Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Tourism) Link to this
I move, That the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill introduces amendments to the current data-matching processes for social assistance, to achieve three positive outcomes. Firstly, they will allow the Ministry of Social Development to prevent people from accumulating debt. This is a positive move, because repayment of debt is a considerable burden on people with low incomes. This Government recognises the negative impact that debt can have on people, and through this bill is taking a positive step towards reducing debt in one area—that of benefit overpayments. Too much debt inhibits the ability of people to enjoy life and it restricts their ability to participate in their communities. It can have negative impacts on the health and education of children, especially those living in overcrowded or substandard housing as a result of a family struggling to repay debts. We need to take what steps we can to lessen these impacts.
The bill introduces amendments that will allow the Ministry of Social Development to immediately suspend benefits, student allowances, and the living component of student loans when a data match indicates that a recipient is in prison. A person in prison does not qualify for these payments. The changes set out in this bill allow benefit payments to be stopped in a timely way. This change will help prevent overpayments, which in turn reduces debt.
At present, when there is a positive data match, the ministry has to write to the person and wait for 5 working days before taking any action to stop payment. This wait can result in a person being overpaid, and therefore the creation of a debt. The bill will allow for the suspension of benefits and allowances from the date the person enters prison, and written notice will be issued at the same time. Benefits are paid in arrears, so in most cases the suspension will not be immediate. There will still be time for the person to contact the ministry if an error has been made. In addition, where the person entering prison has a partner, the ministry will separately write to that partner to ensure that any appropriate support required by the family members not in prison can be provided. The result of the more timely suspension of benefits will be that the debts that prisoners face when they are released will be significantly reduced. Lower debt levels make it easier for rehabilitation to occur and also lessen the possibility of a person’s reoffending. Secondly, the amendments will allow more effective recovery of debt, where this has occurred.
The bill will allow more effective use of data matches already in place between the ministry and three other Government agencies—the Accident Compensation Corporation, the New Zealand Customs Service, and the Department of Corrections. The bill will allow for the information provided by these agencies to be matched against the records of people with a debt who are no longer receiving a benefit. Contact can then be made and recovery arrangements put in place, where appropriate. This enhanced use of information will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of existing processes that support debt recovery.
Last, but by no means least, the amendments will allow early detection of the misuse of the social security, student allowance, and student loan systems by broadening data-matching provisions. The bill provides for the information currently provided when a person enters prison to continue to be provided as long as the person remains in prison. This will allow an application for benefit, student loan, or student allowance from a person in prison to be detected quickly.
This change will not make it more difficult for prisoners to undertake studies to improve their prospects on release. Prisoners will continue to have the same access to assistance with study costs. It is the assistance for student living costs that will be restricted. The change simply puts in place systems to more clearly identify applications for student allowances and living costs from people whose living costs are being met from the corrections system. The combination of the amendments set out in this bill will help to ensure integrity and proper use of Crown moneys, and this will serve to increase confidence in the administration of the benefit system.
I appreciate that people are concerned about the possibility that an incorrect match could result in the suspension of a person’s benefit, in error. In taking a more proactive approach to the suspension of benefits, the Government has had to balance the individual’s right to take time to reply against the need to act quickly to prevent debt. Although I acknowledge concern about incorrect matches, the Ministry of Social Development has safeguards in place to ensure that if this happens, there is minimal impact on the person concerned. Up to a week before payment is scheduled to cease, affected people will receive a letter informing them that their benefit has been suspended. This will give them the opportunity to have their benefit reinstated before actually missing a payment. In addition, when the ministry is alerted that a payment has been wrongly stopped, the money will be put into the person’s bank account overnight.
The Social Services Committee has recommended that a new provision be inserted to make it clear that the ministry can still allow the 5 days to pass before taking any action, when this is appropriate. I appreciate the committee’s insight in this regard. Having this discretion is important. For example, it allows time for the ministry to clarify that the correct person has been identified when there is a partial or inconclusive match. The committee has also recommended a number of other minor changes to the bill. These changes are positive and reflect the committee’s expertise in this area.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the select committee members for their work, which has improved and clarified a relatively technical bill. The Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill will help reduce debt and help ensure that money goes to the people who need it and are entitled to receive it. The bill reflects this Government’s commitment to helping low-income people towards a better future, and represents the efficient and effective use of technology, time, and money. I commend this bill to the House.
