Source: New Zealand Parliament
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Make no mistake, if the Minister was actually serious about improving the accuracy of the Ministry of Social Development entitlement assessments, she would be investing in the front line and supporting them adequately, rather than continuing to undermine them and pushing through more and more decisions to a computer system, where there will be less accountability should it not adequately calculate benefits. This is a part of a plan to cut the lifeline for countless people so that the Government can meet their target of 50,000 less people receiving income support, not about people getting, basically, more support or getting into employment.
Joseph Mooney: This guy doesn’t understand what he’s talking about.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Joseph Mooney says that I don’t know what I’m talking about, but I’d really invite him—because he didn’t in the previous debate—to actually tell us about the substance of this bill and who this is affecting the most. Last debate, he didn’t talk about how the previous bill would affect people in hardship, so I welcome him to do the same. I say this because, as the Minister said—and she’s basically opened up for us to link those two together—she said this bill was integral for her to meet the intent of the previous bill, which does what? Leave 14,000 people worse off, between, on average, $100 each week, to, potentially, $200 worse each week.
These so-called “mandatory reviews”, they are also an excuse to, basically, punish people and strip them of their benefit, particularly for those on the supported living payment, who then will be left off, again, in hardship, because we know that disabled people are more likely than many other groups to be living in poverty. The child poverty reports tell us exactly that: that being disabled is actually one of, unfortunately—and it shouldn’t be that way—the largest reasons why somebody could find themselves in poverty, not because of the disability but because of political decisions being made to strip away support for disabled people, to scapegoat them, undermine them, discriminate them, instead of allowing everyone to have the life that they need.
This bill introduces mandatory reviews for things like the supported living payment, the emergency benefit with an expiry date beyond 52 weeks or no expiry date at all, the accommodation supplement—and this is where the Minister tied in the intent of tying this bill with the one that we just passed—the disability allowance, and the New Zealand superannuation with a non-qualified partner or grandparent. The thing is, should this review happen—I think particularly for the supported living payment it makes very little sense, since they already face a 52-week review anyway, so it just kind of feels like duplicating things—and people find themselves receiving less, the reality is that that just means that they will be pushed deeper into poverty. People on the supported living payment, for example, they’re not living a life of luxury, unless, you know, the Minister somehow thinks so.
If those mandatory reviews find disabled people earning less each week, I don’t see anywhere in this bill any provisions that take into account, for example, people’s hardship, wellbeing, the likelihood of them becoming homeless before, for example, the machine—the computer—puts them in a disadvantaged position, because we know, right now, due to the inaccuracy of benefit entitlements, some people are getting more than what the system may prescribe. And you know what? For those people, I welcome that. They should be getting roses and bread and far more because, you know, the so-called “overpayments” they’re receiving are not making these disabled people live a life of luxury. They may be allowing them to adequately be able to afford their rent or food and pay their—
Kahurangi Carter: Feed their kids.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Yeah—and keep a roof over their heads. I’m really concerned that the broadening of the automated decision-making, and I think it’s also really intellectually not transparent for the Minister to not have told us that this was her intent, when in the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill, which allowed for the broadening of the use of automated decision-making, this is what she was planning to do and to use automated decision-making for.
I think this reeks of a Government that is hoping no one will be paying attention to the bills that they’re pushing through with urgency. Why? Because they haven’t told us about the real negative impacts on families as a result of the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill and the Social Assistance Legislation (Accommodation Supplement and Income-related Rent) Amendment Bill. We look forward to scrutinising this bill and putting forward amendments that mitigate the harm that the Government is planning to inflict on our communities. Shame on the Minister and this rotten-to-the-core Government for pushing through legislation that harms our most vulnerable.
