Sepuloni Carmel: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSepuloni Carmel: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8225. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I have got several questions to raise and points to make. I just want to start out by saying that because this is going through an urgent process we really have been denied the opportunity to access the information that would inform us better in respect of considering this bill. Because it has been such short notice and it is going through under urgency we do not have the opportunity to put in an Official Information Act request to find out why the Government has delayed and did not make this change on 20 May 2014 when it was informed of the technical error in the legislation. Because we have not been given the opportunity to go through a select committee process and have not had the time we also cannot put an Official Information Act request in for the Cabinet papers—the original Cabinet papers—that would have discussed this issue back in 1998 when the original legislation was going through the House. So it is really difficult for us to take the word of the Government in terms of the intent of this bill being something when clearly the legislation does not paint that picture.The Chair has made it clear to us that we cannot talk about the official advice that we have got through the Social Services Committee on the bill that this bill previously sat in which is the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. However I am assuming that we can talk about the submissions that were made publicly at that select committee where there was relevant information that was made there during submissions that applies to this particular bill. I want to talk about that because this is the only information that we have to inform us really given that this particular bill has not gone through a select committee on its own. So I do want to point out the fact that submitters on the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill raised the point that they had concerns that the appeal rights provisions in that bill—which applied to this bill—would limit the ability to review and appeal decisions and they had concerns that the provisions may not be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.I now want to just reflect on the departmental disclosure statement on the Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill that we are looking at now and just point out the fact that this bill did not go to the Attorney-General. So when we look at the section on “Consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990” we are told here that this bill did not go to the Attorney-General and yet the advice is that the bill does not impact on the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Well actually the submitters did not feel that that was the case. They had genuine concerns that actually what the Government is trying to do which is retrospectively change the legislation is not consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So I think that we should be really concerned as a Parliament that the Government is looking to put something through tonight that potentially runs a high risk of not being consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.I really want to point out some of the points that were made during that particular select committee consideration where we had the opportunity to discuss the elements of the bill that we are talking about tonight. A submission that was made by the very effective beneficiary advocate Kay Brereton raised the concerns that I have talked about. She raised concerns that “The bill reduces the right to review for affected beneficiaries in this way people already experiencing significant barriers in accessing their review rights and we see this step in reducing their rights as a move away from the principle of natural justice where a person has a right to understand and review a decision which affects them.”I want to take that point and then I want to go back to the bill and I want to look at clause 5 “Retrospective effect of amendments to section 80BA” where we see that “subsection (1) does not apply in the case of any decision or determination made before the commencement of this Act—”. Those people who are quick enough to get in are not going to have the decision on them overturned. That is because the Government recognises that their claim was valid and I think we need to acknowledge that. The Government recognises that the claim was valid. That is why in clause 5 of this bill they are not—