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this
It is very nice to follow the Minister the Hon Damien O’Connor, who made a very worthy and workmanlike speech, with no flourish or excitement, as is appropriate. Frankly, the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill has been a long time coming. There have been 9 long years of a Labour Government, and in that time beneficiary debt—owed to Work and Income—has increased from about $320 million to $760 million now. That is three-quarters of a billion dollars owed by beneficiaries to Work and Income.
This little bill, which the National Party supports, could have helped to reduce that debt and to stop it getting into that situation. Not all of the debt is from people defrauding the system. Quite often it is because there has been an overpayment by Work and Income, or sometimes it is simply a matter of a beneficiary or a beneficiary’s family failing to report to Work and Income that the benefit is no longer required or that the person is no longer eligible for it.
Just a matter of 2 weeks’ owing on a benefit can be a huge amount for a beneficiary, because in most cases we are talking about people who have very, very little, and who effectively have to live week by week. To say to them “Well, it doesn’t matter, you can just pay it back.” or “We overpaid you.” is a pretty harsh call. Certainly, I have had beneficiaries in my electorate office in Papakura who have said just how hard it is—and I can well believe it.
Then, of course, the amount owing is reduced by payments of $10 a week, and this goes on and on. Effectively, people are getting further and further into poverty because when they had that extra cash they thought “Gosh, I can go and spend it.”
Unfortunately, we have had the Government and Government agencies contributing to the situation—in fact, encouraging many beneficiaries to get into debt by the very slack attitude that the Government and Government agencies have taken.
I have welcomed, in the select committee process, the Government actually acknowledging that beneficiary debt is a problem. I know that the issue has come about because National members and other people in this Parliament have made it an issue. We do not think it is fair for beneficiaries to owe three-quarters of a billion dollars—
Hon David Carter—and to be saddled with debt. These people have the least ability to repay it. They are saddled with that debt and suddenly find they cannot get out of it. And half of that money is actually owed by former beneficiaries, so it is not even being deducted each week. About half of it, in fact, is owed by former beneficiaries, so even once beneficiaries have gone back into work, they have found it impossible to be able to pay back that interest-free money provided by the taxpayer.
This is a terrible situation, and clearly this Government has done very, very little about it. It has obviously felt that it was a good thing to keep giving people interest-free loans from the taxpayer, with no particular need to repay them at any stage, other than by a $10-a-week payment. Of course, the Government does not really worry about what happens to these people. The Government does not really worry about it; it thinks it will all sort itself out and that people might as well go and get that money because it is free. Well, nothing is free. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and anybody who pays his or her taxes knows that.
All those many beneficiaries have been encouraged into debt by a Government that cares more about securing votes than it does about securing the benefit and well-being of beneficiaries and their families, about helping them into homeownership, and about helping them to get into the sort of work environment where they can get ahead. Half of that $760 million is still owed by former beneficiaries; people who are in work. It is owed right now to Work and Income.
Frankly, this is a bill that we have been pleased to see finally come through. It is a matter of a few pages. National has supported it all the way through. We have helped to alleviate some of the difficulties that could have occurred. We have made comments about the minimisation of hardship to families. We have made comments, and supported comments made in the select committee, regarding how families who find that a family member has been put in prison can in fact know about it, can understand, and can access the right benefit so they themselves do not end up getting further and further into debt.
We have a Government agency, Work and Income, within the Ministry of Social Development, that is huge. It is huge; it has 9,000 employees and it spends $18 billion of taxpayer money a year. It is an agency that is much better able to look after its own money, to stop overpaying people when they should not be paid, which gets people into debt, and to stop doing the awful thing of telling them about 6 months later they have to repay their debts after they have already spent the money. That is a very cruel thing to happen.
