Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill

SUE BRADFORD (Green) Link to this

I move, That the Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. There are many problems with our current system of administering social welfare. The framework that governs the activities of Work and Income goes back to the Social Security Act 1964, an outdated law that has been amended so many times it has become a ramshackle mosaic of flawed, piecemeal legislation. The Act is, I suspect, a nightmare for the staff to administer, and I know for sure that it is just as bad for the caseworkers and advocates who try to help ordinary beneficiaries and superannuitants navigate their way through the system. I am also aware of how much worse it is for those claimants who do not have anyone to represent them in their dealings with a department that controls their access to their very means of survival.

I am conscious of the irony of bagging the fragmented Social Security Act at the same time as I am putting forward a member’s bill proposing yet another amendment. Before going any further I will make the point that the Green Party believes that what should really be happening is not more reform of bits and pieces of this law, but the creation of a whole new Social Security Act based on principles of simplicity, sufficiency, and universality. However, I doubt that that is on the National Government’s agenda, much as I wish it might be. In the meanwhile, I feel it is really important to propose this member’s bill in a bid to improve at least one piece of the system.

The fundamental purpose of the bill in front of us tonight is to change the way in which the review of benefit and superannuation decisions is carried out. For many years there have been concerns from advocates and beneficiaries that the current system is flawed at its core. The benefits review committees to which claimants appeal decisions are made up of one member appointed by the Minister for Social Development and Employment and two members who are staff of the Ministry of Social Development. Although the so-called community representative appointed by the Minister might theoretically be seen as being more neutral—and, in some cases, will be—that person, even with the best will in the world, will always be outnumbered by the departmental members on the committee.

There is a widespread perception that the benefits review committee structure is one of bias in favour of the department. That perception has been reinforced by the fairly recent Arbuthnot Supreme Court judgment, which reversed the previous understanding that benefits review committees carry out a quasi-judicial function, and instead ruled that benefits review committees have a purely administrative role. I believe firmly that the only way out of this situation is to change the law, so that the benefit review and appeal function is not carried out by the benefits review committees as currently constituted, but by a fully independent body that is separate from the Ministry of Social Development.

There are other problems too. At the moment the Social Security Appeal Authority is the only body to which people can appeal if a benefits review committee decision is made against them. Beneficiaries and superannuitants often have to wait for months and months before the appeal process works its way through. Meanwhile, they may have nothing to live on or may have less than what they need and are entitled to. There are also complaints about the length of time it takes in some cases just to get a benefits review committee hearing. For example, the community law centre in Christchurch says that in Canterbury it is not unusual for applicants to wait between 6 months and a year to have a hearing scheduled, and in one case it dealt with recently, the hearing was set 4 years after the review application was submitted.

The quality of decisions made by benefits review committees has also been widely criticised at times, not only by advocacy groups but also on occasion by the Social Security Appeal Authority. Decisions are made without adequate reasons for them being stated. The committees also often rely on current Ministry of Social Development policy, rather than complying, as they should, with the statutory requirements of the Social Security Act. The quality of information provided to applicants is also dubious. For example, applicants are not always notified that they have a right to appeal benefits review committee decisions to the Social Security Appeal Authority, or they are not told of decisions in a clear or timely way.

Medical appeal boards are another big problem. The boards hear appeals from applicants for the child disability allowance, the invalids benefit, the sickness benefit, and the veterans pension against decisions made on medical grounds. Those boards have been criticised a lot for their failure to run procedures that comply with the basic principles of natural justice. This failing is compounded by the fact that there is no right of appeal at all under the Social Security Act against medical appeal board decisions.

A further failing of the system as it currently operates is that there is no provision for costs to be awarded in favour of successful review applicants. This means that highly skilled and experienced beneficiary advocates often work for little or no payment. Some beneficiaries, who are the last people to be able to afford lawyers, nevertheless end up indebted to them, as there is nowhere else for them to go for help. In many cases, beneficiaries wind up inadequately representing themselves at review and appeal hearings.

In short, this system is unfair, it is biased in favour of those who hold all the power over beneficiaries and superannuitants’ lives, and it is a costly administrative shambles. Therefore, this bill proposes to do four key things. First, it replaces the existing benefits review committee structure with genuinely independent reviewers, who would make decisions based on the principles of natural justice. In terms of implementation, a possible model for this is the Dispute Resolution Services review and appeal system currently used by claimants under the accident compensation scheme.

