Senators slam social security law changes after recent amendments

Two Independent senators on Wednesday took the government to task for rushing to make substantial changes to national insurance legislation, not even four months after repealing it and moving amendments through the Houses of Parliament.

Senators Dr Kristina Hinds and Monique Taitt attempted to punch several holes in the legislation. Senator Taitt described it as an “abomination” and Dr Hinds declared that she was “torn” because while she supported the attempt to bring more self-employed people into the social security system, she remained worried about those areas of the legislation which it seemed legislators were being called to “skip over”.

“I am not in support of increasing the retirement age to 68,” Dr Hinds told the Upper Chamber while praising the move to draw more self-employed people into the social security net through the National Insurance and Social Security (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill. 

At the same time, she called for the full intent of the legislative change to be made clear.

The new bill, she charged, was “littered” with changes including additions, removals and expansions that could not be categorised as “minor” and which were introduced since the last debate on national insurance in August this year. In spite of that debate, Dr Hinds added, there were still glaring areas that needed to be amended and substantive issues that senators were apparently being encouraged to ignore.

“Changes that were suggested were treated as if they were nonsensical,”  the political science academic recalled. “Instead of addressing things at the place where they can be amended and saying let’s go back and look at this legislation and come back …to address the amended legislation, you have to pass it now, today, as is. And then you come back and repeal the same thing that we passed.”

Senator Monique Taitt.

The senator bemoaned the unwillingness to address the concerns that were raised in what she described as the “back-patting” exercise.

She declared her opposition to increasing the pensionable age, saying the change was not a minor matter.

“I am not supportive of increasing the retirement age to 68. I’m not going to pretend that I am,” Dr Hinds said. “I am also not in favour of us speaking about a piece of legislation that contains a whole set of things about the governance structure of the National Insurance Service as if it does not contain these things. I am not in favour of that.”

Immediately following Dr Hinds, Senator Taitt attacked the government’s move to rush the legislation through the Senate given Senate President Reginald Farley’s waiving of Rule 58 of the Standing Orders to facilitate the debate on the amendment during Wednesday’s sitting – an unusual step for the Upper House.

“That is severely flawed. We cannot continue to perpetuate the ability to get waivers because we can. It is not good,” she said

She also criticised the rush to bring the law into force since the governance structure of the new social security entity to replace the National Insurance Scheme is earmarked to come into force on Friday.

“So it’s a fait accompli. No matter what anybody says, it’s going to pass today because that is the way things happen. But there is something fundamentally wrong with that…. It needs fixing,” Senator Taitt said.

The senator acknowledged that she was “bothered” by the repealing of “an entire piece” of legislation that was passed only four months ago.

“That is unheard of,” the attorney-at-law said. “Frankly, I find it embarrassing and I find it disturbing.”

She said it was important during the drafting stage to take special care with legislation since this has the potential to affect how it is used later, telling fellow senators that there were “glaring” and disturbing issues in the legislation which suggested “a lack of care”.

(SP)