So in essence and in conclusion, National is pleased to support the bill. It has been an awfully long time coming, when all the Government had to do was give us a call on the phone and we would have helped it out straight away—which of course we did as soon as we knew of it.
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) Link to this
It is my pleasure as chair of the Social Services Committee to follow the deputy chair, Judith Collins, and her latest version, the 2008 version, of beneficiary bashing. That speaker’s coded speech was “We’re out to get beneficiaries; we’re going to take the benefit system back to 1992 when benefits were slashed.” They were slashed to save Government spending, and slashed so that the then Government’s rich mates could avoid paying more tax.
That was the coded message from the last speaker. She was trying to dance on the head of a pin, in order to avoid saying “We want to hit beneficiaries whenever we can.” This is a great example. If this bill is misused it will be another attack on beneficiaries. Well, this bill will not be misused, because it will be administered by Government departments led by Ministers who have hearts committed to social justice.
The people of New Zealand need to realise that if they have a change of Government in some future time, they will give away social justice for the extraction of a few dollars of tax benefit. That is what that last speaker was warbling on about in her tremulous voice, as she avoided the issue at hand.
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER Link to this
I was trying to say “lightweight” nicely. This bill is really about one piece of legislation called the Social Security Act 1964, and that Act feeds through this bill into three other pieces of legislation: the Corrections Act 2004, the Customs and Excise Act 1996, and the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001. Each of those three Acts relates to the Social Security Act 1964, in that they all give away a degree of privacy that is owned by the beneficiary. The Social Security Act enables data matching to take place with the greater resources of knowledge of the Ministry of Social Development about the status of an individual, to make sure that when an individual’s status changes, either by going into prison or by leaving the country and going overseas—which is where the Customs and Excise Act comes into it—there is no continued payment of a benefit when the eligibility to receive the benefit stops.
The Social Security Act is not really a beneficent Act to try to stop people from getting into debt, nor is it a punitive Act trying to penalise beneficiaries; it is a morally neutral Act that is a movement towards greater efficiency. I note that when my very good friend, the last speaker, Judith Collins, spoke at the first reading of this bill, she adopted an oxymoron as an argument, which she did not dare repeat tonight. But on that occasion, which she touched on tonight, she said that this bill had been 8 long years coming and that it had involved many hundreds of millions of dollars of computer systems to get here. Of course, she admits that we could not have data matching until this Government brought up to date the computerised infrastructure of Government departments so that they could work well.
This Government, in 1999, inherited a hotchpotch of computer systems, with no investment in infrastructure, and we could not match data. It has taken 8 years for this Government to be in a position where it can even operate efficiently, and the people of New Zealand will ignore that to their ultimate regret.
It is a simple fact that a boat cannot be turned around in a few seconds. To turn the ship of State around to a state of efficiency has taken 8 short years. We as a Labour Government can now start delivering the benefits of social policy and social conscience—the social contract we have with the voters of New Zealand.
This legislation is a prime example of that. People talk about it being a short piece of legislation. I tell Mr Finlayson not to confuse size with quality.
Christopher FinlaysonRUSSELL FAIRBROTHER Link to this
I wanted to wake up the member; that was all. This legislation tidies up the whole benefit system. I do not really place much emphasis on the argument that it benefits beneficiaries and stops them getting into debt. It also benefits the State because it stops overpayment of benefits. The legislation is simply neutral legislation that ties in the status of beneficiaries with the needs of the State to make sure that when benefits are paid, they go to those who qualify, and when people stop qualifying, the benefits stop.
However, the select committee was concerned about the erosion of privacy in the three pieces of legislation—the Corrections Act, administered by the prison service; the Customs and Excise Act, administered by the Customs Service; and the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act, administered by the Accident Compensation Corporation—and that the concession of privacy contained by the amendment of this bill was covered by data matching and the 5-day notification period, which were touched upon by the Minister in his second reading speech. So that allows an opportunity for a beneficiary to be aware of what is going on and to make any necessary corrections, should, for some reason, the data matching be based on some wrong premise.