Secondly, the bill abolishes the medical appeal boards that currently hear reviews in the areas I mentioned earlier: the medical aspects of the child disability allowance, the invalids benefit, the sickness benefit, and the veterans pension. These reviews would devolve to the new independent reviewers, who would have the ability to obtain expert medical advice as necessary.

Thirdly, the bill requires the new benefit review body to award the actual costs incurred in the reviews that are decided in the applicants’ favour. It would have a discretion to award some costs in other situations as well where the claimant has a good reason for appealing a decision.

Fourthly, the bill requires a statutory requirement that the Ministry of Social Development formally notify its decisions to beneficiaries and benefit applicants in writing, and that it must also give written notice of all their rights. It also seeks to ensure that review decisions are made and notified within a strict time frame.

The key thing in all of this is that the review body must be genuinely independent of the Ministry of Social Development. I will bring a couple of beneficiary voices into the debate. The first voice comes from a gentleman who recently made a submission to the Social Services Committee on the social assistance bill dealing with aspects of superannuation and the veterans pension. Among other things, he stated: “Benefit review committees are loaded against us, even the third person”—that is, the community representative—“is usually someone previously employed by the department. I’ve never met a single sympathetic ‘community’ person—they all manipulate the benefits review process to suit themselves. There should be a review system that is truly independent.”

A second quote comes from another fellow who wrote to me recently, saying that he had been battling Work and Income for years on behalf of his disabled wife. He stated: “Current legislation in regard to Benefit Review committees permits Work and Income employees to have complete control in determining decisions. In most cases the decisions … are a farce, a disgrace to the ideal of justice and fair play. For an applicant (often naive and inexperienced) to be forced to have a review heard by Work and Income staff plus a biased community representative—also chosen by Work and Income—is just a sick joke.”

The community law centre in Canterbury stated: “The single biggest impediment to beneficiaries accessing justice is the legislation governing benefit reviews and appeals.” The law centre goes on to say that it is already proactively working towards law reform in this area. It has a research project under way at present in association with the University of Canterbury examining access to justice under the current system.

I know that there are many other law centres, beneficiary advocacy groups, superannuitants’ organisations, community groups, and individuals who are just as frustrated by the lack of a fair and timely review and appeal process within Work and Income. It is high time that the law was changed.

In advance I thank Labour and any other parties tonight that have decided to support this bill’s first reading. It would be great to get it to a select committee, where we could hear the evidence from the public about what is really going on and about how the bill could be improved, which I am sure it could be. If by any chance the bill does not succeed tonight, I sincerely hope that the Government will take on board the serious nature of the issues I have raised and will take on the task of urgent reform itself.

Changing the review and appeal processes at Work and Income should not be an ideological issue. In fact, I hope that my proposal might appeal to National, because I am suggesting a way of cutting down on bureaucracy and possibly privatising the system—for example, through using Dispute Resolution Services.

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this

I stand and commend the member Sue Bradford for the advocacy role she has played over a number of years for beneficiaries and for those people who are vulnerable.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) Link to this

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak in support of the Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill going to a select committee at the conclusion of the speeches tonight. I add my congratulations to those given already by previous speakers to Sue Bradford. In my view, this issue is overdue for consideration. It was certainly looked at quite rigorously during Labour’s time in Government, including looking at the different forms of reviews that operate in the various Government departments, whether in housing, the Police Complaints Authority, or the accident compensation scheme. So it is an issue that, in my view, has been ready for consideration for some time.

The speech made by the Minister for Social Development and Employment has confirmed that the recession can be now used officially as an excuse for just about anything, including the inability to support a bill in this Parliament going to a select committee for consideration. The Minister said that she could not support it, because we are in recession. We have pretty well heard it all now. That is the weakest excuse for backing off a debate, for being scared to listen to concerns, and for not being able to front up to real alternatives that I have ever heard.

In my view, part of the entitlement within our social security system should be the timeliness and the fairness of any review and appeal process. In theory, that has always been the case, and, in my view, a number of our benefits review committees work very well; they certainly try their best. But it is beyond doubt that the perception is that they are not fair, that the majority of the committee are Work and Income staff members, that they have a community person who relies almost entirely on Work and Income for consideration of the facts, and that reviews are certainly not performed in a timely fashion in many parts of the country. If the Minister was genuine in saying that people are entitled to their full, correct financial entitlement, then she should also consider that part of that entitlement under the Social Security Act should be the review and appeal procedure.

