Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill – Committee Stage – Part 3 – Video 6

Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill – Committee Stage – Part 3 – Video 6

Articles, Blog , , 0 Comments


is attuned and sit down for assumption the next sitting day I call on government order of the day number two social Social Security legislation rewrite bill committee stage continued I decree the house and Committee for further consideration of the Social Security legislation rewrite fill mr. chairman Tina Tata body the House and Committee for further consideration of the Social Security legislation rewrite bill members when we last can when we were last considering this bill we were debating part three the Honorable Carmel super Ronnie had the call and she has one minute 42 seconds remaining I call Simon Curley not the minister but delighted on well this opportunity to speak to part three as I’ve noted before this as a sop of a rewrite of ten parts parts trees around obligations and I’d like to start around sub part one so as might be indicated in obligations this is setting out the social welfare framework of what’s expected not only of the Ministry of Social Development but most importantly those who are receiving assistance from the crown so I want to start in subpart one in the introduction and as those of you know as I go through committee like to be quite ordered so running ready to start around clause 91 and this is the failure to comply with the obligation under this part and really questioning why immoral rather than ethical phrase has been used here or perhaps suggesting to the minister if he chooses to answer that’s why we don’t introduce both so clause 91 and subpart 1 of part 3 says a person who’s subject to an obligation under this Pat and fails to comply with that obligation without good and sufficient reason is so on and so forth so I’m clearing the use of the word good and sufficient good as I say is a moral word good bad first something that’s ethical right and wrong so I think would be useful if the minister can clarify why we’re continuing to keep oh I hear the dulcet tones of the Minister of Justice speaking here it’s good to have good to be in the house with you Andrew without a flak jackets good and sufficient reason so it really is a question to the minister why well why are we choosing to say what is what is a good reason again that’s a moral distinction if something’s good or bad is that a judgment that the ministry is going to have to make with their their obligations we’re good or not or really is it a matter of something mythical are there reasons are there obligation something that should be right or something that should be wrong so look it’s a minor point in some ways but I’m a little bit of a parent when it comes to language and getting these things these things right moving in into subpart 2 ms DS obligations in clause 92 and it’s subparts there it says the MSD so the Ministry of Social Development must take reasonable and appropriate steps to make a person to whom an obligation under this path applies are weird the obligation aware of the consequences and so forth I just like some clarity from the minister around how available met is the minister in the chair will know exactly what this is and I’m sure his officials do so I’m not gonna put the minister in the chair on the spot by trying to explain what the acronym stands for but MEP is well known to those working within the Ministry of Social Development and I’m really keen to know how accessible map will be made to the general public I know it’s available online at the moment but it takes quite a bit of searching I found so if MSD is rightly to take reasonable approach steps to make a person aware of their obligations obviously that will be done verbally in letters and emails and so forth but there is in behind this thing called manuals and procedures or processes I might have to stand corrected on that as well but that’s effectively in particular members of the House lists all the aspects of available assistance through the Ministry of Social Development I think it’s all the rules so the question there in the subpart to clause 92 is should we be having something more clearly around MEP or maybe it’s just some assurance me if you don’t mind minister that map will be made more available and perhaps in time something that can be written more in plain English point of order going to order as minor thing the clock sorry just some indication of I do apologize there now I do apologize splendid it was running out yes I just get a bit emotional around time so that’s the second point is so the first is the around Clause 91 seconds around 92 about making map more available look on Clause 93 and I do assure the house I’m not going to go caused by clause 93 is around the steps to explain the overseas absence rules again there’s a request here that MST take reasonable and appropriate steps to explain to every person who has repairs to MST to be likely to affect well in effect been away from museum again it’s a minor a minor point minister but how is that to be done I suppose in the general scheme of things if someone comes under their case manager and says they’re heading off overseas you can think of super annuitants in particular an explanation can be made but I suppose I’m beginning to fear eyes in my head how does reasonable and appropriate look to that mr. chair Simon O’Connor Thank You mr. chair how’s it going to apply and to what extent so to try and illustrate it what are the elements or what are the trying to find the exact right words here but how do we appropriately judge what is reasonable in appropriate for MSD if someone’s on a benefit has chosen to go off Dino Indonesia or Germany Japan Britain to what extent does MSD have to try and track them down to make them aware of their obligations what are the mechanisms so clause 93 explains the intention which is quite right and appropriate I would suggest but exactly how that’s going to play out and I suppose I’m wanting to avoid at least one of two things here or perhaps two of two the first is that MSD going off sort of constantly chasing down New Zealanders and those overseas trying to reasonably explain the steps required or flipside that very little is going to be done because it’s all just put in the too hard basket so I think that would be useful to have that explained look the fourth element and it might be of note to the house I now join peen jumping a few causes ahead because I want to touch very quickly on Clause 97 which is around the beneficiary must hold and give em ESD details of a bank account again it might seem trivial and minor because most Kiwis have bank accounts and rightly if you’re wanting to access em s DS or particularly work an income support they need to better have a bank account we take the Minister might want to indulge me and let me know if we still use Swift and you CV – I’d be interested in that I know it’s not directly part of the bill god forbid if we are still using both but anyway the question is not every kiwi has a bank account and I know universalism is sort of de rigueur on the government side at the moment well unfortunately not every Kiwi has a bank account and as the various things like anti-memory laundering laws come through it rightly and properly but it does make life a little bit harder to set up a bank account how are we going to capture those beneficiaries those people we’re here to to serve and help how are we going to help them if they do not have a bank account are there other mechanisms at place because clause 97 to me looks well pretty pretty clear and pretty definitive they absolutely must have a bank account so really there’s two elements to that what happens if Minister they do not have a bank account and secondly if there’s sort of if they have an account with a non-bank entity we know there’s credit agencies and the like it probably fits but there are those institutions which are not formally banks so some clarity around those four things would be useful so the first one is again around clause 91 why the obligations deemed to be good and sufficient why are they framed within a moral rather than an ethical framework again why is that why does it effectively not say an obligation without you know right and sufficient reason so not immediately suggesting we remove the morale and replace with ethical but perhaps that’s both clause 92 discussing basically if MSD is to rightly make people aware of their obligations and therefore to follow them which is importantly follows I think that’s one of the challenges for the government and not necessarily for the minister and the chair but if we’re going to put obligations on people then it has to be consequences as well and I’ve heard some indications from the other ministers that you know will put these obligations down but we weren’t really on of them which makes it a bit odd but yet Clause 92 how easily and readily will people have access to map clause 93 that’s the whole question of being overseas to what reasonable levels and what steps MSD required to chase up people absent and then the the fourth one is around the whole bank account so that’s I suppose my first two contributions I do note that in this part I have two other SOPs one will actually to our table maintenance one around the United Nations conventions on the right of the child and the other around the New Zealand business number but I know that the house will be excited to hear a different voice so I’ll return to those later in the debate mr. chair Michael mooring commend to the the previous speaker your contribution is a lot

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *