O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much Mr Chair—very pleased to take a call on Part 1 of effectively Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25 around the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. I think it has to be noted right from the start that the Minister's being particularly sensitive it seems around the size of the bill. While she's accurate to indicate that the changes of the Supplementary Order Paper are integrated into it this is ultimately a rather large Supplementary Order Paper—which we are working through I have to indicate at haste.So I'd like to indicate two things if I might to the committee of the whole House. One is that it will take me and I'm sure colleagues across the Chamber time to progress through this. I acknowledge what the Minister's said—that it's an attempt to make this easier and in some ways it is but it's not going to make it any faster. The second is possibly a heads-up to the chief whip—or Kieran McAnulty at least—on the other side that this committee of whole House is going to make the brokering weapons bill look like a walk in the park.Hon Member: He loved that one.SIMON O'CONNOR: So here we are at Part 1—I'm sure he's incredibly excited about this. This bill with the SOP's changes integrated into it is a bill of 10 parts with 16 schedules and multiple subparts so I'm pleased to start on Part 1 clause 3—because we'll be getting to clauses 1 and 2 in the title and commencement phase. Part 1 is the general provisions notably around the purposes of the bill principles and so forth and interestingly—and we'll have to get to it later—some examples have been put in. It'll be interesting to know in fact—and maybe it's a bit of an indication to the Minister for future contributions—that clause 14 Status of examples" is quite explicit in that they're not to be effectively legally binding. It'll be interesting to know if there have been other examples of this in the past.However I've misled the committee in so far as I said I'd start at the beginning which is clause 3 the purposes of the bill. Clause 3(a) says "to enable the provision of financial and other support as appropriate". In and of itself "appropriate" is actually a loaded word particularly in a political environment and politically so at the moment because of all this talk that something is neutral. If we accept the accusations that what the previous Government put forward was not neutral then the response by the current Government—that it's basically doubling down on that lack of neutrality and adding its own bits and bobs—makes it therefore not neutral.So we then have to begin questioning words such as "other support as appropriate" because as I read the purposes of the bill it goes into a whole list of effectively excuses around people on welfare or on social development. It's an inherent contradiction I'd suggest right from the start that "to enable the provision of financial and other support as appropriate" seems to imply that there should be support given and benefits given. But as I begin to read through the purposes of the bill in clause 3 and then continue through the other parts it seems to me that a lot of the additions or those things which have been removed by the Minister are effectively putting in excuses for people to remain on benefits. I'll get into that more when I discuss clause 4 and with a spot of luck well after that I suspect well into days following to get on to Supplementary Order Paper 28 in the name of one of the O'Connors—one of the O'Connors—in this Parliament.So again just with clause 3(a)—just 3(a)—we're already getting a question of who is deeming what is appropriate and are the sections which follow within clause 3 effectively contradicting what is appropriate? It seems to imply that support will be given as appropriate to get someone into work and into financial support but as I'm suggesting there are some excuses here.I wouldn't mind the Minister also answering why in 3(d) and those following paragraphs—and particularly paragraph (e)—there's a particular focus on young people. I think that's incredibly prudent in and of itself—of course we want to focus on young people—but why is it that in clause 3 we talk generally and then only narrow into young people. So 3(d) is "to provide services to encourage and help young people to move [and] remain in education training and employment". Look I've got no disagreement with that but theoretically would we not have clauses 3(f) and following to say that we're going to focus on people who are aged people who have disabilities and so forth?It's just a consistency question because I hear a lot these days around the questions of diversity and questions of discrimination. They're often pushed around and I just have that small concern at this stage that we are actually not embracing the diversity of our New Zealand people and we may arguably be moving into a discriminatory framework here. We're only in clause 3—we're barely into the purposes of the bill—and we're only focusing on young people. So it would be really interesting if the Minister gets an opportunity later to explain why we only are talking about young people—why we haven't brought in other ages.And again I do really want to stress to the Minister that I think the inclusion of young people is a good thing. I'm not disputing the elements here around young people—I think seeking to have them remain in education training and employment is excellent—or why we would impose "on the following … people or young people" the provisions in clause 3(e)(i) (ii) and (iii); again all in itself excellent. It's probably why a copy and paste job wasn't done—to put it quite roughly—for seniors those over 65 and those who are no longer termed as young people.In fact maybe that's a subsidiary question to the earlier question: what are defined as young people? I may have to flick to the definitions page but is it clear what a young person is? I'm probably ultrasensitive now in my early 40s that I don't fit that but what are we talking about?Fundamentally why are other groups—Marja Lubeck: Greg's still a young person—eh Greg?SIMON O'CONNOR: And I hear the other side complimenting my youth. It's just so flattering. Thank you very much.But no in all seriousness effectively why are other groups not particularly mentioned? We know that our welfare system our social development system is designed in such a way—well they often talk "from cradle to grave" so why are they not included?I suppose the last thought I have particularly around clause 3 alone is—and it's probably something I have to draft up as a further amendment—why one of the purposes—Sarah Dowie: You do that.SIMON O'CONNOR: Look I will do that Sarah Dowie—if I get time. The purposes of the bill probably I think should have something about giving confidence to the taxpayers that the money has been spent accordingly. It's an absolute privilege I would say—not a right but an absolute privilege—to live in a society which enables all to be supported. But an element of that support Minister is that the money has come from somewhere and it's one of the fights I have in my electorate quite often with people when they say "Well the Government should just spend more" and Minister that's regardless of whether it's a National or a Labour Government and I'm often trying to explain to these young people that the money doesn't grow on trees it doesn't come out of printers but it actually comes from hard-working taxpayers.I think actually a number of taxpayers—and look I'm certainly one of them—want to know that those moneys are being used appropriately. So when people like myself challenge decisions around welfare spending it's not because of a lack of care for people. As is well-known I have worked not only with those people on the ground on the front line but also within Work and Income within the Ministry of Social Development. But the taxpayer wants to have confidence that that money is being spent appropriately and that's always a suspicion in my mind when I hear the more leftist thoughts that basically money should just be given to everyone every time for anything—and never a question to be asked. That's not prudent.It's not prudent for the taxpayer but I'd suggest to you as well Minister it's actually not prudent for the individuals. If we are to give people dignity dignity ultimately stands on them being able to stand on their own two feet. I'm not going to get in-depth on that but I just wonder—and again it probably requires a new amendment to be drafted—whether we should insert something here to say that one of the purposes of the legislation is to give that surety to taxpayers that their money is being spent wisely and appropriately because as I continue to go through here I have concerns.When I get on to clause 4 around why we dropped the social investment programme that's just a responsibility question. It doesn't surprise me that a number of submitters were against that. It's effectively wanting money without consequence and just to use one of those really liberal progressive terms which people like to use: "that really offends me". I'll get more on to that when I touch on clause 4 which are the principles and I again alert the committee that we'll get on to Supplementary Order Paper 28 which is a Supplementary Order Paper in my name.I think I've taken up enough of the committee's time just on that clause but I am looking forward to moving—Hon Scott Simpson: Really? Oh no; keep going.SIMON O'CONNOR: Look I could—I could—but I will withhold there."