For many people the perception becomes the reality. The theory is that those review committees are independent, they are neutral, they listen to every case on its merits, and they do not make a decision that is biased towards the ministry. The perception is impossible to relate to that theory, because of the make-up of the review panels. So for both the benefits review committees and the medical appeal boards, which this bill deals with, I am strongly supportive of the theory finally moving to the perception, and a new regime being established. I am not sure that this is the right regime, but it may well be. It could certainly give us the framework for a decent debate to hear from some of the people whom Sue Bradford referred to in her introductory comments: people who deal with beneficiaries, superannuitants, and family members of beneficiaries and superannuitants, and people who are frustrated by the system and believe that they could provide a better way forward.

I urge the House to give consideration to one other thing in relation to the model that Sue Bradford seems to have adopted in her bill, and that is the Dispute Resolution Services model from the accident compensation scheme. I do not believe that that system is perfect, either. It often feels weighted against a person who does not have the ability, for whatever reason, to hire a lawyer, or who may not think it is necessary to do so and is then up against a department that has a lot of resources behind it. That is one of the considerations we need to make. The other is whether we need a lower-level process for resolution, such as the one the accident compensation scheme has adopted. In my view, the earlier and lower level the intervention engagement between the Government system and the individual, the more likely we are to get a successful, sustainable, and fair outcome for everyone.

KATRINA SHANKS (National) Link to this

It is my pleasure to stand and speak to the Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Bill tonight. First of all, I would like to acknowledge Sue Bradford, who has put this member’s bill forward. I have worked on the Social Services Committee with Sue for the last 2½ years, and I can tell the House that she is extremely passionate about beneficiaries and about the most vulnerable people in our society. I admire her for being their greatest advocate and for always having them at the forefront of everything she does at our select committee, to ensure that we produce the best legislation that we can for them. I admire what Sue Bradford does, and I think she is leading the way for many members in the House by doing what she believes is absolutely right and standing by it. So I wanted to acknowledge her first.

This will be a quick call. I will touch on what the bill proposes to do, what the current law is, and why we think it could be improved. The bill proposes changes that are focused on the review and appeal rights of benefit recipients, as set out in the Social Security Act 1964. The bill intends to provide a benefit review system that is independent of the Ministry of Social Development and converts the current review process into an independently contracted quasi-judicial review.

That is really important, and I did not realise there was a big issue around the benefits review committee. I personally had not heard about that, but I am a relatively new member of Parliament so I have not been exposed to as much as Sue has in terms of beneficiaries. There is a process that people go through, and I realise that there is one community person on that committee. But I was not aware that, in many instances, those people have been former Ministry of Social Development staff and have, in effect, the inside-running on how the system works. That is why this debate is so great—we hear a lot of new viewpoints. That is what we are here to do; to hear viewpoints on members’ bills that deal with concerns out there in the community.

The bill seeks to change the way the benefit reviews are conducted and to award costs to both successful and unsuccessful applicants. I can understand that. I understand that it can be intimidating for people to go before a benefits review committee. It is expensive to go through that process, to be represented at the committee, and to seek advice before the committee. This bill is about beneficiaries, and beneficiaries do not have a lot of money. Many of them do not have the skills to go before those committees themselves. We should be trying to get the committee right to begin with, to ensure it is delivering what it should be delivering to beneficiaries in the review process. I am sure these committees do try to get it right, and maybe it is something we should look at anyway, outside of this bill, to make sure that the committees are working.

At this time we are trying to keep down the cost of everything that is happening, including the cost of the awards that can be given, because the process is meant to be a low-cost process. The other constraint on this is the fiscal constraint around independent contracting. The proposal would require the ministry to engage reviewers on contract, which would incur substantial administration costs well in excess of costs currently paid for community members of benefits review committees.

The bill proposes that the ministry would be responsible for meeting all the costs incurred by a reviewer in conducting a review. One full-year cost for benefit review committee adjudicators—if the reviews are to be heard by an independent contractor—is estimated to be around $4.45 million. So we are talking about a significant amount of money. I understand that about 5 million letters are sent out every year in relation to appeal rights, and only a small proportion of these come back to the review committees. That indicates to me that most of the time we do get it right.

