Bradford Sue: Social Security Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bradford Sue: Social Security Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7202] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be voting against the Social Security Amendment Bill being read a first time. That is not to say there is nothing commendable about the bill. For example the Green Party supports the reduction of the maximum income-related stand-down period from 10 weeks to 2 weeks—something I along with others have campaigned on for many years. Pre-benefit stand-down is one of the primary causes of hardship amongst beneficiaries and it is ridiculous that people are forced into total poverty and debt because of the 10-week rule. Although we would have preferred to see the bill abolish the stand-down period completely we commend the Government for at least having the courage to go as far as this. 
The Green Party also supports the aligning of the ending of benefits for sole parents who cease caring for dependent children and the development of consistent residential qualifications across the benefit system. 
Unfortunately other aspects of the bill do not demonstrate the same commitment to fairness justice consistency and flexibility. For example clause 23 which inserts “Purpose” and “Principles” sections into the Social Security Act is nothing short of being parsimonious and miserable in its approach. It is those purpose and principles sections that will influence the interpretation of legislation by Ministry of Social Development staff and by the judiciary in terms of the Act in its entirety. 
In clause 23 we see the framework for a regulated inflexible and mean-spirited social security system that is designed not to help to eliminate poverty—which is what the Green Party believes should be the objective of the income support system in this country—but to alleviate hardship and then only to the extent provided for by the Act. This approach removes the system’s ability to respond to individual circumstances as exemplified by this Government’s earlier abolition of the discretionary special benefit and implementation of the regulated temporary additional support regime. Today that is carried forth by clause 23 into the interpretation of the entire Act. 
The purpose of the New Zealand social security system as embodied in the original 1938 Act and restated in 1972 by the Royal Commission on Social Security in New Zealand has been to provide an income that allows beneficiaries to have a standard of living that enables them to participate in and feel part of their local communities. That principle was undermined by the very ungenerous approach to welfare of National-led Governments in the 1990s. These new purpose and principles sections are geared to finishing that unfinished business of Jenny Shipley. Even her modest safety net is left torn and tattered and it will be the most vulnerable members of our society who fall through the holes. 
I now turn to other parts of the bill with which we have major problems. The Green Party opposes the “work first” dictum set out in clause 16—that work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being and that the priority for people of working age should be to find and retain work. Those principles have no regard at all for the valuable contribution to our society that is made by people who do voluntary work in their communities or for people for whom caring for children the sick the elderly or people with major impairments is actually their priority at that particular time in their lives. This bill establishes one standard for the wealthy who have a choice about whether their children are cared for by an at-home parent and a different standard for those who are ill or disabled or who do not have a partner on a high income. The latter are expected to be working in paid employment regardless of what they consider is best for their children. 
Clause 4 provides that the definition of income for the purposes of the Act may for people in self-employment be subject to rules made by Order in Council. That is bad law. Any future Minister will be able to change what is called income and what is not without reference to Parliament. Income is a concept that is fundamental to social security. As such its definition should be set out clearly in the legislation rather than be subject to the whim of the Minister. New section 132H under which such rules will be made permits rules that determine how a person’s income is to be determined where he or she has used assets of a business or trade for no consideration or for inadequate consideration. That will have the effect of introducing a de facto asset test for main benefits which is a new and dangerous precedent. 
Clause 9 amends section 74 of the Act relating to deprivation of income or property. This provision currently operates on a discretionary basis and provides that where there has been a deprivation the Ministry of Social Development may decline to pay or may reduce the rate of a benefit. Clause 9 makes that discretion subject to rules made by Order in Council. It is not possible to regulate for the whole range of human experience and people will inevitably end up in hardship because of the operation of strict rules-based criteria. That is particularly pernicious in the context of deprivation of income or property where people can be affected by what they did years before they ever think or imagine they might be applying for a benefit. 
Clauses 12 and 24 are also of major concern to the Green Party. They will require all benefit applications to be put in writing and on the form provided by the ministry and to be for a specific benefit. There will be no provision for backdating entitlements except with the specific approval of the Minister and then only in circumstances where the ministry has acted in error. That issue of backdating an entitlement has been addressed by the High Court and in my view addressed very sensibly in the judgment  
Scoble v 
Chief Executive of the Department of Work and Income 
. These clauses will restrict the application of the Scoble judgment in a manner that puts the onus on benefit applicants to apply for the correct benefit. 
The benefit system is exceedingly complex as I am sure members will understand and no beneficiary should be expected to understand it fully—I doubt that most members in this House can. These clauses will have a harmful effect on some benefit applicants who do not understand the application system or the rules well and they may prevent them from gaining adequate benefit or redress. I am also concerned at the use of legislation to overturn the intent of court decisions as this bill seems to be doing. 
Clauses 28 to 32 amend the “personal development and employment plan” provisions of the Act to include sickness and invalids beneficiaries in the requirement to develop such plans. There is nothing wrong with that in itself; if sickness and invalids beneficiaries are medically capable of doing some work and want to work they should be given every possible help and encouragement by the department. However the amendments introduce an element of coercion into the content of personal development and employment plans. When those plans were first introduced I worked closely with the Minister and the Government to ensure there was genuine negotiation in the plan development process and that the content of the plans was agreed between the ministry and each beneficiary. That concept now appears to have been abandoned in favour of coercion. There is a real danger that zealous case managers following the new “work first” principles in the Act will force beneficiaries into totally inappropriate activities. The similarly coercive approach taken in clauses 38 and 39 to unemployed beneficiaries’ job seeker agreements is also opposed by the Green Party. 
Clause 36 provides that unemployed beneficiaries may be required to undertake “pre-benefit activities”—for example looking for work or attending job search seminars—before they become entitled to the benefit. Again the Green Party sees nothing wrong with that in itself. However the bill provides that the Ministry of Social Development does not have to process the benefit application until the activity has been completed and that the requirement to undertake a pre-benefit activity can be oral or written. These provisions have the potential to cause significant delays in the processing of benefit applications and consequent hardship for applicants. 
Although this bill has some provisions that the Green Party supports the overall thrust is one of inflexibility insufficiency and coercion. We will be seeking to move amendments at all possible stages of the parliamentary process in an attempt to improve what is at the moment a bill that overall further undermines the ability of our welfare system to reduce poverty. It is a real pity that this Government appears at a number of levels to continue to see itself as being in a bidding war with National to see who can blame and harass beneficiaries the most rather than being a party that stands up for fundamental principles of dignity sufficiency and equity in its administration of the country’s social security system.