Sepuloni Carmel: Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSepuloni Carmel: Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10898. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I need to say from the outset that fundamentally on this side of the House we do support and have supported a rewrite of the social security legislation as we support the idea that there needs to be some clarity and some consistency. Since 1964 the Social Security Act has had amendments made to itcontinually so it is very difficult to navigate and it is disjointed and the Law Commission and others have all stated that that is the case.We support the Social Security Act being more accessible and cohesive. We think that is very important but what we are concerned about is that the policy-neutral rewrite that we were promised by the National Government is at risk here when we look at what we have finally been presented with. The Minister for Social Development herself has said that yes the Government has gone through and tried to modernise it and tried to look for places where it could make it more cohesive and more consistent but she has also said that this is being used as an opportunity to actually insert some policy changes. I think that is where we have concerns and I think they are very valid concerns.This is not a straightforward rewrite. There are changes that have been made to policy and we believe that some of those changes should be put through a different avenue and not in a rewrite of social security legislation. There are two different things going on here and they should be kept very separate.I have had conversations with a number of social agencies that are very keen to make submissions on this bill. Those agencies that I have spoken to have either said that they are concerned but they are supportive of this bill going to a select committee and having it nutted out there or they have said that they will not be taking a position on whether or not this bill’s referral to a select committee should be supported in the first instance. So I think that already highlights that there are concerns held out there by the experts—by the people who are operating with this legislation on a daily basis—and we take on board their advice.So I can say from the outset as I get into this that we will support this going to a select committee but we want there to be a robust analysis of what we have in front of us and we do have concerns which I will talk about shortly. Given that those social services do want the bill to have that robust attention paid to it and they want to have the time needed to pull together robust submissions on the bill I am a little bit disappointed to hear that the Minister is asking that this bill be reported back 2 months earlier than actually required. She is saying to us that she wants it reported back by 15 September. If this is going to be done properly and we should all be committed to making sure it is done properly then why would she reduce the time period in which we can give this bill the attention that it deserves? That was one of the concerns that was raised by one of the organisations I spoke to this morning. All it wanted was for it to be given the time that it deserves. So I am disappointed already to hear that the Minister is saying it will be 4 months rather than 6 months before it is reported back to the House.I have to say that is actually probably indicative of an underlying agenda that we should all be a little bit concerned about here and that the social sector should be concerned about. This is not an honest and upfront rewrite that is policy-neutral like we had been told by the National Government that it would be. I am going to talk about some of the examples where we do have a few concerns. We know now with the rewrite that the Minister has written into the principles—the investment approach. Our concern and many other providers outside Parliament have concerns is that actually there is a lot of critique that needs to be put into the National Government’s social investment approach. From just reading some academic articles on this recently I have got even more cause for concern.The social investment approach that that Government has presented us with is all about forward liability—the cost to the State. But there is no cost-benefit analysis going on in that if we make this investment into these people and we provide them with this level of support and resource what will be the benefits down the track and how much money will that actually save for us as a country? It is all short-term gains—all about how much money the Government is paying out in any financial year to benefits. It is all about its issues with long-term welfare dependency but nothing about real investment. Real social investment as far as we on this side of the Houseare concerned is about investment in people and making sure that if they actually do have to have an interaction with the social welfare system we support them so that an investment is made so that when they leave the benefit they are better placed to go into secure work they are better placed to increase their earning capacity and they are better placed to support their families.But none of that focus is part of what that social investment approach from the National Government has given us. When the Government amended here in the rewrite the principles of the social security legislation I would have actually liked to see an amendment to the principles. But the amendment I would have liked to see to the principles would be the inclusion of a principle that every person who goes to Work and Income or who requires assistance is given their full entitlements and given the absolute commitment that they are not being denied anything that they and their family may be eligible to access. I would have liked to see something like that put in the principles. I would have also liked to see something about how people would be given full access to their rights in terms of how to make a complaint. These are real issues.Actually we saw it recently with the impact workshops that were undertaken by Auckland Action Against Poverty alongside Work and Income. I think it ran that workshop for 3 days. Something like 700 people went through those workshops wanting to know whether or not they were accessing their full entitlements and wanting to know whether or not there was any other support they could access. Auckland Action Against Poverty was inundated with requests for support. That support should actually be provided by the Government agency that has been put in place to provide it. We should not need unfunded charitable organisations or voluntary organisations like Auckland Action Against Poverty to step in to make sure that people are getting their full entitlements. You know it is mean of the Government to constantly find ways of denying people access to things that they actually are entitled to.The stress and anxiety that it causes these people is huge. I think all of us who are electorate MPs see this on a daily basis with the people who are coming through our offices. I know having had at last count 310 constituents come through my electorate office in Kelston over a period of a year that it is a big issue for people out there—63 percent of the 310 constituents who came through my office in a year had Work and Income and in many cases housing as well as their primary issue for coming for support.That is just one area. That is just the principles that we have concerns about. But also there is a mismatch between the operation of the welfare system and the proposed principle of ensuring the best possible outcome for beneficiaries. So by writing that into the principles—but then on the other hand with the Minister not committing the ministry to tracking employment outcomes how can the Government possibly say that the principle is to achieve the best possible outcome for the actual client? All we see on this side of the House is that that Government sees the desirable outcome as being only about going off benefit not about going on to something better. So that is a concern.There are some changes in here that are not about a rewrite. They are completely different policy areas including the shift from an emergency unemployment benefit to an exceptional circumstances benefit. It is not just changing the title of that benefit’s name; it is changing the expectations too in terms of imposing work obligations on to those people who go to access that type of benefit. So it is not a straight switch of title. There are actually obligations that come with that change in name and with that new benefit.So we are really disappointed on this side of the House that this is not the straightforward policy-neutral social security legislation rewrite that we were promised. I am disappointed and I am sure there are others in the House who are disappointed that all we can see is another sneaky move by the National Government to try to make changes under the guise of something that we on this side of the House had all supported but now have to question. We are questioning the motives of the Minister and the motives of the National Government in terms of what they are proposing here. As I said from the get-go we will support this only because we do support having a rewrite of the legislation to bring it into line to make it consistent to make it transparent and to tidy it up. We will support its referral to the select committee but we will not support the National Government’s hidden agenda around this. We will want the time necessary to make sure we can analyse this—