Moroney Sue: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMoroney Sue: Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 17 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1620. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SUE MORONEY (Labour): As I rise to speak to the second reading of the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) I wish to echo the sentiments from the Minister Anne Tolley and also pay my respects to Celia Lashlie. Her contribution to this country will not be forgotten. Certainly as the mother of two teenage sons I really appreciated the contribution that she made to our discussion in this country about our boys who are indeed gorgeous and she provided I guess some level of comfort to parents who might sometimes—not me of course but some parents—look at their teenage boys and wonder what on earth was going on in their minds. Celia certainly was a voice of wisdom that could help us all to deal with those sorts of circumstances.I do want though to spend a little time talking about the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3) which is what this debate is about. It is the second reading. It is a Government bill but it is supported by the Labour Party as indeed we do in the majority of circumstances when there is good reason to do so in this House. In supporting this bill though I will just say that our disappointment is that it has taken so long to reach the second reading. This bill has languished on the Order Paper for 4 years at a time when the Government has seen fit to bring all sorts of other measures forward that we did not think were as important—measures like giving Skycity concessions on gambling laws so that problem gambling would become more of an issue in our community. Those sorts of things seem to be rushed through with indecent haste and yet this bill—this simple bill that fixes loopholes that the Government has known about for more than 4 years—is having its second reading after languishing behind some of those other Draconian measures for 4 years.We do support the bill. It does make sensible changes to remove some loopholes in the Social Security Act. As the Minister said the bill will ensure that those receiving ACC payments from their employer are treated the same as those receiving ACC payments from ACC itself. The Labour Party certainly supports that form of equal treatment. In fact I think history will show that the idea that an employercould manage their own accident compensation system if they met certain criteria in terms of health and safety standards was in fact a Labour Party initiative.I think it is important just to remember the background to that because this was an incoming Labour Government that was again fixing up the shambles that a National Government had landed on this country when it completed privatised the ACC system and tried to do it overnight. That Government did it hugely unsuccessfully against the will of the people did not listen and with the arrogance that people have come to see is developing in this National Government. That outgoing National Government in its dying months decided to privatise the ACC system completely without the backing of the New Zealand public.My mother was working in the health system at the time. I remember her in her role as a clerical worker for a general practitioner at the time talking about the paperwork that had multiplied about 10 times because of the privatisation of ACC. One of the responses from the incoming Government—I thought you might like that story about my mother—was that we did see that there was an opportunity for some employers if they had a good track record with health and safety and if they could prove they could manage this well themselves to do so.At that time there was this loophole that has come about which this bill aims to fix up. These employers are normally in a partnership agreement. They are called accredited employers. Workers who are not necessarily going directly to ACC about their workplace accidents but are going through a third-party insurer that has been contracted by their employer will be the people who may have had access to this loophole and will not any longer. I say that they will not any longer but in fact we are up to only the second reading. Goodness knows what other pieces of urgent legislation this Government will find to put in front of this bill getting its third reading. I hope it does not languish for too much longer.The other loophole that this bill intends to close which the Government has known about for at least 4 years is a loophole that allows students to claim the Work and Income accommodation supplement instead of the student allowance in instances where the accommodation supplement is in fact more generous than their student allowance.But I have got to stand up for students a little bit in this debate because they have had a really tough time from this Government. They have had a terribly tough time from this Government. Their student allowance rates have barely increased while the price of rental accommodation has skyrocketed. We are all too familiar with what that has meant for students living in Canterbury and in Auckland where they have suffered the greatest rental increases. But even in student cities like Hamilton it has made student life much more of a struggle than it needs to be.Those student allowance rates are basically flatlining while the cost of rental accommodation goes through the roof. Students have seen their course fees increase by up to 5 percent every year over that same period and they have absorbed the GST increase when the National Government increased the rate to 15 percent. And still their student allowances have just flatlined. Student loans have been cut for part-time students. Student loan repayment rates have been increased by 20 percent. A new $40 annual student loan fee has been tacked on. And still the student allowance rates have flatlined.This loophole that has existed has probably been a bit of a godsend for some of these students quite frankly. I implore the Government as it closes up this loophole—which we support it closing up because it is not the way it was intended to be; it is what we call in this House an unintended consequence—to recognise and understand the plight of tertiary students. It is very real it is very pressing and it is holding our country back. It is holding the future of this country back—that brighter future that the Government once used to talk about. It used to be built into every single speech on the other side of the House but we do not hear it any longer. But I really hope now that I have raised it that perhaps the next speaker from the Government benches who gets up will actually outline what that brighter future is going to look like and how this bill is going to deliver it.The truth of this bill is that it is a useful small piece of legislation. It is not going to improve anyone’s life. In fact it will make some people’s lives a bit tougher. The Labour Party is supporting the bill because these are loopholes that were not intentional and we want to see equal treatment for people. We will support it on that basis. But look we are still pretty much at the beginning of the parliamentary year. Nothing here is actually going to deliver that brighter future that the Government once promised. I would like to see the Government coming forward with some more challenging and exciting bills that will actually deliver on that brighter future but I certainly do hope that it does not bring any more detrimental bills in the way of this bill that despite its simplicity despite how straightforward it is and despite the Government knowing about these loopholes for 4 years has taken 4 long years to get to just its second reading.