Bradford Sue: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bradford Sue: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:3091] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 This bill which we are debating for the first time in the House tonight highlights for me the shambles that is the Social Security Act 1964. There is very little in this bill that could not and should not have been anticipated when the Social Security (Long-Term Residential Care) Amendment Bill 2004 was being considered by Parliament 2 years ago. What we have in front of us now appears to be largely a series of tidying-up provisions aimed at clarifying and rectifying drafting errors and omissions in that particular legislation. The fact that this bill is before the House at all should be seen as an endorsement of the Green Party policy I have talked about so often in the past—that is that the Social Security Act 1964 should be totally scrapped and rewritten from scratch on principles of sufficiency simplicity and universality. I imagine that the Social Security Act must be one of the most abused amended and unusable pieces of legislation still on this country’s books and I hope Labour is seriously considering a total rewrite as part of its intended major reforms in the welfare area. 
Meanwhile and that said the Green Party will be supporting this latest piece of the jigsaw puzzle—the Social Security (Long-Term Residential Care) Amendment Bill—on the basis that it is a necessary evil. Like the Minister we are keen to ensure that older New Zealanders in poor health are not unfairly disadvantaged as a consequence of the confusion and complexity of the 2004 amendments. As some will be aware it is unusual for the Green Party to support any clause that restricts entitlements to a benefit but we see the restriction on the disability allowance as proposed by clause 4 as fully justifiable. It is not acceptable that people can double-dip—receive payment from two sources for the same expense—and it is bizarre that for almost 2 years the Act has permitted that practice. 
Further a number of amendments deal with the means assessments of older New Zealanders in long-term residential care and although the Green Party supports the total abolition of income and asset testing for long-term residential disability services we supported the 2004 bill on the basis that it was at least a move by Government in the right direction—towards equitability and sufficiency for older New Zealanders with long-term disabilities. However the Government’s insistence on retaining an ameliorated but massively complex income and asset-testing regime means we are back again 2 years later tidying it up. 
We support the inclusion of purpose and overview sections in Part 4 of the Act inserted by clause 5 of the bill but ask why they were not included earlier. The inclusion of purpose and overview sections is as far as I can tell standard practice in legislative drafting. The Green Party likewise supports the other clarifying provisions contained in subpart 2 but most could have and should have been anticipated earlier. None of those changes will impact adversely on older New Zealanders receiving residential disability services. Some are necessary to ensure that such people are treated fairly and therefore we support subpart 2. 
In particular I would briefly like to address clause 12 which restores the discretion that—probably inadvertently—was removed from the deprivation provisions by the 2004 amendments. The provision will make sure that even if a deprivation of income or property is found as a matter of fact the ministry will have discretion as to whether to include the value of the deprivation in the means assessment. That clause is to be commended. It is impossible to legislate or regulate for the whole range of human experience and a discretion such as that is essential to ensure vulnerable people are not being unfairly forced into poverty. It is just a pity the Government could not have acted on the same principle regarding the discretionary special benefit which it has so recently replaced with the highly regulated and inflexible temporary additional support allowance—a move that will increasingly force some of our most vulnerable citizens into even deeper poverty than they suffer already. 
With some reluctance because most of the bill’s provisions should have been addressed legislatively 2 years ago the Green Party will be supporting this bill. I hope for all our sakes but especially for the sake of those people most affected that we get it right this time around. I am also keenly awaiting the day when a progressive Government has the time energy compassion and courage to bring forward a totally new Social Security Act which would transform welfare law in this country into something usable by staff and beneficiaries alike and which would not be fraught with endless and ongoing complications and amendment bills like the one we are dealing with tonight.