you. I will have the chance to speak more fully on this during the bill’s passage through the House and I thank you for the House’s time.