I think that the Work and Income people are committed to ensuring that beneficiaries do get the correct amount of benefit. Obviously, it is not always right. We do have a process in place, and maybe that is something we can look at separately. I congratulate the member on bringing this bill to the House and letting us have this debate. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) Link to this

I join my colleagues in the Labour team in supporting this bill and I acknowledge the work of the Green Party member Sue Bradford in introducing the Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Bill. This bill reflects the desire by the Labour Party, in support of the Greens, to support working-class families as many of them struggle as they experience what members opposite term as the sharp edges of the economic recession. On average an additional 1,100 people a week are signing up to the dole. It is a reflection of the fact that families throughout New Zealand are hurting. As more and more people sign up to the dole—some of whom are doing so for the first time, after working 15 or 30 years in the same job—they find that they would like to appeal some decisions that they do not agree with.

When the Government introduced its Budget on 28 May, New Zealanders in general gravitated to the TV in anticipation of some kind of support for those New Zealanders who were feeling hardship as a result of the economic recession. There was high expectation that the Budget would be about job creation, industry support, investment in research and innovation, and investment in skills development. It should have been a Budget that would enable people to meet their normal daily expenses of food, rent, mortgages, petrol, medical needs, and the needs of schoolchildren. Unfortunately that was not the case. That is not what the Budget produced. In fact, it resulted in families feeling the recession as they have never before.

In my own constituency of Māngere there are many more examples today of families where sometimes for the very first time in their working life people have lost their jobs. Under Labour these people would have had meaningful jobs and earned good incomes. People had a strong sense of confidence then. They had little worry and could sleep well at night. Many of them were able to manage their financial affairs with both mum and dad working. There was food aplenty for the young children. In the past 3 months my electorate office in Māngere has had more and more dealings with people who have lost jobs. In the first week of July I was advised that one local company had had to lay off about 20, mainly Pacific, workers. They all lost their job, with only 1 week’s notice. They were not members of any union and there was no redundancy agreement. These people had been working for this particular company for many, many years—some for about 4 years but others for about 25 years. The company could not keep these workers. These men wanted to work. They were scared for their families. These were grown men, some of whom cried. They were desperate because they no longer had an income but their bills still needed to be paid. The household bills did not stop.

I have had people from families come to me and say that while they were both working they could manage their financial affairs, but now that one spouse has lost his or her job they were extremely stressed out. When rich people get stressed out they go on holiday to Hawaii—like some in this House—or to wherever their fancy takes them. When working-class people are stressed out by the onslaught of the economic recession, with lay-offs and loss of income, they generally go without some of the essentials. Some will turn to their families, their church, or the Salvation Army for support, but mostly they go without. Believe it or not, they go without breakfast and lunch and will have only the evening meal. The evening meal makes it easier for them to sleep during the night. They go without heaters and humidifiers to save on electricity costs. Some of them will get sick or catch the flu as a result. They go without medicine or visits to the doctor in order to save money. These are the lucky ones; others will turn to booze and drugs and it will take a long time before they come out of it. If one spouse is earning a high income, the spouse who lost his or her job can get only minimal additional support from Work and Income. In one case it was only an additional $50 a fortnight.

This is the kind of gut-wrenching experience that many families now face. One particular man was angry that after paying taxes for most of his life, when he needed support from our welfare system for the first time, his experience was far from good. That family felt as though it had done something wrong. It had no control of the business decisions made by Work and Income.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) Link to this

I add my congratulations to Sue Bradford on bringing this bill to the House and thus continuing her longstanding advocacy for the most vulnerable in our society. She has been doing it for a long time. I have followed her work and she continues to be exceedingly successful in doing that here, as well. Along with my colleagues on this side of the House, I am pleased to support the bill.

This is an important question relating to the rights of those who feel in some way prevailed upon by the decisions made against them. Therefore, societies like ours develop robust appeal systems so that those who feel aggrieved can take this matter somewhere. What are the characteristics of that system? First is independence. It has to be palpably independent. It is also based on a set of principles, in particular the principles of natural justice. That needs to come through and to be seen to be operating. Another characteristic of a good, robust appeal system is timely decision-making. Also, good systems provide reasoning for their decisions, and, perhaps most important of all, they are not unduly criticised by other courts—there is support for them. It should also be comparable with other appeal systems in different areas.

