Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to take a call on this the second reading of the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. At first reading I indicated that in spite of the Green Party having previously—many times—raised concerns about the complexity of the social security legislation and having in fact called on the Government to simplify it we were sadly unable to support this piece of legislation because despite promises to the contrary the bill that we were presented with by the National Government was not a policy-neutral rewrite. It was in fact an entrenchment and embedding of the National Party ideology that went as far as changing the principle of the Act an Act that is pretty—it's hard to see how anyone could interpret that as policy-neutral. So we were forced into opposing a piece of legislation that we had been calling for for years.I do want to just reflect on the importance of this piece of legislation that we know is one of the most important pieces of legislation on our books. This legislation can support or deny people the ability to keep a roof over their heads to put food on the table or to have any semblance of dignity. We absolutely need this piece of legislation to deliver certainty and to be simple and easy to read. That is why the Green Party was calling for the rewrite of this legislation—to give us that foundation to work with. As I think the Minister mentioned in the introduction this is legislation that had been last rewritten in 1964. It has been amended over 131 times with at least 54 new sections added to it since then. I think it has now over 500—or around 500—sections in it including 50 points of discretion where it is up to the judgment of the staff to be able to interpret the legislation and the need. This does not—did not—deliver certainty or make it easy for people who need this legislation to be sure of what their rights were. So we supported—and support now—a policy-neutral rewrite to give us a foundation for moving forward to be able to move forward to a comprehensive overhaul of our welfare system to return the safety net to our society.I want to address too the point that was made by Jo Hayes the previous speaker challenging the lack of transparency of a Supplementary Order Paper being introduced at this stage in the debate and there being no chance for the public to comment and participate in that process. The irony of that just cuts rather deep considering we sat through the submissions on this bill hearing from so many people telling us what needed to change in this legislation—that they did not want the social investment approach embedded in this legislation or the principles changed. They thought there was too much being put into regulation as opposed to the substance of the bill and they raised serious deep concerns about the legislation.So a party that says that it's very concerned that the public should have the opportunity to be able to comment and help make us make decisions doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't seem quite consistent that they would have heard all that information and not made any changes in response. So I really do want to call them out on that. I do also want to just draw people's attention to their concern that this isn't progressive enough.It is traditional in second reading speeches to reference submissions so I would like to do that now. I would like to share in this House some of the stories people told us in select committee because it is very rare—in my time in Parliament in the over six years it is seldom I have heard beneficiaries give submissions whereas they did on this piece of legislation. What they told us was that there are some terrible things happening under the previous Government's social investment approach to welfare.We heard of a woman on supported living who had never had enough to cover all her basics. She didn't have enough for petrol and food so when her children had an event on at school that she needed to drive to she would go without food. This is a woman on a supported living payment who is medically unable to be in employment.We heard from a woman for whom slippers heating and new knickers are a luxury; a woman who regularly has to wait until benefit day to pay for her prescriptions; a woman who could not afford to go out for dinner for her daughter's graduation. We heard of a man who went into Work and Income to get a food parcel because he didn't have enough to cover his bills and food. He told them how he didn't have enough to buy food and so he had been eating at his girlfriend's house and then the staff interpreted this as being in a relationship in the nature of marriage and sought to cut his benefit. We were told how life is such a constant struggle it doesn't enable people to get well enough to get into work.We heard from the Disabled Persons Assembly. One of the people presenting with them told us her story about how she had spent three years as a job seeker with a medical exemption because of her muscular dystrophy which meant that she wasn't able to work. She realised that she needed to transition to a supported living benefit rather than being on a job seeker's benefit. That was a really tough decision for her because she had spent her life as an HR manager and was used to being financially independent and to come to terms with the fact that she was not able to be looking for work or to be in work was a tough personal decision.Before she made the appointment she spoke to three different Work and Income officers about what she needed to bring with her and then cross-checked that against the information on the website. She turned up to her appointment with all of the documentation and was told by her case worker that it was insufficient and that she would need a new medical certificate with different information on it. To get to that point she'd had to make trips to her GP in Lower Hutt—in a different city—and a specialist in Wellington. This was exhausting and painful and the Work and Income offices in her region do not have disability car parks outside so she had to walk further than she should have. She then had to wait an hour on inappropriate seats and then the appointment was another hour again on inappropriate seating.She was upset to be told that the information she had taken so much effort to provide and get right was not enough. When she expressed this frustration she was told the case manager couldn't help unless the right information was provided and when she was upset and stood up to leave they called security because they were worried that she was a risk. Then it took a long time three medical certificates a Work and Income officer calling her GP and asking the GP to change her certificate and three formal complaints before she finally managed to get the supported living allowance.Is this what the Opposition heard and considered was fine? In all of their nine years in Government they decided to ignore all of those stories and go ahead and embed their social investment approach which has a concept of dependency in it which is exactly what the submitters told us feeds that type of response in the institution. It tells those workers in Work and Income that if you're not in work then actually there is a problem with you and that you need to be fixed rather than given the support that you need. So I am so pleased to see legislation coming back in that gives us a foundation for a comprehensive overhaul to fix that and ensure that everyone is supported to live a decent life in this country.