But the Social Services Committee uttered in its report a word of warning—and I think that it is worth repeating for the record—that when individuals are sentenced to imprisonment, people often think that that is a matter of glee for everybody, but the passing of a sentence of imprisonment is one of the most sombre acts a judge has to undertake in a court. Many fine judges have said that the passing of a sentence is often, and usually, much more onerous than any trial process, particularly if imprisonment is involved. The passing of a sentence of imprisonment is traumatic for all in the court, and no more so than for prisoners and their families.
The select committee report recommends that Work and Income representatives be in court whenever possible so that they can speak to families concerned and explain the process that happens from the time of the passing of a sentence. It is at that time when families are at their most vulnerable, when their minds and emotions are running with a confusion of feelings, and when there are conflicting emotions—concern often for the victims of crime and for themselves, and despair for their loved one and their supportive one. That is the time when someone from Work and Income can sit down and with a cool head say “Well, your benefit change occurs now, and let’s talk about how we can help you through the transition period.”
The recommendation of the committee was that Work and Income become proactive, as proactive as the computer system will be, to make sure that at these times of transition, when people go to prison or leave to go overseas, which is a different situation entirely, the benefit stops appropriately and that the indebtedness that may occur does not occur.
The concern of the committee was really to minimise hardship to beneficiaries. The majority on the committee did not set out to engage in any form of benefit-bashing enterprise. We accept that the payment of benefits is an act by the State. It is not based on charity but is the right of individuals to support from the State. There is a degree of trust involved. Most individuals who receive benefits—in fact, the vast majority—adhere to that trust very, very well. There are a very, very small few who bring the majority into discredit. That very small number of individuals who approach their receipt of a benefit with a degree of distrust is exaggerated by Opposition members, who use those individuals as a punching bag to demonstrate that beneficiaries should be penalised by cuts and more stringent measures.
For anybody to say that this legislation is an attack upon beneficiaries, as was referred to by Dr Pita Sharples—a man whom I respect considerably—in his first reading speech, is to misunderstand the purpose of this bill we are addressing today in its second reading. It is a morally neutral bill. It is now possible because after 8 years of trying to bring the infrastructure of this country to a state where we can be proactive and start to achieve real policy, this bill reflects the ability of the various Government departments to work cooperatively for the benefit of those who receive benefits, and the taxpayers as well.
This is very tidy legislation. It does have a human element to it, but essentially it is technical legislation that reflects the very efficient computer systems that are now established in our Government departments. There is a nice data-matching process that can proceed by the slight release of confidentiality that beneficiaries have under the three Acts I have already referred to.
I commend this legislation to the House. I thank the Social Services Committee for its attention to the detail involved in this legislation, and particularly for the humane approach that all members on the committee took to this issue and for their very full consideration of the privacy issues that are involved. One should never underestimate their importance.
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) Link to this
I am grateful for the opportunity to support the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill on behalf of National. Of course, we are supporting it because this is one of the first times we have seen this Labour Government make some gesture towards being serious about the mounting debts we have in the system.
It was quite extraordinary to hear Mr Fairbrother claim that the Labour Government is operating efficiently. Clearly, he is in total denial. In respect of the raw data, I tell member that when Labour came into office, beneficiary debt owed by beneficiaries to the then Department of Social Welfare was in the order of $320 million, and it has more than doubled in these 7 to 8 short years that Mr Fairbrother was talking about. That is disgraceful. That shows no signal whatsoever that the Labour Government is operating efficiently.
We have just been hearing Mr Fairbrother wax lyrical about the computer systems that this Government—[Interruption] That is none other than the chair of the select committee; I refer him to Project Socrates in the disability sector, or perhaps the system of Tribal Education Ltd in the Ministry of Education. I ask any of the users of those computer systems whether they are working efficiently. They will tell us that the systems are an abysmal failure, and that users are very doubtful about whether the Labour Government is investing wisely. Certainly, it is not implementing efficiently.
