Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill – Carmel Sepuloni
Labour supported the need for a rewrite of the Social Security Act. We accepted that some clarity, consistency and modernity was required, but the first version we were presented with was difficult to support. In good faith we still voted in favour of it at first reading with the hope that some of the negative aspects could be dealt to during the select committee process and some more positive changes might be accepted. That was overly optimistic.
From the get go, the process for considering the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill was flawed. This is a serious piece of legislation which is 454 pages long and therefore we expected that the maximum time available should have been given to the public to consider the detail and offer feedback. Instead the report back time was condensed to 4 months instead of the standard 6 months. I attempted to extend the deadline in the house to no avail.
And then of course the Government had touted this as a ‘policy neutral’ rewrite. Far from it. Of primary concern was the writing into law of the ‘social investment’ approach in the principles of the Act. The investment approach that this Government claims to have taken hasn’t resulted in any additional investment, let alone any improvement in the lives of the people who are impacted by MSD policies.
There were other changes we have opposed and those include:
- The Emergency Benefit has been changed to the ‘Exceptional Circumstances benefit’. Now work preparation, part-time of full-time work obligations and sanctions can be applied at the discretion of MSD. However we feel that the application of obligations and sanctions are inappropriate for this benefit as emergency or exceptional circumstances are by definition unexpected and urgent. Additionally, the primary demographic of this financial assistance are over 65 years old, and do not qualify for NZ Superannuation due to their residency status.
- Originally the government had intended on removing the need for ‘good cause’ when redirecting benefit payments. This was opposed by submitters and by us. In the end the decision was made to keep in the ‘good cause’ provision. Ridiculous that this was even something to be considered.
- This bill allows both parents in split custody care situations to be eligible for Sole Parent Support, yet those in shared parenting arrangements cannot access this benefit. Our concern is that this provision could place parents under financial pressure to separate children as this would be financially advantageous to the family.
As this bill was not the policy neutral rewrite that was proposed and the Government had taken the opportunity to make significant changes, we (Labour) have also suggested further changes. I wanted to have these changes drafted and ready to be tabled at the select committee when we deliberated over the bill. Now these recommended changes have been drafted into SOP’s (amendments to the bill) and they will be voted on during the committee stages. All of them have passed through the Labour caucus with full support.
Many of the amendments are based on the submissions that were made, so for that, I acknowledge all of the submitters to this bill. The amendments are as follows:
- Remove the sanctioning of sole parents who don’t identify the other parent of their child. Under the current Act, as well as in this rewrite, a sole parent beneficiary who is unable/ unwilling to identify the other parent of their child will have a $22-$28 sanction imposed per week. This policy is currently affecting 17.7% of working age sole parent beneficiaries, and 17,000 children. This is a discriminatory law that fails to ensure child support, and instead negatively impacts children in hardship. AAAP has done great work in bringing this issue to light.
- Overhaul the principles of the Act. Overall there was significant discontent with the added investment approach-based principle in this bill. There were strong arguments from groups such as the Disabled Persons Assembly around the very ethos of this principle. They felt the use of the word “dependency” carried “a sense of judgement and appear[ed] stigmatising”. This can be particularly detrimental to those who may aspire to work but are physically or mentally unable to, either temporarily or permanently. Key stakeholders in the social sector, both in prior meetings and through written and oral submissions, have continually argued for the overhaul of all of the principles.
- Allow a person who is unable to work on a temporary basis as certified by a medical practitioner to be eligible for the Supported Living Payment. Figures released by MSD from December 2015 showed that 55,257 working-age individuals were receiving the Job Seeker Support with a health condition or disability deferral. Of the total figures of individuals receiving Job Seeker Support for this same period (122,927), 44.95% were considered unable to pursue full-time employment. Anecdotal evidence indicates that the Job Seeker Benefit is an inappropriate means of financial support due to the accompanying administrative requirements and obligations.
- Change the definition of suitable employment so it is in accordance with ILO Convention 44.
- Enforce a requirement that MSD must provide a breakdown of how a client has accumulated a debt.
- Ensuring individuals who are unemployed to pursue employment-related training are able to access financial support.
