Smith Stuart: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third ReadingText is subject to correctionSmith Stuart: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading[Sitting date: 31 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2709. Text is subject to correction.]STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura):It is a pleasure to speak to the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). But before I start I cannot resist given the comments about how terrible it must to be on the backbenches of the Government reminding the member David Cunliffe that the worst day in Government is better than the best day in Opposition.Hon David Cunliffe: Touché. Stung.STUART SMITH: I am sure you have heard it before.Tim Macindoe: The worst day in Opposition will be familiar to the member.STUART SMITH: Yes. This bill I think follows a longstanding principle known as the “one-benefit” principle—that is one form of income replacement for one particular set of circumstances. I think that is key to this bill and I think that we have to get that right. I do share the member’s enthusiasm and I congratulate him on supporting the bill to deal with the loopholes that have been identified.Hon David Cunliffe: Fiscal prudence is our middle name.STUART SMITH: Absolutely. Fiscal prudence is absolutely a great thing and this Government has spent a lot of time getting its house in order in that particular area and Better Public Services is absolutely a major target for the Government.ACC and the Accredited Employers Programme amendments are really about the dollar for dollar deduction from benefits. The Accredited Employers Programme is a really important part of the ACC system—and if I could just take a moment to explain that situation. Employers have the ability to take over for an agreed period of time the payment of the ACC benefit and medical costs of injured employees. In return they get lower ACC levies. I have seen through employers in my own electorate the culture change this brings to a business not only from the point of view of the employer but also from that of the employees who take ownership of managing their health and safety. I think this is a fantastic initiative. But what we see with this particular loophole is that the bill is written in such a way that it could be read that an accredited employer’s ACC benefits are not subject to the same dollar for dollar deduction as an ACC payment.I have got an example here. If a domestic purposes benefit recipient is paid $100 in weekly compensation with no other income their benefit will be reduced by $100 if it is paid—Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Drawing the attention of your good self to your new-found robust interpretation of the rules against reading from the member’s notes—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member will resume his seat. I recommend to him a good reading of the report of the Standing Orders Committee at the end of the previous Parliament and then he will not be disorderly and interrupt in that way.STUART SMITH: It is quite good reading actually. I can recommend it. [Interruption] I might start again because I have lost my thread—if that is OK? If the recipient of a domestic purposes benefit is paid $100 in weekly compensation with no other income their benefit will be reduced by the $100 from ACC on a dollar for dollar basis. But if that person is paid the benefit by an accredited employer then there will be no dollars taken off their benefit. That is unjust and has to be fixed.You could say that the unfairness of that is quite obvious but in previous speeches at earlier stages of the bill it was pointed out by some that the benefit is not enough anyway and therefore we need to deal with that. It did not come from the Labour Opposition but it did come from others. The whole point of our benefits system is fairness. People pay taxes in the belief that that they will be distributed in a way that is fair. If we do not meet that fairness test then the whole system falls apart.If we move to the student accommodation supplement we have a similar situation. For some students whose own personal income their parental income or their spousal income does not allow them to get a student allowance and a supplement they can apply for an accommodation supplement. That is also grossly unfair. I do have an example for this if I may be permitted to read on that one. For a sole parent in Auckland with two children the maximum amount that can be paid in the accommodation supplement is $225 a week. In contrast the accommodation benefit for a student is only $60 a week.Tim Macindoe: That is deeply inequitable.STUART SMITH: It is terribly inequitable. The point is I guess that on one level you could say that if a student can identify that loophole and exploit it then perhaps for certain courses that they are taking at university they deserve a merit pass I would have thought. But it is inequitable and students—Darroch Ball: Have you thought that maybe they need it?STUART SMITH: Ah! The member brings up a good point—maybe they need the money. The supplement is designed for a student. If somebody can identify a loophole and exploit it that is inequitable for everybody else. Encouraging people simply to exploit little loopholes like that is not good legislation. It is not good law. It leads to everybody trying to exploit those loopholes because after all we are a competitive lot. That is what brought us out of the caves after all—the fact that we were all able to try to exploit the little differences that were available. I think that this bill aims to fix this particular loophole. That is something I really support. The Government is all about equity. It is about getting good public services. And the only way we can do that is to ensure that the benefits that we do have—that we pay out—are paid on a needs basis not to whoever can exploit the law as it stands.I do not think there is a lot more that I can say unless we perhaps talk about clause 4 which clarifies eligibility for the criteria—[Interruption] Yes clause 4—absolutely. That is an absolutely essential part of dealing with that accommodation supplement.Debate interrupted.