Logie Jan: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8187. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAN LOGIE (Green): I would like to talk in some detail about the use of urgency for the Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill but before I do I do need to address some of the points raised by the previous speaker Todd Muller. He said that this bill is the height of responsibility and fairness. This bill seeks to retrospectively remove the legal entitlement of some of the poorest New Zealanders all for the purpose of saving this Government money. That I think goes to the point that we are hearing consistently from that side of the House that financial responsibility means that the Government has to bring this bill to the House. Any money that would go to those people—it would obviously be irresponsible for the Government to hand out money to people. The intent of this bill is that it was always clear that it was supposed to be “the day after” even though section 80BA(4)(a)(i) of the Social Security Act reads “the day on which the stand down period ends;”. I do not know how that can lead people to think it is the day after. You read the words that benefits commence “on the day on which the stand down period ends;” and suddenly you interpret that as the day after which is what this Government has been doing. The Government does not seem to understand the rule of law. The Government is telling us despite how the courts have interpreted this based on the debates and from reading this legislation stating “the day on which” that actually the intent was always clear that it was the day after. That really does stretch the Government’s credibility; it really really does stretch credibility.I would like to speak a little bit more too specifically because this is the second reading and this is the time when we normally would have been through a select committee process. This Government through a previous speaker has told us that well we have been through a select committee process because there was a provision in another bill which related to the extension of youth services and was entitled the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill that sought to retrospectively deny those people their rights. It looked nothing like this piece of legislation might I say but there was a provision in that bill that covered this so therefore—we were told—we have been through the process. Well I do want to point out to people that there was one submission that picked up this point. I cannot even talk about what we were told from the departmental advisers because that is business that is still in front of the Social Services Committee so I would be breaching privilege if I spoke about the advice that we were given in relation to that point in this bill. This I think raises some significant process issues in that we are now debating a bill and the Government is telling us that that process applies to this and means we can go through this under urgency but I cannot talk about the detail of it because it is still under select committee privilege. That is worrying. That is not a good process at all.I would like to remind people to think about the appropriate use of urgency. There was a book published on this a few years ago called What’s the Hurry? which talked about the 10 guiding principles for the use of urgency for this House to consider. Point No. 1 is “Legislatures should allow time and opportunity for informed and open policy deliberation”. That has not happened. Point No. 2 is “The legislative process should allow sufficient time and opportunity for the adequate scrutiny of bills”. Days? No. That is not adequate time. That condition has not been met. Point No. 3 is “Citizens should be able to participate in the legislative process”. Again that has not happened. Point No. 4 is “Parliament should operate in a transparent manner”. Well putting a provision inside another bill on a very substantive point hidden as a remedial matter which the Government was hoping nobody would pick up? That is not transparency. Moving this bill through under urgency without the ability for public participation—that is not transparency. Refusing to implement the court’s decision and bringing this through under this process is not transparency and does not uphold the rule of law.The next point is point No. 5: “The House should strive to produce high quality legislation”. How can we produce high-quality legislation when we are rushing it through? Point No. 6 is “Legislation should not jeopardise fundamental constitutional rights and principles”. One of those is around the rule of law and non-retrospective legislation and here we are putting through under urgency retrospective legislation that undermines the rule of law. Point No. 7 is “Parliaments should follow stable procedural rules”.Point No. 8 is “Parliament should foster not erode respect for itself as an institution”—and that to me goes to the very very heart of what is wrong with this piece of legislation. When we have over a million people who did not vote where we have people not going to Work and Income because they find that experience so alienating that they are living in cars because they do not want to deal with it and here the people’s benefits get cut by 100 percent or 50 percent if they miss a bus and miss an appointment. Here the Government is making a very very fundamental misinterpretation of the law which reads to me so clearly. It is saying “Yes we made a mistake and we’re just going to fix that up and deny all of you your rights over the last 18 years.”; not “OK we made a mistake. We’re going to fix this for the future.” That would have been credible. We would have supported that if you had brought that case. But no you are doing it retrospectively and it is so out of balance with those people’s experience of how you—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!JAN LOGIE: Not you Mr Assistant Speaker—how the Government implements this system. It is so out of balance and such a misuse of power that it undermines the respect for Parliament as an institution. The ninth point is that “The Government has a right to govern so long as it commands a majority …” but the respect for this principle has to be balanced against all of the other points which we have clearly seen are not met by this legislation. Point No. 10 is “Parliament should be able to enact legislation quickly in”—it says—“(actual) emergency situations”. Well tell me where the emergency is beyond the fact that people are putting in claims to get back an average of $80 from the Government to be able to put some food on their table before Christmas to access a right that the courts have established very clearly and well over a year ago that they are entitled to—where is the emergency in that? This is a shameful use of the House and the process and a misuse of power by this Government.I would like in this very short period of time remaining to me to point out some of the issues that people have been raising that I have been able to see even though we have not had a select committee process sadly. One person’s comment was: “If only someone had told Greece that dealing with debt was as simple as passing a law saying they don’t have to pay.” People are seeing this. People who do not have much resource who have a fragile relationship with the State are watching this and their confidence is being eroded. People have talked about the fact—I have seen—that they would like to apply but actually their situation at the moment is that they would have to print out the forms sign them get down to a Work and Income office and they do not have a printer. They do not have access in terms of filling in the forms on email to be able to scan and sign them and they cannot get down there. Here are people who are being told or they have just found out that they have got this legal entitlement and they want to access it and they are going “I don’t know how to do this.” They basically will have too short a period of time because of where this cuts off unless of course it was after May 2014 and those people will have a few weeks until 8 January—over a holiday period over an incredibly stressful time of the year. People with other languages may not find out—the Government has made no commitment to notify anyone to let them know of their rights. We are also hearing from people that they are actually not in a position to be able to access the technology to be able to apply. Really we need to go back to the point that these are stand downs which is a debatable point and has been for a long time in this House because it impacts on people’s ability to provide shelter and feed themselves.