Ball Darroch: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBall Darroch: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8190. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DARROCH BALL (NZ First): I would like to just make a few points in my second reading speech and reiterate a couple. The first is the main reason why New Zealand First is supporting this bill is that it is a technical error in law and not a change in policy. I know that a couple of the parties in the House are arguing against that fact. In fact we have heard a few arguments from the Labour Party and the Greens about why they are opposing this bill. There was an argument that there was a trust issue or about the way that the process has been conducted.We have heard of emotive issues in regard to child poverty and poverty in general and of beneficiaries bearing the brunt of those issues of poverty and why they deserve to have that money back-paid. We also heard an argument that there was actually no intent at all or that the intent was not known for the original bill and that the beneficiaries are actually owed 1 day’s worth—on average $80—of back-pay and that the Government is in debt to them. But at best this is actually a loophole in the law because if you look at the intent of the original legislation—but not only the original legislation; if Labour wants to go through the Hansard and look for original comments on the original intent of the original legislation—we are talking about the way that the policy was implemented for the last 20-odd years.Like I mentioned in my first reading speech the intent was fulfilled by successive Governments. The 7 days of stand down was always the intent of the policy and like I said in the first reading if the legislative error that was written was written to the intent of the bill the beneficiaries would have received the exact same amount as they did receive. If the tables were turned and the intent of the bill was that they were supposed to get that extra day but the law was written differently that would mean that they were owed that extra day in pay and then New Zealand First would be stating that and holding the Government to account. But this is a legislative drafting error; this is not a change in policy. That is why New Zealand First is supporting this bill.The other reason too apart from the intent of the original bill is the actual intent of the stand-down period. I know that it has been brought up and there are some issues with the concept of a stand-down period but the fact is that the stand-down period is there it is in law and it is being implemented. I went to have a look at the Social Security Act 1964 to actually have a look at the stand-down period and why there was a stand-down period and the justification for the stand-down period. It says in section 80BA(2): “Every benefit to which this section applies shall be subject to a stand down period calculated in accordance with Schedule 28.” I went and had a look at schedule 28 and basically it takes into account and calculates and assesses the average wage or income for the individual. It takes into account the living conditions of the beneficiaries in regard to whether they have got children whether they are a solo parent—and all other issues like that: income marital status and children. So when the beneficiaries went in to apply for their benefit from 1998—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Excuse me. Can I get the member standing over there to crouch down. Thank you.DARROCH BALL: —until May their needs were assessed. So their needs for which benefit they needed and how much they were going to get which included their living status and included how long they needed to be on stand down were assessed.Like I said and like the Minister has said and other members have said the intent of the stand down was for it to last for a full working week so 7 days. It does not make sense that the benefit would start on the seventh day; it would occur on the eighth day. That was the intent and it has been happening through successive Governments. But New Zealand First does have an issue with the review period for the beneficiaries who applied for their benefit from May last year. If it is going through until January it has been extended to 7 weeks now. Obviously that includes the Christmas period—a busy period—and it would minimise the number of people who were actually able to go to apply in the first place. So I think that it is being a little bit disingenuous in extending it through the Christmas period.Like I said in the first reading there is the fact that we do not actually think there is a need for a review period because we believe if it is a matter of principle that when the Government actually knew that there was an issue with the legislation in May 2014 and it still did not implement that change then every single person who got the benefit from that point should automatically be getting the back-pay that they are eligible for. You know it was only May 2014. We have got the records. We have got the ability to do it digitally. We know exactly who is eligible for it and it can be done very quickly. We should not be expecting beneficiaries to have to go into their offices or go online and apply for this back-pay. We believe that it should be automatic from May onwards. That is where I will leave it at the moment. I will look forward to the Committee stage but at this stage New Zealand First will continue to support this bill.