I was also interested to hear Russell Fairbrother say that this was a morally neutral bill. We heard the views of the Privacy Commissioner, who said that her office does not oppose the proposal to override section 103 of the Privacy Act, but it does note that this section provides a basic protection of the principle of natural justice when Government agencies operate automated information-matching systems. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner was deeply concerned about the balance there. But there is no doubt that the bill itself does make efforts to minimise hardship when incorrect data-matching occurs.
I will end by saying that the real emphasis is that at long last the Labour Government, in its dying days, is bringing in a bill to minimise debt and bring about debt prevention. This is long overdue. It is an absolutely classic example of just how hopeless this Labour Government has been in terms of looking after taxpayers’ money, and, of course, in looking after beneficiaries. During this time the Government has allowed beneficiaries, who are vulnerable enough as it is, to get into a huge amount of debt—$760 million worth. As I understand it, Peter Hughes mentioned a few years ago that 49 percent of beneficiaries were in debt to Work and Income, but now the figure is 70 percent. So when Russell Fairbrother has the gall to suggest that this Government is operating efficiently, he is in total denial.
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) Link to this
On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the second reading of the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill. We are very pleased to be supporting this bill. It is one that we would have thought was already in place, but because it is not we are very pleased to see it occurring at long last. I think that this bill particularly reflects the efficiency of the computer systems that are available today. We know that technology is advancing quite rapidly in all areas, and it is good to see this bill in place and this data matching occurring.
I note that the bill amends the legislation between the Ministry of Social Development, the Department of Corrections, the New Zealand Customs Service, and the Accident Compensation Corporation. As the commentary on the bill states, more sharing between these organisations is expected to prevent the recipients of student allowances, student loans, and those on benefits from accumulating debt. This legislation should do that. I think most people in New Zealand would have been quite horrified to hear that 70 percent of beneficiaries are in debt today.
The bill also introduces measures to help recover the debt that beneficiaries owe to the Crown, and that is really important. Any changes that can be used to prevent overpayments in order to reduce debts need to be implemented. If technology can assist, then we need to grab it with both hands and use it to its fullest extent. New Zealand First supports the notion that every person should receive his or her full and correct entitlements from the State, and would support assistance with the recovery of Crown debts. We know that debts can become rapidly unmanageable, and the fact that one is on a limited income means that debt can mount very quickly. It can take a long time to pay back any debts that are owing, and, of course, there is a lot of stress associated with debt. It is an unfortunate fact that pawn shops, second-hand dealers, and unscrupulous money dealers are often the very first places that beneficiaries go to when they need money to repay debts, and this can create far greater challenges than the ones they had initially. The deals that seem too good to be true—and we see them advertised on television and in many of the community newspapers—are often far too good to be true. The short-term problems disappear, but further down the track the problems are often magnified beyond our comprehension, and, of course, this can be very stressful for those who are involved.
We in this House all know that it can be extremely difficult to manage on a benefit and, with the rises in the cost of living, to have to repay a debt of $10 to $15 a week is an added stress. To ensure that the debt is not incurred in the first place is absolutely imperative. We all know that being over-indebted has a negative effect on people’s health and well-being, and that it can also reduce the financial advantages of returning to work. As we know, and as everyone knows, levels of repayment are often reduced while a person remains on a benefit, so we have a whole group of people who may be staying in poverty unnecessarily.
We were also pleased to see that changes focused on minimising hardship were included in this bill. They are important. We feel very sorry for beneficiaries who get into this downward spiral of debt unintentionally and unnecessarily, so we in New Zealand First support this legislation. Any measure that stops this type of hardship is very worthy of our support.
KATRINA SHANKS (National) Link to this
I stand tonight to speak to the second reading of the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill. This bill addresses the detection and recovery of debts and the misuse of social security payments, student allowances, and the student loan system, and it seeks to improve and broaden data-matching provisions.
