Ball Darroch: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBall Darroch: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 17 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1630. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DARROCH BALL (NZ First): It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to talk on the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3). However I would like to join others and acknowledge the passing of Celia Lashlie. She was a mighty social campaigner and had good works with the Good Man project and obviously a book He’ll Be OK. She has had many positive effects on many young families especially with young boys and I know personally as a father of a 12-year-old who will shortly begoing through the wonderful period of teenage years it willcertainly help me out as well.Phil Twyford: Get ready!DARROCH BALL: Yes. First thing I would just like to say and acknowledge what Sue Moroney also said—the fact that coming to the second reading has been a while in the making. In 2011 it was first read. In fact not only was I not in Parliament but New Zealand First was not in Parliament at that stage. So it has given me a good opportunity to put some fresh eyes on the bill and have a look at it and there are many questions that have come out of that and some concerns and partly some confusion and contrary to popular belief I do not easily get confused.So the first thing I did was to lookat the bill and the intent of the bill in its entirety. Obviously it is to tighten up a few loopholes in two areas one of them being the ACC payments and how they are received and also the loophole for students seeking assistance for accommodation costs. When addressing this bill it is important to remember that for the part of the students or closing the loophole for the student seeking assistance the overall and underlying intent of the bill should really be that it is for the students and for the benefit of those students and not just to tighten up a loophole. But that unfortunately seems to be what is trying to be achieved here by lumping those two very different separate juxtaposed issues together under one umbrella. And on the face of things obviously it is always good to increase efficiency and equitability within legislation and that is what this bill is attempting to do here and that is what the public will likely see this bill as being.But it seems that by putting these very separate issues of ACC and student accommodation issues together it is somewhat designed to lessen the need to look further and in the much greater detail that is needed at the fallout and unintended consequences from such a tightening of those loopholes and the issues that I have highlighted in the process—to the point where if you have a look at the bill we believe that the bill should really have been submitted in two separate submissions. In fact the two distinct separate issues are not even in two different parts within the bill itself.So I would like to concentrate my comments on one issue in particular that we do not think is fair or equitable and that is the part of the attempt to close the loophole on the student accommodation supplement which is clause 4(1) and (2) in Part 1. The explanatory note sums up what it is: “The bill also amends the Social Security Act 1964 to clarify the provisions that exclude students who are eligible for assistance under the Student Allowances Regulations 1998 from receiving the accommodation supplement. The amendment makes it clear that students are not eligible for the accommodation supplement if they could receive assistance under the Student Allowances Regulations 1998 but choose not to apply for it or if they could receive this assistance but for their own income or the income of their parents spouse or partner.” So there are a few questions that popped out immediately for me and perhaps the Minister could address those in time.So the first is: why has it taken since 2011 for this bill to get through to second reading? Why is this currently a problem for students? If the students are using this loophole why are students in need of more assistance? Why is there such a difference between the two amounts of how much a student would receive in a student allowance and how much they would receive in an accommodation supplement? And if this change does go through how will this benefit help support and enable our current students looking for assistance? The fact is that it does not and it will not. In fact what this bill succeeds in doing is highlighting the very real and current financial struggles that our students face and the issues that our students have in being able to afford not only accommodation but even just the bare essentials. It is New Zealand First’s view that we need to invest in our students and ensure that they are given every opportunity to succeed and every ability to afford a quality education. It is not just education itself that is important but the environment and the ability to live without the need of bare essential items.This proposed change unfortunately highlights the current issues we have with what our students are currently getting. The changes are proposing when it boils down to it that if you are eligible for a student allowance you are not eligible to receive the accommodation supplement even if you do not take the allowance. That may sound fair and equitable to a National Government but what members opposite quite obviously do not see is that there is a need for some students to have to do that in the first instance. If a student can gain more assistance by not taking their student allowance then why are we going down a path where we will ensure they are eligible only for the least amount of assistance instead of maximising it for them? The truth is that these students need all of the assistance that they can get. This bill undermines students and will potentially make it harder for students to afford a tertiary education.To back up what I have been saying I would just like to read out a couple of quotes from an article that came out as recently as September last year. There was a survey that showed that nearly half of all full-time students are in significant financial distress. Two years ago that was one in six final-year students who was living in significant financial distress meaning they did not have enough money for their basic accommodation clothing or food requirements. An even more recent study of 5000 students from both a polytechnic and a university showed that the situation was actually even worse and 44 percent reported that they did not have enough to meet their basic needs. This shows the urgent need to increase support including an increase in student allowance rates and expansion of allowances to those excluded by parental means tests and properly paid summer employment. So Mr Ngaro and Mr Doocey may stand over there and say that everything is peachy for students but these are the actual facts.If we are looking specifically at accommodation costs in particular which this bill is affecting we are looking at experts predicting rents will continue to rapidly rise this year. Auckland’s big tenant influx—when 50000 students start looking for accommodation—is not expected to get into full force until later this month but demand is already outstripping supply in many areas. Students are finding it hard to find affordable accommodation. This bill is going to ensure that students get only the least amount of assistance that is available. New Zealand First does not find that acceptable.One of the words that the Minister used was “equitability”. We need to stop looking at the equitability process as stopping at the bounds of being a student and instead look realistically at the costs that our students incur and how that compares with every other low or middle-income person and how our Government addresses that issue. Instead of looking immediately at the options that stop the students receiving the highest amount of assistance we need to look at the reasons why the students are needing this in the first instance. This bill should show support to our students by fixing the loophole in their favour not against them. This is why New Zealand First does not support this bill.