We can look at the benefits review committees and run this ruler by them and ask the same questions. Is this a robust appeal system? If we go back to the notion of independence, is it independent? It is not. Essentially, at the present time the chief executive is reviewing his own decisions. As the decision from the Supreme Court says, the decisions reviewed by this group are the decisions of the chief executive. So it is not independent. It is based within the ministry. There is one outside person, but two people from the staff of the organisation can clearly vote out the external person. So it is not independent, and we need to develop a system that is.

Does it work along the principles of natural justice? Well, here again, as Sue Bradford said, clearly the decisions that they are making at the moment are based on administrative procedures within the Ministry of Social Development, rather than based on the principles of natural justice. Again, we would expect the decisions to be timely.

This is probably one of the most important principles, particularly at this time when there is going to be a growing number of people on benefits, and particularly as we appear to be coming into an area where a punitive attitude towards people on benefits is growing. These people feel aggrieved. They are the ones who miss out, and their concerns become real, because when the money stops for families who are poor, the effects on them are quite serious. When decisions take a long time, then the problem is made worse. Clearly, beneficiary groups are already saying, again as Sue Bradford said, that these decisions are taking too long—even as long as 6 months. That is an inordinately long period of time for a person dependent on income support to be waiting for a decision about those very things.

The other point is whether the reasons are given. Well, they are not. Again, beneficiary groups have said very clearly that the reasons for these decisions are not given. The courts are critical of this particular system. The architecture of this appeal system, under the Social Security Act, is questioned by this decision. When we take all of those matters together, we find that it is time to have a look at that particular system. Sue Bradford makes some suggestions in this Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill. They might not be the right ones, but the way to look at them is to send the bill to a select committee so that it can be examined there and have improvements made to it. Thank you.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this

Kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. In doing my research on the Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill, I came across a blog called NiuZila: Land of full fat milk and welfare money . I want to share some of its ideas here, because it talks about the disgusting abuse that New Zealanders heap upon beneficiaries. It states “Read the mainstream opinion pieces, and people on the benefit are castigated as unworthy citizens of New Zealand. They are looked down upon and seen as worthless bludgers on the State. Perhaps it’s a sign of these struggling economic times, but where is the empathy in this country? … for the vast majority of people who have unfortunately found themselves on a State benefit, it is because they are a victim of their circumstances. Most beneficiary recipients are honest law abiding New Zealand citizens who are struggling day by day, and are immensely grateful for Government assistance. As a Samoan Christian, I often think about when Jesus said ‘what you do to the least of you, you also do to me’.”

I congratulate Sue Bradford, a long-time soldier for our most vulnerable New Zealanders, on having the courage to put an idea before the House that will help to make a difference for beneficiaries and superannuitants. It is great timing on her behalf, given the release of the report from the Tax Working Group that shows it will be beneficiaries and superannuitants who will be hardest hit by any proposed increases to GST. Sue Bradford’s bill is one way to help to restore the balance.

The Māori Party knows all too well the frustration and the anger that beneficiaries feel about the current review process. The Ministry of Social Development’s annual reports show that less than 60 percent of the cases scheduled to go before a benefits review committee are heard within the same reporting year. That delay is absolutely unacceptable. On top of that, beneficiary advocates tell us that the current system is costly, slow, and biased. It is not surprising that people think that a benefits review committee is biased, because of the three people on it, two are Ministry of Social Development staff and the other one is appointed by the Minister. They cannot act with empathy or common sense, because they have to comply with the statutory requirements of the Social Security Act.

As anyone who works in a Māori Party electorate office can tell us, the rules that apply in Ministry of Social Development offices are applied unfairly, unevenly, and inconsistently, forcing beneficiaries to engage advocates or lawyers to present their cases, thereby clocking up extra debt and putting their households under extreme stress. It all becomes a vicious circle, yet the answer is simple: providing an independent voice, an outside view, to give the transparency and accountability that we all like to talk about in this House. And we must not be afraid of putting the State under scrutiny. A departmental system that is fair and unbiased should feel comfortable about having an independent eye cast on its operations.