- Removing hardened obligations for beneficiaries with additional children, which enforces a primary obligation to paid employment over caregiving.
- Initiate a requirement for there to be consistent and independent monitoring and evaluating of the implementation this bill and all related legislation
- Ensure all potential or current Work and Income clients are informed of all their entitlements
- Ensure communication methods are appropriate for all Work and Income clients
- Simplify benefit levels by removing the differing scale for those under 25 years old
- Extending the exceptional circumstances benefit to also include civil emergencies. This would enable citizens to be better equipped and under less immediate financial pressure during and after a state of emergency.
- Provide definitions of education related matters in the Act (core checks and registered schools), rather than leaving them to be determined in regulations
- Increasing the abatement rate to promote the take-up of varied employment, including part-time and casual. This acknowledges that non-standard work can be an effective means of transitioning from unemployment into full employment, and prevents individuals being financially deterred from working.
What we now need is for people to contact their MPs – particularly those from the minor parties- asking for them to support all or some of these changes, so we can take this opportunity to improve the Social Security Act.
Carmel Sepuloni is a Labour Party MP
Re one of Labour’s recommendations:
“Allow a person who is unable to work on a temporary basis as certified by a medical practitioner to be eligible for the Supported Living Payment. Figures released by MSD from December 2015 showed that 55,257 working-age individuals were receiving the Job Seeker Support with a health condition or disability deferral. Of the total figures of individuals receiving Job Seeker Support for this same period (122,927), 44.95% were considered unable to pursue full-time employment. Anecdotal evidence indicates that the Job Seeker Benefit is an inappropriate means of financial support due to the accompanying administrative requirements and obligations.”
The merger of the former Sickness Benefit with the former Unemployment Benefit and some on the DPB should never have happened in the first place. To call all of these people “job seekers” is an absurdity, as those who are sick and disabled, including some with cancer and in treatment, are in their large majority not able to do much if any work at all, that is “open employment” (on the market).
The Sickness Benefit was there for a purpose, and instead of throwing all of those in together with the fit and healthy unemployed would never work, as most need some forms of support or cannot work, some perhaps only part time.
And many are on the Jobseeker support for more than a year, if not more than two years, so they should instead be on the Supported Living Payment benefit now.
We know where all this comes from, it was thought out in the UK, and such “experts” that MSD used, like Prof. Mansel Aylward, offering “advice”, they were biased and already known for their hard line on work ability.
But MSD and WiNZ have their own Principal Health Advisor, who has likened benefit dependence to “drug dependence”. Dr Bratt is his name, he once also served on the Board at ACC. Still now Anne Tolley defends the relentless focus on work approach, and that work is for many supposed to be “therapeutic”, but they did not have the guts to present any evaluation reports on the Mental Health Employment Service trials that have apparently run out.
Now they have released new “trials” under their “investment approach”, called “Work to Wellness”. Here is info I already posted under another topic:
Outsourcing and private contracting of services are also increasing at the MSD and WINZ. Remember this for instance:
“Govt will pay to shift mentally ill into work”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10893823
There was much fanfare about this new approach and how it was all based on “evidence”.
Then not long ago came this report:
“Back-to-work programme labelled a fail”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11514141
We had Carmel Sepuloni ask the Associate Minister for Social Development, and she responded that an evaluation report would be due later in the year (2015):
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/51HansS_20150917_00000477/sepuloni-carmel-oral-questions-questions-to-ministers
We NEVER got an evaluation report that was published, it has all been swept under the carpet, and even Labour did not bother digging deeper, it seems.
Now we do quietly get this relaunch of a similar program, called “Work to Wellness”:
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/helping-those-health-conditions-work
So here we go, first attempt failed abysmally, as I suspect, hence NO reporting, and hence they go and run further TRIAL on the vulnerable, following their ideological approach to welfare and health.
It is indeed criminal what is going on. They are basically using mentally ill as guinea pigs for their trials.