This bill is really simple. It affects anybody who has broken the law and goes to prison. When those people who go into prison are receiving a student loan, a student allowance, or some type of benefit, be it a sickness benefit or an unemployment benefit, they are not entitled to that benefit while they are in prison. It is as simple as that. Currently what happens is that prisoners can say voluntarily that they are receiving a benefit, they will be matched off, and the benefit will stop. But, obviously, there is a flaw in the system currently, which is that it is voluntary. Not many of the prisoners who are on a benefit go through and volunteer this information. There is a delay in the time matched to the benefit they receive, which then means that an overpayment has been made. When those people come out of prison there is an overpayment, a debt, that is then owed by them to the Ministry of Social Development and Work and Income.
This is not a new issue; it has been around for a very, very long time, and only in 2008 is it now being addressed. Basically, it is very simple legislation that matches data. It allows databases to be matched between the Ministry of Social Development, the Department of Corrections, the Customs Service, and the Accident Compensation Corporation. It matches the prisoner to the database so that the agency stops the payment from being made. It is as simple as that.
I am taking just a short call tonight to say that National supports this bill. We think that it is a step in the right direction, and it is just a shame that this bill has come so late.
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this
Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker; kia ora tātou e te Whare. We can tell it is election year, because everybody is jumping on the law and order bandwagon, condemning the rise in crime and attacking the criminal justice system. We have been witness to a number of highly charged political reactions to the homicides so far in 2008, including a whole tool box of answers ranging from boot camps, to lowering the age of criminal responsibility, to keeping kids in school until they are 18, to locking up the parents. New Zealand’s youngest killer has once again been pushed into the media spotlight because of his impending parole in September, after 7 years’ incarceration in various youth institutions. The victim’s mother has spoken out, and Victim Support says that the key focus for election year must be on strengthening the rights of victims in the criminal justice system. It would appear that everyone is targeting criminal justice as an issue to grab headlines and votes.
So it is that we come to the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill, which is using prisoners to trial a range of increased surveillance and monitoring strategies. Why is it using prisoners? Well, because they are a captive audience, and because most people do not like them, anyway. Yet the truth is that the overall crime rate is actually dropping. Last year there were 102 recorded offences for every 1,000 people, compared with 128 in 1997. But if we listened to all the doomsayers, then we would think that Aotearoa was the most crime-infested den of dishonesty in the Western World. Mind you, the fraud statistics are nothing to shout about, though. In 2005 nearly 20,000 cases of fraud were brought before the courts. There were 12,000 cases of white-collar fraud and only 8,000 cases of benefit fraud, but to nobody’s surprise this bill targets benefit fraud, because beneficiaries are easier to dump on and because within that group prisoners are quite literally a captive audience.
The purpose of this bill is to stop payouts to beneficiaries who go to jail, by hooking them into the Big Brother computer system—that is, matching information between the Department of Corrections, the Customs Service, the Accident Compensation Corporation, and the Ministry of Social Development and suspending any benefits, allowances, and student loans immediately if a data match is identified. Although that all sounds OK, we are talking about people here: brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, aunties, uncles, and whānau members who are, in many cases, the sole breadwinner of the family. Whole families are being dumped on by snooping bills like this one. The Ministry of Social Development confirms cases where the families of prisoners are hugely affected by shock interruptions to benefit payments, and it says that the fault lies with the families for not contacting it immediately. It blames the poor, dumb victims again, which is typical behaviour from a Government that does not care about the poor. It is not as though Work and Income never causes hardship itself. The only difference in that situation is, of course, that when we complain about Work and Income we are trespassed off the premises, it ignores our complaints, and we never get our money back, anyway.
A study released earlier this year, Improving Work-Life Balance for Domestic Purposes Beneficiary Sole Parent Families, included a number of comments that confirm what we hear from people about the hassles they get at Work and Income. It quotes people like Amelia, who said: “The way I have been treated at Work and Income is just shocking. They look down on you”; Beatrice, who said: “It’s just the way they treat the person. They look down on you as … like a bludger. It makes you feel uncomfortable”; and Marie, who said: “I actually feel sick in my stomach every time I have to walk in their door. Some of them make you feel unworthy”. Even the principal of our local kura kaupapa Māori, who went to Work and Income looking for an employee, felt so chastised and ignored by the process that she decided never ever to go back to Work and Income again to look for somebody to work at our kura.
