Bennett Paula: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bennett Paula: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 18 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3644. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 I wanted just to respond to the member Holly Walker around the financial veto for her Supplementary Order Paper 77. She called it a discretion. The first thing I would say is that the way it has been interpreted is that it is not really a discretion as such particularly in respect of not recovering any sum comprising part of a debt. I am referring to clause 35A to insert a new section 86 (9C): “(a) the debtor has 1 or more dependent children; and (b) the chief executive is satisfied that recovery of the sum may deprive …”. We do not see that as a discretion. It actually will limit our ability at some level and it will be suspending debt recovery. So that is a big part of the financial veto and it is because of the way that it is written that we cannot accept it. The advice I have had is that there would be a substantial long-term financial impact if we did not recover any debts or overpayments from someone. We actually do have a huge amount of overpayments that happen sometimes because someone does not alert us soon enough that they have got a job or that their situations have changed; sometimes it is the systems themselves. As you can all understand we usually try to err on the side of the beneficiary getting their money and sometimes that means we overpay them by a week or two. We are better off to recover that and let that happen. Most of our overpayments are actually only for about a week so they are not the huge debts that some people think that they are but they accumulate and they are incredibly high.  
To be fair around the sanctions as well the estimates that I have had from the department—even though the Minister of Finance with his advice from Treasury has gone for the figure of $128 million—the advice that I have had is that it could cost between $200 million and $300 million over 4 years if we did not impose sanctions on anyone and with that debt recovery. The other reason is the behavioural changes and that is why we have sanctions quite frankly. We have sanctions so that we get behavioural changes and so that the obligations are actually fulfilled. If that was not so then quite frankly we would not sanction because it is for no other reason than to have those obligations fulfilled and to see the changes that we are looking for.  
The other thing I would bring to the member’s attention is that actually the protection that she is talking about and that level of discretion already exists. It is in the legislation; it has to be good and sufficient reason. As such I would say that there is the discretion and it is actually used as well. To give an actual example of that there are many cases where someone does not make an appointment does not turn up to an interview does not turn up to training or something that they were supposed to and they do not give us a reason until we go to sanction them. Then they inform us that a child was sick or that there was a good reason and for that reason we do not sanction them. So they have not actually done the activity they were supposed to; however we see good and sufficient reason not to actually administer that sanction. I can tell you that in literally thousands of cases we do not for those very reasons. There is a level of discretion. It is used quite rightly and that will remain.