Finally, I tell the House that the Māori Party is concerned about the ongoing and consistent allegations of institutional bias against Government departments. The presence, operation, and effects of institutional racism were highlighted in the 1986 publication Pūao-te-ata-tū - Daybreak, a report by the ministerial advisory committee on a Māori perspective for the Department of Social Welfare. Twenty years on, the picture is either unchanged or worse than it was in 1986, so the Māori Party intends to develop a bill on institutional racism, which we think will fit very well alongside this one. Kia ora rā, Sue. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) Link to this

Tēnā koutou katoa. I am so glad to get the chance to speak in support of this particular member’s bill, the Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill. It is very interesting to note how often the member Sue Bradford has her bills drawn from the biscuit tin. I am sure there are some statistical reasons for it, relating to how many bills she has written, but I like to think that the gods favour the people who fight for the poor. I think that if Jesus and Buddha were hanging around in the Clerk’s Office, they would approve of the magical good luck of Sue Bradford in having her bills in defence of children and the poor selected from the ballot.

They would not get very excited about some of the bills drawn, especially not the bills about building jails, Tasers, privatisation, and trashing the environment. But, being spiritual visionaries, they would be very keen on this bill, because it supports the people reviled by the media and the shallow, unimaginative policies of decision-makers. They cannot visualise themselves waiting in a line at Work and Income for their moment of humiliation, after hitchhiking from a village 2 hours away with two small kids and a power bill they cannot hope to pay, only to be told they do not have the right to their entitlement, but they can fill in a form to ask for a review by the system that has just rejected them. It works well, but for whom?

Sue Bradford’s bill makes the process of benefit review panels and appeals more independent and robust, on behalf of the people who badly need to be heard, and heard with some semblance of equity. It makes a vital improvement to that sad old, bad old legislation known as the Social Security Act. It is a justice-based reform of the welfare system—an idea that does not appear to be on any major party’s agenda. We need to do something to try to fix the worst inequities of that Act, and this bill is a useful amendment to it. The bill also requires the Ministry of Social Development to communicate decisions in a timely manner. That might sound like a small thing, but it is not such a small thing for someone who is waiting at home for a decision.

However, I will leave the technical niceties to my more able colleague who wrote this bill, and to the people who stand with her outside this place: the formidable and heroic beneficiary advocates. I came to know those people when I moved to Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa, where poverty and unemployment have been the norm for tangata whenua for a long, long time. In the face of statistics about the performance of Work and Income in that region, we set up an advocacy group, and then I met the national advocates who fight for the poor. Every day in Gisborne people without hope came through our door, and they are still coming in, bruised by a range of experiences with Work and Income. There are some good Work and Income staff and some useless staff, but the problem is not individual; it is profoundly structural and attitudinal. How hard is it to have fair processes for beneficiary review, when the entire context around these issues is riddled with punitive and judgmental attitudes?

We need beneficiaries to have the power to review Work and Income’s decisions, and to appeal those decisions with equity and dignity, and with the ability to choose effective advocacy without economic hardship. Sue Bradford’s bill is based on an intimate knowledge of the dilemmas that beneficiaries face with the child disability allowance, with the sickness benefit, and the veterans pension. She is proposing to get rid of medical appeal boards, and transfer that function to an independent benefits review committee, which can obtain medical evidence when needed. These seemingly obscure changes to review and appeal are actually significant changes, in terms of beneficiaries being heard, and of justice not only being done, but being seen to be done in terms of beneficiaries’ just entitlement. They are part of the very long journey by Sue Bradford, and by her allies in the movement, to educate the rest of the country about the fact that beneficiaries are actually entitled to support, respect, and a fair hearing.

I urge every MP in this House to get over any residual, socially reinforced prejudice against fair play for beneficiaries, and to join the forces for good—who include Jesus, Buddha, and Sue Bradford—in their support for this bill. Kia ora.

HEKIA PARATA (National) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Huri noa i te Whare; tēnā tātou katoa. I, too, congratulate Sue Bradford on the bill she has brought before the House tonight. I am a relatively new member not only to the House but also to the Social Services Committee, and it has been a great opportunity for me to hear from the member as recently as today, and also to benefit from the advice of the member’s vast institutional memory—I mean that as a compliment, but it is so often used as a criticism—her humility, and her preparedness to share her knowledge with people such as myself. I very much appreciate that.

