Mitchell MarkSOCIAL SECURITY (STOPPING BENEFIT PAYMENTS FOR OFFENDERS WHO REPEATEDLY FAIL TO COMPLY WITH COMMUNITY SENTENCES) AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingMARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I move That the Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services Committee to consider this bill. It is with great pleasure that I get to make the opening speech on this bill. I certainly look forward to hearing from my good friend and colleague Kelvin Davis who I am sure will get up in support of the bill. I want to acknowledge the chair of the Social Services Committee my good friend Alfred Ngaro—and I see his deputy Matthew Doocey is in the House as well—who will be receiving the bill. This bill amends the Social Security Act of 1964. It enables the Department of Corrections to instruct the Ministry of Social Development to withhold all or part of a person's benefit where that person has repeatedly failed to comply with a community-based sentence. The bill seeks to provide the Department of Corrections with an additional tool short of prosecution to encourage compliance with community-based sentences. By withholding benefit payments after a prior warning this bill will enable the department to manage offenders without burdening the court system. This bill will operate alongside a new measure implemented by the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Act of 2013 which has effectively managed persons with outstanding warrants for their arrest by withholding their benefit payments. When this bill is implemented the Department of Corrections will be able to instruct the Ministry of Social Development to withhold part of or all of a benefit paid to an offender. The Department of Corrections will also be able to instruct the Ministry of Social Development to restore benefit payments if it is satisfied that the offender is complying with their sentence. The bill enables the Department of Corrections to give a written warning if it reasonably believes (1) that it has exhausted all options other than prosecution in attempting to get that person to comply with that community-based sentence or instruction or (2) that the person breaches or fails to comply with any term of the community-based sentence or (3) fails to comply with an instruction from the Department of Corrections that relates to their community-based sentence. The warning must instruct the person to comply with a further instruction and warn that non-compliance with the instruction may result in the withholding of any benefit. A second written warning may be issued 14 days after the original warning. The bill provides that if the person fails to comply with the instruction within 14 days of the date of receiving their second warning to comply with the instruction the department may instruct the Ministry of Social Development to withhold all or part of their benefit payment. Section 17 of the Sentencing Amendment Act 2007 No. 27 states that in handing down a community sentence a court must take regard of the impact on an offender's future work and living skills. Further prosecution for non-compliance will negatively impact the offender's future work and living skills; hence prosecuting an offender for non-compliance with a community sentence defies the initial purpose of the sentence in the first place. The bill considers the potential impact both negative and positive on the offender and their family. The deduction amount is to be determined by the Department of Corrections. However the department may not deduct more than 50 percent of the gross benefit where that person is responsible for the care of a dependent child. One of the intentions of this bill is to decrease the likelihood of offenders going through the court system again for non-compliance. As of Monday 8 August there were 28562 offenders on community sentences. Up to 50 percent of offenders on a community-based sentence are receiving some form of benefit. This bill is in line with National's welfare reforms which saw an offender with an outstanding warrant to arrest having their benefit suspended until they cleared that warrant. I believe this process should be extended to include those offenders who repeatedly fail to comply with their community sentence. This is a bill that is a sensible and much-needed addition to our current system. I would also like to very quickly refer to the advice that I received from the office of the Hon Christopher Finlayson as our Attorney-General. It relates to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It states: The proposed amendment is similar to an amendment made in 2012 to the Social Security Act which enabled the chief executive of the ministry to suspend a person's benefit for failure to comply with a court warrant. Although that amendment possibly raised a prima facie issue of discrimination it was considered that it was not discriminatory or alternatively that the discrimination was justified." The bill's objective to ensure compliance with community-based sentences is sufficiently important to justify some limitation on the right to freedom from discrimination. New sections 183 and 185 of the Social Security Act inserted by clause 5 of this bill which limit the right of freedom from discrimination are rationally connected to the objective of incentivising compliance with community-based sentences or related instructions issued by the department. This is because removing entitlements creates an incentive for compliance. Further the limit operates under the rationale that taxpayers should not be financially assisting persons not complying with community-based sentences or related instructions. New sections 183 and 185 impair the right to freedom from discrimination no more than is reasonably necessary because (a) compliance with a community-based sentence is a court-imposed penalty and any individual subject to the sentence has an obligation to comply with its terms; (b) the benefit withholding measure is imposed only once an individual has not complied with both the community sentence or related instruction and two written warning notices that have been issued; (c) where the payment of a person's benefit is withheld and the department is thereafter satisfied that that person is complying with the sentence or instruction the department may instruct the ministry to restore that benefit; and (d) the bill prevents the department from issuing instructions to reduce a person's benefit by more than 50 percent of the gross benefit where the person is responsible for the care of a dependent child—as I stated earlier in my speech. The limitation is proportionate to the importance of the bill's objective because of several safeguards: new section 184 requires the department to issue written warning notices only when it reasonably believes it has exhausted all options other than prosecution in attempting to get a person to comply with a community-based sentence or instruction and when that person has in fact breached or failed to comply with that sentence or instruction. Although there is no right of appeal the department must issue two warning notices before it can instruct the ministry to withhold the benefit and an affected beneficiary may bring judicial review proceedings in respect of the department's decisions. It is therefore considered to the extent that the new sections 183 and 185 do engage the right to freedom from discrimination the limitation is justified under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you."