This is a Government department we are talking about here; an agency of the Crown that is supposed to provide fair and just treatment to the beneficiaries who come through its doors. But it is not doing that. We have a right to expect far better service than that shown by the experiences that I have related to the House tonight.
Another issue identified by the Social Services Committee itself is that income support may be improperly suspended as a result of data matching, without the families being notified, because of a policy that the notification of benefit suspension will now happen after the suspension has been acted on, not before, as happens at the moment. That problem is already happening, and it will simply become worse under this legislation. We express our concern for upholding the human rights of all citizens of this great land, including those in jail. We do not support the notion of targeting prisoners through increased surveillance simply because they are prisoners. Being locked up is the punishment. Punishing prisoners a second time by depriving them of their human rights is unacceptable in an open society. We are also concerned about prisoners being deprived of the opportunity to study, given that student loans and student allowances are included in this bill as well as other forms of assistance.
We accept that information sharing can reduce bureaucracy and may help people to be not saddled with debt while they are in jail, but we believe inmates and their families should not be left in a worse position simply because of poor communication. We support the call of the select committee that all efforts should be made to ensure that the potential hardship for other family members is minimised and that families are not saddled with debt when the imprisoned family member gets out of jail. The Māori Party will support this bill, but we point out again the invasive nature of data matching and the focus on the poor, when in actual fact the most significant fraud continues outside the prison walls. Kia ora.
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) Link to this
I am very happy to speak today in support of the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill. This is a very sensible and common-sense bill. It is intended to—
The member knows what the bill provides, and if he sits quietly and listens, I will tell him about it. The bill works very hard to enable prisoners to not incur debts while in prison through some mistake in payments, whether it is to do with benefits, loans, or allowances. I think that is a very sensible thing. I heard Russell Fairbrother say before that when people are in prison it puts stress and anxiety on their families. Indeed, to have debt mounting—and debt mounting through mistake—is not a good thing, and it would certainly add to the stress of those families. So I think there are some very good, common-sense moves in this bill.
I think it is very important to note that this bill will not change the rules for prisoners wanting to take up study whilst in prison. It will not make it difficult for prisoners to undertake study to improve their prospects on release. That is a very important thing. Prisoners will continue—
The member asks why it is important. That is the sort of question I would expect from Chris Finlayson. Someone who works in the law profession asked why it is important that prisoners have the opportunity to study in prison. Well, I will tell him. It is important because it gives prisoners options and opportunities when they leave prison. Under this bill prisoners will continue to have the same access to assistance with study course costs as if they were out of prison; it is assistance for student living costs that will be restricted. That means that for prisoners the right to assistance with course costs is not taken away. The change simply puts in place systems to identify clearly applications for student allowances and living costs, because for prisoners living costs will be met at that time through the corrections system.
The other thing, which I do not know whether other speakers have mentioned, is the very constructive suggestion from the Social Services Committee about having Work and Income representatives at court. Madam Assistant Speaker, I think I saw you nodding rather wisely there. I think this is the first time I have spoken in this House since you have been in the Chair—
Phil Heatley—and it is a real privilege. No, it is not since my maiden speech, as that member well knows. I think the select committee commented that it was very concerned that some circumstances might prevent beneficiaries who are entering prison from receiving notification that their benefits were to be cut as a result of a data match. The suggestion was that Work and Income consider placing representatives at major courts to adjust the benefits immediately when a recipient is imprisoned. This would serve to prevent any stress whatsoever to family members and, obviously, it would be the system working in a very logical way.
This bill is very important. In amending the legislation it allows a better sharing of information between the Ministry of Social Development, the Department of Corrections, the New Zealand Customs Service, and the Accident Compensation Corporation. We know that this better sharing of information will prevent recipients of allowances, loans, and benefits from accumulating debt. As I said before, that is a very sensible, common-sense move. I think that the support for this bill certainly reflects that. I am very happy to stand in this House and commend this bill. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.