Bradford Sue: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bradford Sue: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9108] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 As I foreshadowed in the second reading debate last week I am putting forward several amendments in relation to Part 1 and Part 2 of the Social Security Amendment Bill. The relevant Supplementary Order Paper is available to members at the Table. However one of these amendments in relation to a new clause 10A regarding absence of beneficiaries overseas has just this week been superseded by a Supplementary Order Paper from the honourable Minister David Benson-Pope. I therefore formally state that I wish to withdraw the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 113 that relates to new clause 10A. 
The new clause I proposed was intended to amend section 77 of the Social Security Act under which the Ministry of Social Development is given the discretion to pay an invalids benefit to a person who is overseas for a period or periods not exceeding 2 years for the purpose of receiving vocational training or guide dog training provided that the beneficiary is receiving the benefit on account of blindness. 
 A submitter on the bill made a compelling presentation to the select committee in our new official language New Zealand Sign Language concerning the anomaly that similar overseas training for invalids beneficiaries who receive the benefit on account of being deaf is limited to a period of just 28 days. My amendment intended to rectify what I saw as a historical anomaly in the Act by extending the discretion to permit an absence of up to 2 years to people who are profoundly deaf as well as to those who are blind. Since then Mr Benson-Pope has put forward a much better amendment expanding the scope of the new clause so that any invalids beneficiary who meets certain criteria can spend up to 2 years out of the country in order to receive vocational training or disability assistance dog training if he or she is unable to get the same thing within New Zealand. I think this is great and I acknowledge the Government for making progress on this matter. 
My second amendment in relation to Part 1 of the bill deals with clause 15 and related clauses. It is a much more complex matter and one of significant constitutional importance. Clause 15 proposes to insert two new sections—132H and 132I—in the principal Act. These will provide for rules to be made by Order in Council prescribing the determination of income and deprivation of income or property. Clause 4(2) and clause 9 are consequential upon this. 
These proposed amendments give rise to significant constitutional concern. One of the fundamental constitutional principles is that subordinate legislation such as regulations or rules should not override a statutory definition. This would result in the subordinate legislation—in this case rules—effectively amending the statutory definition itself. 
“Income” is a concept that is fundamental to the purpose of the Social Security Act 1964. Indeed much of the Act is concerned with providing assistance to people who have no income or who have insufficient income. The level of most entitlements under the Act is dependent on that definition of income. The Green Party believes that the ability to amend the definition of income in the Act should therefore be reserved for Parliament rather than exist at the whim of the executive. Permitting the definition to be amended by Order in Council is a travesty of democratic process that has the potential to cause outright unfairness. It will for example permit the definition to be amended in response to a judicial decision regarding the interpretation that is viewed unfavourably by the executive without any reference to this Parliament. Beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries should be entitled to a degree of certainty regarding what constitutes income and deprivation of income or property. At a given point in time this can have a major impact on beneficiaries’ entitlements and therefore their lives and those of their families—many months or even years after the receipt of the income or the deprivation of income or property actually occurred. 
I am not opposed to clarifying issues around income and deprivation of income; in fact I support it. The definition of income in the Act is written from the perspective of paid employment and does not adequately address the circumstances of the many New Zealanders who are self-employed. The definition needs amendment. However if this House is to uphold constitutional propiety it is imperative that that amendment should be made in a proper manner by way of an amending bill not through the back-door method of rules made by Order in Council that provide no certainty for current or future beneficiaries. I am therefore proposing to remove the ability for the definition of income and provisions relating to deprivation of income or property to be effectively amended by Order in Council and ask other parties here to consider supporting this amendment.