And they use a hatchet doctor for Principal Health Advisor, who likens benefit dependence to drug dependence:
http://www.gpcme.co.nz/pdf/GP%20CME/Friday/C1%201515%20Bratt-Hawker.pdf
Indeed, this Rewrite Bill is very flawed, and most submitters expressed their serious concerns with it. Here is a link to the website of Parliament, with the page for the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill:
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/00DBHOH_BILL68669_1/social-security-legislation-rewrite-bill
Here is a link to the page with submissions and advice presented to the Social Services Committee:
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/00DBHOH_BILL68669_1/tab/submissionsandadvice
Here is a link to the “report” by the Committee, accepting (in government majority) only minor changes:
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/00DBHOH_BILL68669_1/tab/reports
Labour makes sensible requests for amendments, but as we know, this is likely to all or most to be voted down in the House, as usual, by the government and their minority party allies or lackeys, ACT and United Future’s Peter Dunne.
The so-called investment approach is intended to be facilitated and assisted by the addition of a further ‘Principle’, which may sound harmless, but as we know, the Nats know how to use the law to bring in their peculiar approaches, largely ideologically driven.
Also does discrimination continue against other disabled who are not totally blind, as they have to “prove” they are eligible to the Supported Living Payment, while totally blind get it as of right, not needing to do so.
And the terminology they now brought into the legislation is in part bizarre and sounds even silly in some sections.
Remember this post on another blog, there was NEVER an answer given, why the “investment approach” is supposed to be based on evidence and works:
http://publicaddress.net/speaker/how-is-government-evaluating-its-welfare/
This is what Bill Rosenberg, economist with the CTU, wrote about it:
http://union.org.nz/sites/union.org.nz/files/Investment%20Approach%20is%20not%20an%20investment%20approach%20-%20Rosenberg_0.pdf
Some other info on flawed “evidence” the government uses:
https://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.wordpress.com/2016/08/16/senior-scientist-and-legal-experts-discredit-evidence-used-by-msd-and-dr-bratt-when-claiming-the-health-benefits-of-work/
‚In the expectation of recovery’, Faulkner, Centre for Welfare Reform, Scrib
https://www.scribd.com/doc/308613502/In-the-Expectation-of-Recovery
(criticism of biopsychosocial model, Aylward et al)
https://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.wordpress.com/2015/08/09/msd-and-dr-david-bratt-present-misleading-evidence-claiming-worklessness-causes-poor-health/
https://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/msd-dr-bratt-present-misleading-evidence-on-worklessness-and-health-publ-post-19-09-16.pdf
Yes, Mike I have to agree there,
It’s just Nactional doing everything it can to mess everything up and leave all to an incoming new opposition Government next year to turf them out.
Remember it was this “wolf in sheep’s clothes phoney government” that in 2008 promised before the election they promised “we will get Government out of everybody’s lives and make it simpler” !!!!!!
This rotten lot have made so many amendment’s as they possibly could have now so they have left vitally important changes needing changes alone without any changes!!!!
These more importantly were to improve the lives of many in the years ahead.
They have been around languishing and the electorate wont forget this come election time, and turf them in the garbage where they belong.
Of concern should be the Labour Party’s sought amendment agreed to by the Social Services Committee (see page 3 of their report), to also have nurses be authorised to sign medical certificates and reports for WINZ clients. It was apparently agreed to change references from “medical practitioners” to “prescribed health practitioners”:
“Allowing certain health practitioners to do more”
“Clause 27(2) would rewrite existing provisions allowing “prescribed health practitioners” – such as nurse practitioners1- to certify that a person’s work capacity is affected by a health condition, injury, or disability.
Nurse practitioners play an increasing role in primary health care, and we consider that, when appropriate, they should be able to endorse certificates in other situations.
Therefore, we recommend replacing the phrase “medical ractitioner” with “prescribed health practitioner” in clauses 27, 28, 36, 40, 41, 70, 71, 78, 120, 149, 152, and 358.
We recommend inserting new paragraph (aa) into clause 397(1) to enable regulations to be made prescribing which health practitioners may perform the functions of each provision.”
I know the Nurses Organisation supports this, but there are risks involved in doing this.
While nurses are of course well qualified and registered and do increasingly fulfill functions that used to be done only by medical practitioners (e.g. GPs), there are still limits to what they may be trained in, when compared to medical practitioners.
