Dyson Ruth: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8192. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I just commend the comments that Marama Davidson just concluded her contribution to this debate with particularly in relation to the fact that there is no urgency for this. We have heard that the Government found out about this misinterpretation between the way the legislation was written in 1998 and the way it was interpreted subsequently over 18 years. We heard that it discovered that disparity in May last year. How can it be possible that between May last year and November of this year there has not been an opportunity for this to be rectified? But wait—it has been. There is a bill before the select committee right at this very moment. This bill was included with that bill and suddenly for some reason—we have not had an explanation from the Minister or the Government members of the select committee—that part of the bill was taken out and put as a stand-alone bill.I think that is a good thing because it is an entirely separate issue from the ones that are dealt with under the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. So it is good in terms of robust process that those bills are separated but it is not acceptable for this bill to get rammed through the House through all stages under urgency with lightweight contributions from members of the Government who are writing it off as a technical bill when clearly they do not understand it. The arrogance of first-year MPs is gobsmacking. It is just extraordinary—the number of MPs who have been here for 1 year and 5 minutes and who are so arrogant and born to rule—extraordinary.This is not an issue on which any party needs to blame another party. Both National-led and Labour-led Governments have taken the operationalising of this as the correct interpretation of the law. We were wrong. Both sides were wrong. Nobody is blaming Anne Tolley. In fact we have all commended Anne Tolley for engaging in the discussion with us about that. I do not know why the backbench of the National Party had to get up and throw rocks. It is not that sort of debate. Feel the vibe Todd feel the vibe. It is not that sort of debate.Todd Barclay: I’m not even speaking.Hon RUTH DYSON: I would say the surname if I could remember it but I cannot. What is it? Barclay—Mr Barclay; I apologise. I apologise even more because I was going to call you Todd McClay but I knew that was wrong. This bill is about a misinterpretation. The challenge for Parliament is: how should it be fixed?For 18 years we have been paying beneficiaries a day later to start their benefit than the law said. That has been determined now in a separate judicial process. Parliament needs to fix it. What the Minister has said is that the Government will accept that court determination but not right back to the beginning where it first started doing it incorrectly—just from the day it was told about it. That is an incorrect interpretation of the way the court has determined Parliament’s responsibility to not do anything but comply with the law. We either change it or we comply with it but changing it retrospectively is not a correct process particularly in this situation. So this is not a matter of blame. This is certainly not a matter of the current Minister or former Ministers wanting to cheat beneficiaries. It was just interpreted in a way that has now been determined as wrong.So in our view people right back to the very start of this from the day that it was first changed in 1998 right through until now should be able to apply if they choose. We should give them a fair period of time advertise it properly make sure that everybody knows about it as much as possible—that is fair—and say: “If you had a stand-down provision when you applied for a benefit you may have got your benefit a day later than you were legally entitled to. We—Parliament—have determined that you should get that day’s benefit paid to you.” How is that irresponsible? It is not. How is it anything but fair? It is not. It is the fair and proper thing to do as Parliament’s response to the determination that that Government received in May last year—that this issue has been misinterpreted.I would really recommend the Government to relook at its response. I think this is an opportunity for us to get it right. We have a chance now over the next 6 or 7 hours as we debate this further and I really urge the Government to just think again. We can get it right. It is a very small amount of money but I think it is worth it.