Bradford Sue: Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bradford Sue: Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5726] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 There are many problems with our current system of administering social welfare. The framework that governs the activities of Work and Income goes back to the Social Security Act 1964 an outdated law that has been amended so many times it has become a ramshackle mosaic of flawed piecemeal legislation. The Act is I suspect a nightmare for the staff to administer and I know for sure that it is just as bad for the caseworkers and advocates who try to help ordinary beneficiaries and superannuitants navigate their way through the system. I am also aware of how much worse it is for those claimants who do not have anyone to represent them in their dealings with a department that controls their access to their very means of survival. 
I am conscious of the irony of bagging the fragmented Social Security Act at the same time as I am putting forward a member’s bill proposing yet another amendment. Before going any further I will make the point that the Green Party believes that what should really be happening is not more reform of bits and pieces of this law but the creation of a whole new Social Security Act based on principles of simplicity sufficiency and universality. However I doubt that that is on the National Government’s agenda much as I wish it might be. In the meanwhile I feel it is really important to propose this member’s bill in a bid to improve at least one piece of the system. 
The fundamental purpose of the bill in front of us tonight is to change the way in which the review of benefit and superannuation decisions is carried out. For many years there have been concerns from advocates and beneficiaries that the current system is flawed at its core. The benefits review committees to which claimants appeal decisions are made up of one member appointed by the Minister for Social Development and Employment and two members who are staff of the Ministry of Social Development. Although the so-called community representative appointed by the Minister might theoretically be seen as being more neutral—and in some cases will be—that person even with the best will in the world will always be outnumbered by the departmental members on the committee. 
There is a widespread perception that the benefits review committee structure is one of bias in favour of the department. That perception has been reinforced by the fairly recent Arbuthnot Supreme Court judgment which reversed the previous understanding that benefits review committees carry out a quasi-judicial function and instead ruled that benefits review committees have a purely administrative role. I believe firmly that the only way out of this situation is to change the law so that the benefit review and appeal function is not carried out by the benefits review committees as currently constituted but by a fully independent body that is separate from the Ministry of Social Development. 
There are other problems too. At the moment the Social Security Appeal Authority is the only body to which people can appeal if a benefits review committee decision is made against them. Beneficiaries and superannuitants often have to wait for months and months before the appeal process works its way through. Meanwhile they may have nothing to live on or may have less than what they need and are entitled to. There are also complaints about the length of time it takes in some cases just to get a benefits review committee hearing. For example the community law centre in Christchurch says that in Canterbury it is not unusual for applicants to wait between 6 months and a year to have a hearing scheduled and in one case it dealt with recently the hearing was set 4 years after the review application was submitted. 
The quality of decisions made by benefits review committees has also been widely criticised at times not only by advocacy groups but also on occasion by the Social Security Appeal Authority. Decisions are made without adequate reasons for them being stated. The committees also often rely on current Ministry of Social Development policy rather than complying as they should with the statutory requirements of the Social Security Act. The quality of information provided to applicants is also dubious. For example applicants are not always notified that they have a right to appeal benefits review committee decisions to the Social Security Appeal Authority or they are not told of decisions in a clear or timely way. 
Medical appeal boards are another big problem. The boards hear appeals from applicants for the child disability allowance the invalids benefit the sickness benefit and the veterans pension against decisions made on medical grounds. Those boards have been criticised a lot for their failure to run procedures that comply with the basic principles of natural justice. This failing is compounded by the fact that there is no right of appeal at all under the Social Security Act against medical appeal board decisions. 
A further failing of the system as it currently operates is that there is no provision for costs to be awarded in favour of successful review applicants. This means that highly skilled and experienced beneficiary advocates often work for little or no payment. Some beneficiaries who are the last people to be able to afford lawyers nevertheless end up indebted to them as there is nowhere else for them to go for help. In many cases beneficiaries wind up inadequately representing themselves at review and appeal hearings. 
In short this system is unfair it is biased in favour of those who hold all the power over beneficiaries and superannuitants’ lives and it is a costly administrative shambles. Therefore this bill proposes to do four key things. First it replaces the existing benefits review committee structure with genuinely independent reviewers who would make decisions based on the principles of natural justice. In terms of implementation a possible model for this is the Dispute Resolution Services review and appeal system currently used by claimants under the accident compensation scheme. 
Secondly the bill abolishes the medical appeal boards that currently hear reviews in the areas I mentioned earlier: the medical aspects of the child disability allowance the invalids benefit the sickness benefit and the veterans pension. These reviews would devolve to the new independent reviewers who would have the ability to obtain expert medical advice as necessary. 
Thirdly the bill requires the new benefit review body to award the actual costs incurred in the reviews that are decided in the applicants’ favour. It would have a discretion to award some costs in other situations as well where the claimant has a good reason for appealing a decision. 
Fourthly the bill requires a statutory requirement that the Ministry of Social Development formally notify its decisions to beneficiaries and benefit applicants in writing and that it must also give written notice of all their rights. It also seeks to ensure that review decisions are made and notified within a strict time frame. 
The key thing in all of this is that the review body must be genuinely independent of the Ministry of Social Development. I will bring a couple of beneficiary voices into the debate. The first voice comes from a gentleman who recently made a submission to the Social Services Committee on the social assistance bill dealing with aspects of superannuation and the veterans pension. Among other things he stated: “Benefit review committees are loaded against us even the third person”—that is the community representative—“is usually someone previously employed by the department. I’ve never met a single sympathetic ‘community’ person—they all manipulate the benefits review process to suit themselves. There should be a review system that is truly independent.” 
A second quote comes from another fellow who wrote to me recently saying that he had been battling Work and Income for years on behalf of his disabled wife. He stated: “Current legislation in regard to Benefit Review committees permits Work and Income employees to have complete control in determining decisions. In most cases the decisions … are a farce a disgrace to the ideal of justice and fair play. For an applicant (often naive and inexperienced) to be forced to have a review heard by Work and Income staff plus a biased community representative—also chosen by Work and Income—is just a sick joke.” 
The community law centre in Canterbury stated: “The single biggest impediment to beneficiaries accessing justice is the legislation governing benefit reviews and appeals.” The law centre goes on to say that it is already proactively working towards law reform in this area. It has a research project under way at present in association with the University of Canterbury examining access to justice under the current system. 
I know that there are many other law centres beneficiary advocacy groups superannuitants’ organisations community groups and individuals who are just as frustrated by the lack of a fair and timely review and appeal process within Work and Income. It is high time that the law was changed. 
In advance I thank Labour and any other parties tonight that have decided to support this bill’s first reading. It would be great to get it to a select committee where we could hear the evidence from the public about what is really going on and about how the bill could be improved which I am sure it could be. If by any chance the bill does not succeed tonight I sincerely hope that the Government will take on board the serious nature of the issues I have raised and will take on the task of urgent reform itself. 
Changing the review and appeal processes at Work and Income should not be an ideological issue. In fact I hope that my proposal might appeal to National because I am suggesting a way of cutting down on bureaucracy and possibly privatising the system—for example through using Dispute Resolution Services. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member’s time has expired but the member also is required under Standing Order 279/1 to indicate which select committee she would like the bill to be referred to. 
SUE BRADFORD 
: I intend that this bill be referred to the Social Services Committee.