I see this being something MSD is also keen on, as they have struggled over the years to employ and use internal Regional Health Advisors and Regional Disability Advisors to conduct reviews and assessments of cases. They have not had any proper medical practitioner – apart from the Principal Health Advisor, who is a medical practitioner. A fair few Advisors are nurses, some not even registered anymore.
MSD uses Designated Doctors for getting second opinions, and allowing nurses to increasingly perform roles and responsibilities like examining clients with health conditions and disability, that may lead to them also acting as Advisors and Designated Doctors, and having this enabled by statute and regulation.
Other various “health practitioners” may be engaged, who may not have the particular qualifications needed to examine and assess certain conditions, particularly complex ones. This can lead to greater risks.
If the ‘Rewrite’ was good enough to bring in a few new changes to the legislation, it could have included specifying who can examine and assess what kind of person(s) with what kind of condition.
Is a GP best placed to conduct an assessment on a patient and client with mental health issues, is a nurse best qualified for this, or perhaps not rather a psychologist. MSD enjoy a degree of flexibility that seems to be unreasonable.
I fear MSD may feel encouraged to use more of less qualified practitioners for their various purposes.
Yes good point Mike, – I am with you entirely,
And we must consider that if “Nurse Practitioners are then allowed to review patients records and conditions, will they not also be subject to the same medical standards as Doctors? to carry out all functions under the “Hippocratic oath” of “First do no harm” policy enshrined in the Doctors regime???????
Thus protecting our patient rights with even more surety???
if msd get it wrong the mental health patient will arrive with homicidal intent so for there own sake they better get there assessments right
I tell you, they have got it badly wrong before, and it did not do much good for the beneficiary client, believe you me. These days they seem to tread a bit more carefully, but this space must be watched.
An extremely important and worrying topic to be aware of and good this is being bought to the public’s attention, but unfortunately Ms Sepuloni is getting a reputation of using the plight of beneficiaries for political point scoring only so it’s hard for me to accept the idea that she and Labour genuinely oppose a lot of this rewrite.
Labour have a hell of a long way to go to redeem themselves to us after their betrayal of the 2000s when they made their views on beneficiaries perfectly clear. The deafening silence of opposition in recent years bar the odd token gesture to keep up appearances. This particular MP is well known for not even acknowledging communications from the public around welfare issues, yet alone answering them, especially if it’s anything questioning or critical of Labour’s welfare policy. Ditto her leader.
Ms Sepaloni, by all means do your job the best you can an fight to make this rewrite fair, but don’t be a hypocrite while you’re at it. If you genuinely give a damn about beneficiaries then you and your party push for the rates to be increased. Yell and scream to the media. Go and find the sick people who can’t afford their medication, there’s plenty of us. Publicly humiliate the government. Do your bloody job if that’s what you truely believe. If not believing we deserve some sort of basic dignified existence is your ideology (which is the case of many of your colleagues, they just won’t say so out loud)- then go join the Nats.
Just don’t use us as pawns.
I agree, Carmel was not even seriously following up her question in Parliament, put to the Associate Minister on 17 Sept. 2015 (see links in my post above). The government talked about “evaluation reports” for the Mental Health Employment Service and the Sole Parent Employment Service, NONE was ever delivered.
And now they can quietly sweep the failed trials under the carpet and try new ones (‘Work to Wellness’).
Surely, this is not an oversight or having forgotten the question, I’d say. It gives me the impression Labour will reverse little if any of the changes made under the Nats and simply carry on with their version of trials, once back in power, which may be some time off yet.
Kaye – you absolute beauty!!!!
We remember who left National’s massive ‘bread or water’ cuts untouched for years and years.
That it was left to this administration to give a mean and long overdue rise says so much about the current ethos of Labour.
I’d like it if benefits, AND MP stipends plus perks, were directly related to the performance of the economy and the wellbeing of all, instead of being so many months of misery, anxiety and scrimping that beneficiaries and pensioners have to endure before the miserly pinch, already spent on ever-rising basics, finally arrives.
