Bradford Sue: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Bradford Sue: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13483] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is tabling an amendment to Part 1 of this bill in which we seek to repeal clauses 12 and 23. To be realistic about things we are not particularly hopeful of the chances of our amendment passing but I am putting it forward because I think it is important to highlight the dangers in changing so substantially the special benefit regime especially given the lack of opportunity for public consultation. With this bill being rushed through the House under urgency all the people and groups who would normally have had plenty of time to make considered submissions on changes to the Social Security Act and to the taxation laws are being denied that chance and probably in most cases they are simply unaware of the detail of the reforms that are being made in these clauses. The Green Party amendment that I am putting before the Committee in effect reverses the part of the bill that repeals section 61G of the Social Security Act and sets up a new system called temporary additional support. The impact of what the Government is doing here is to remove statutory discretion for the payment of the special benefit. Its replacement called temporary additional support is likely to subject a small but very vulnerable number of beneficiaries to greater poverty than is currently experienced by anyone. 
To give just one example of how that could work in future I will take the situation of a single invalids beneficiary with very high disability costs. The person who lives rurally has to travel significant distances twice weekly at a cost of say $200 per week for the treatment of a chronic medical condition because that treatment is available only at the nearest city. On current rates the disability allowance to cover the costs of travel for the treatment is capped at just over $48 a week. The proposed cap on the temporary additional support at 30 percent of the main benefit rate would result in maximum temporary additional support at the current invalids benefit rate of $61.55 a week. Any disability-related costs above $109 per week would have to be met out of the person’s invalids benefit itself. In this example those costs would amount to $90.27 leaving the beneficiary with only $114.91 a week to meet everyday living expenses. By contrast under the current special benefit regime although there is a guideline cap of 30 percent of the allowable costs there is still discretion for departmental staff to exceed that if the beneficiary’s individual circumstances justify it. A special benefit of $152 would be likely to be paid in respect of the disability-related travel costs of the beneficiary I have just described. 
In effect what we will see is a big benefit cut for some people—an unknown number of individuals and families—who in the future will find themselves in all sorts of difficult situations beyond their control. I am not sure whether the Government is clear about the impact of what it is doing here. While of course we applaud Labour’s moves to improve income support levels for families we are disturbed that these major changes to the special benefit regime are being slipped in within the context of what is mainly a beneficial piece of legislation—and under urgency to boot. 
We acknowledge of course the many difficulties there have been with the administration of the special benefit. Globally we do not support third-tier benefits and would like to see a much simpler benefit system in this country but while we continue to work with the fractured mosaic of the Social Security Act and all its amendments we need to do the best we can and we wonder whether Labour actually intended to implement this benefit cut. I would welcome a response from the Government on that. We know there have been a lot of problems. Many people are not getting the special benefit they are entitled to at the moment and people are treated very differently depending on the part of the country they live in. But we also know there has been a long and an arduous consultation process between the beneficiary advocacy groups and the Ministry of Social Development. I do not know whether those groups are aware of what is being implemented here today. I call on parties like New Zealand First and United Future and possibly even Labour if it has not understood what it is doing here to support my amendment. 
On a final note I would like to say that the Green Party will be supporting Peter Brown’s amendments to bring the dates of implementation of this bill forward because we too would like to see as much as possible of the additional resources going into families now or as soon as possible rather than waiting to see the implementation of the legislation dragged out over the next 4 years.