I endorse the comments that other speakers have made tonight about the member’s tireless efforts on behalf of those who have entitlements to benefits. I really despair of the term “beneficiary”, because it has become such a pejorative term in our society. This bill helps us to open the debate wider, and to think about the respect that is owed to people who find themselves in need of the support of the State.

It is incumbent upon the State to constantly review its own processes, systems, and structures, to ensure that the grand intent that is always at the beginning of these processes is still being honoured as time passes. This member’s bill gives us that particular opportunity in respect of the benefit review and appeal process. When a problem is identified, and when that problem is particularly relevant to the vulnerable in our society, it is particularly important that we make every effort to redress the difficulties and flaws of the system, and to look to continuous improvement to ensure that people who are reliant upon the State are able to access what they are entitled to—and to do so with respect.

The bill proposes changes that are focused on the review and appeal rights of benefit recipients as set out in the Social Security Act 1964. The bill intends to provide a benefit review system that is independent of the Ministry of Social Development, and that converts the current review process into an independently contracted quasi-judicial review. Consequently, the bill seeks to change the way in which reviews are conducted. The bill also seeks to award costs to both successful and unsuccessful applicants.

I think it might be helpful if we spend a very short time on summarising what the current benefit review process is, notwithstanding the significant criticisms that have already been identified about it in previous parts of this debate. I am not sure whether members are aware of quite the scope and quantity of considerations that the current process is responsible for, but approximately 5 million letters are sent out each year about decisions that have appeal rights attached. These result in about 4,000 formal review requests each year. The first step in the process is a review of the decision—an internal administrative review within the ministry. Sixty-five percent of issues are resolved at this stage. If the review does not resolve the issue, then the matter is formally considered by a benefits review committee. Such a committee, as we have heard, is made up of two members of the Ministry of Social Development and a community member appointed by the Minister. No additional costs are associated with the process other than the fees, expenses, and travelling allowances of the one community member. Costs to the appellant are not awarded.

One of the particular concerns I have about the proposal set out in the bill is that it would seem to incur significantly more costs than the current process, and I wonder whether we might more profitably turn our attention to how we improve the process we have rather than remove it altogether and start again. Clearly, the system does require greater improvement. As my colleague Hone Harawira has said, we must not be afraid to put the State under scrutiny. Thank you.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) Link to this

I am pleased to rise and speak in support of this member’s bill, the Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill, in the name of Sue Bradford. I would like to reaffirm and restate some of the support that has been given to that member, who once again is bringing forth what I think is both a timely and crucial piece of legislation in an area that is desperately in need of some support at this particular point in time. We are at present entering an environment where we are more in need than ever of giving additional support to Kiwis who have fallen on hard times. More than ever we are seeing that vulnerable Kiwis, who have their rights as citizens in New Zealand to seek the support of the State, are being vilified in the public sphere. As a member of this House, that is something I deeply regret seeing.

In my very short time here I have seen some of what I perceive to be crucial support mechanisms provided by the State, come under fire. The example I will draw on is the independent youth benefit. We saw recently that the Government put forth a support package for young people, but in the very same breath it stated that the independent youth benefit, that crucial benefit that is drawn on by no more than 1,500 young people, would have additional layers of eligibility requirements attached to it before young people would be able to access it. Let me restate to this House that that benefit is extraordinarily difficult for a young person to receive—extraordinarily difficult. Two-thirds of the young people who receive that benefit are already in work, training, or education. They must go to great lengths to prove they are eligible for that benefit. Let us not be under any illusions: we run a tight ship when it comes to our welfare State. To purport otherwise, I believe, is dishonest, yet we have done so with that particular benefit. Young people must already prove that they psychologically require access to that support mechanism, yet we are now putting in an additional layer of requirement for an already vulnerable group of people.

We have already seen, as well, the release of information on beneficiaries for political point-scoring, and now we see there will be a review of the 50 top—I do not know what the Government wants to call them, but they are a group of beneficiaries whom the Government considers are worthy of review. I do not want to comment on the specific details of those individuals, but for me this feels like a wider softening up of the public. In this environment, I think it is important now more than ever that we ensure that our system is balanced, and for me this bill is a rebalance of power.