Or that MPs came in on a fixed sum that lasted for the term. No pay increases (and to purgatory with the Higher Salaries mob). And zero perks. They put their socks on one foot at a time like the rest of us – what makes them so cosseted?
And Mike’s comment about the old Sickness Benefit – so much of it gets eked away travelling to-fro the medical establishments and paying out to satisfy stupid WINZ demands instead of buying decent food or paying for medication. This isn’t ‘social security’. It’s cruelty and punishment for having the cheek to be injured or fall ill.
And what does Labour do? Compromise and collaborate. The ‘h’ word applies.
I would take this much more seriously if Labour were to fund sickness benefits on the same basis as ACC.
Which was the original intention of ACC’s founders.
Yes, and the other big issue with the Rewrite Bill is the power to make regulations that can override aspects of the principal legislation. Labour began this trend (as it did with the “relentless focus on work” purpose and principles sections) in it’s 2007 amendment Act. This is highly unconstitutional because it allows the government to alter the legislation on a whim without Parliament having a say. Labour allowed regulations to be made to change the definition of “income” which is just diabolical because income is so central to eligibility for benefits. Recent history when it comes to welfare has been that Labour kicks off the trend, then National takes the baton and runs with it. Sickening behaviour from Labour, but what’s worse they’ve never said what they’ve done was wrong.
It’s high time Labour renounced all of these nasty anti-poor things they’ve done over recent times, including voting for the nats war-on-the-poor legislation in 2014. It’s good Carmel’s trying to make a stand agaisnt this Rewrite Bill because it’s far from “policy neutral” which Tolley and the nats are bare-faced lying about.
There’s actually a whole bunch of other nasty stuff in the Rewrite Bill particularly around the review and appeal provisions, as well as big omissions to fix problems that have been around for a long time but which have been duplicated in this Bill, that also need to be addressed.
What Labour and the Greens and any other opposition party needs to do is get this Bill put on hold. Then they need to get all the advocates and lawyers who are experts on all of these things together to really thrash out all of the problems that have developed with this legislation since 1964, including all of the case law that shows unfairness, and everything else this Bill fails to fix. The government is hiding behind the piecemeal way in which the legislation has been reformed over the years and the mess it’s become as an excuse to just repeat all of the unfairness in it. Government says they need to tidy the legislation up, and nobody disagrees with that, but all that this government is doing is making it easier to read a law that shafts poor people.
Good comments, thanks, Chris!
Well said Kaye. Labour is a player in the war on Beneficiaries and must lift their game to get any credibility back. No thanks to Helen on this one.
I would take this much more seriously if Labour were to fund sickness benefits on the same basis as ACC.
Which was the original intention of ACC’s founders.
The true causes of poor health and perpetuated poverty, a catch22 health situation that the hopeless or rather ignorant MSD experts seem to rather wish to ignore, same as this damned ideologically driven shit government:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/crystal-leonard/relationship-between-chronic-stress-and-poverty
http://inequality.stanford.edu/_media/pdf/pathways/winter_2011/PathwaysWinter11_Evans.pdf
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2016/01/401251/poor-health
And more recent studies prove without any doubt that poverty causes mental illness and consequential ill health, that becomes a perpetuated problem for generations to come.
It is behind the very reason why indigenous minorities in countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US have more health issue, serious poverty and other problems, and why socially disadvantaged groups, such as migrants, are at the same time suffering the same in virtually ALL developed societies.
We are creating poverty, and by having a punitive social security system, we create more harm than what we solve in problems, the main problem though is, this government is ideologically driven to perpetuate the damage.
What a disgrace we have, they deny that poverty creates sickness and disability and also addiction, and that it perpetuates poverty.
Bennett and Tolley should be put into a prison for years to come.
That is because the propagate this simplistic BS:
http://www.gpcme.co.nz/pdf/GP%20CME/Friday/C1%201515%20Bratt-Hawker.pdf
https://www.gets.govt.nz/MSD/ExternalTenderDetails.htm?id=17378666
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/working-towards-wellness
With the blinded or blind leading the blind, we are only going to get more collateral damage, if not suicides, it is time to change our whole welfare policy and to first of all change the government.