We have in New Zealand a number of authorities that provide accountability structures. We have ombudsmen for various institutions, whether for insurance, banking, or our parliamentary system. The principles behind ombudsmen are that they are independent, that they respond to and review complaints in a timely manner, and that they are accessible. In my mind, these are the same principles that should apply to any appeal board that looks at benefits that are awarded or denied in this country. Those same principles should apply in these cases. Those are criteria that I would expect a select committee to consider when looking at this bill.

In particular, I am very pleased that not only are we adding independence to a structure that I believe so desperately needs it; we are also adding time limits. But I ask the select committee to perhaps look further at the specific time limits when issuing a formal ruling. I may have missed a detail in this, but perhaps in the process itself we might also need to build in time limits to ensure that the process does not unnecessarily drag or cause undue distress for those individuals involved in it.

I again reiterate my strong support for this bill. In the current environment we are in I think it is timely, I think it is necessary, and I think it will bring greater consistency to those other similar structures that we already have in our system. I once again congratulate the member on bringing this issue to the House.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) Link to this

First of all, I thank members who have spoken kind words about my own work and about the Social Security (Benefit Review and Appeal Reform) Amendment Bill. They include those who will vote against the bill.

I will say a few words about what the Minister for Social Development and Employment, Paula Bennett, said. Her main argument as to why the Government will not be supporting the bill appears to be that she thinks that it will be costly, and that it will add another layer of bureaucracy. I believe that this argument is absolutely wrong. If the Government had been open to picking up this bill and working with us on it at the Social Services Committee, if it had heard the submissions from all the groups around the country, had listened to advice from officials, and had looked at the options of what might be possible with a much more independent review and appeal body, it would have found that it was a much more cost-effective way to go.

It is a myth that the current system would be less expensive than a system like the Dispute Resolution Services process, which the Accident Compensation Corporation uses. Unfortunately, in the short time since my bill was drawn I have not had time to extract all the figures to prove this, but I strongly suspect that a system like this would be much cheaper than what it actually costs the Ministry of Social Development at the moment to run its rather ineffective and time-consuming process. A lot of it is false economy. For example, the fact that the department is using departmental staff—who are totally biased—appears to be a cost saving because they are already employees of the department, but their time costs something, and it is at the expense of having a review and appeal system that is unbiased and fair.

The Minister also talked about the legislation adding a layer of bureaucracy. Again, I think it is the opposite: it would actually streamline the system by taking it out of the department. We would not have all that business of having to get on board with the community reps, who may or may not be the unbiased and neutral people they are supposed to be. In fact, the bill would strip out bureaucracy and make the whole system much simpler to run. My proposition also would get rid of the medical boards, which is another layer of bureaucracy. I believe that the Minister has got it all round the wrong way.

I welcomed the Minister’s comment that the department does not always get it right, and that timeliness is an issue. I am glad she picked up on that issue; she has access to a lot more information than I do. I hope the Minister acts on her words, takes up that issue with the ministry, and looks closely at what is happening. I hope that if she does an investigation like that, she will find out the reality of what I, Labour members, my colleague Catherine Delahunty, and Hone Harawira have been talking about tonight, which is that the system is not working well. The Minister has only to listen to the voices of the advocacy groups, the community law centres, the citizens advice bureaus, and others who deal with people coping with the system to learn that the process is a long way from working well. I hope that even though the Government is rejecting this offering, it will begin to look seriously at reforming the benefit review and appeal system, which is well overdue for consideration.

I turn to my colleague Ruth Dyson, who said that her Labour Government looked at this issue rigorously in its term of office. I say to her that I am sorry that her Labour Government did not pick this up. I regret that my member’s bill was not drawn during Labour’s term of Government. I hoped that it would have gone to the select committee and received due consideration there. But I am very grateful for the Labour Party’s support tonight, and for the Māori Party’s support. These parties understand the failings of the ministry. I take on what Ruth Dyson said. She is not sure that the Dispute Resolution Services model is the right one. I am not sure either. I put it up as only one way forward; I am not at all sure that it is the best way, and I am well aware that accident compensation claimants have issues about Dispute Resolution Services. It is far from a perfect model, but I think it is a lot better, and potentially a lot cheaper, than the current one.

I thank those who have supported the bill tonight, and I hope the Government picks up the issues I have raised, even though it is not voting for the bill.