Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): There's been a few speakers from the Opposition who have spoken in support of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 28 that's been put up by Simon O'Connor. I'm just going to make it very clear that we will not be supporting that SOP and why we will not be supporting that SOP. The reason that I won't be supporting that SOP is because it actually reverts back to a policy change that was in the previous Government's supposedly policy-neutral rewrite which ended up not being policy-neutral. So inserting principles and changing principles is actually quite a serious task and it shouldn't be something that's done on the whim or off the back of what a particular Government is feeling on the day with no discussion with the general public about what they think our social security legislation and our social security system should look like. So by doing that there are concerns. Hon Louise Upston: You're not giving them the chance. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The member Louise Upston seems to have completely missed everything I said earlier about the reason why we're not taking the whole SOP 25 back to select committee. It is because firstly this is not 500 pages worth of SOP—this is the whole bill—and secondly it's because the vast majority of submitters wanted us to do what this Government is doing today so we don't need to go back and check that. My second issue with Simon O'Connor's SOP 28 is it's just that very tired old-fashioned right-wing framing of the benefit system and those that have to access support from it. So to say that to help achieve it—so the actual principle that Simon O'Connor would like reinserted back into the rewrite is to help achieve the best possible outcome for people at risk of long-term welfare dependency". I just want to say that to assume or to assert that those that need support from the Ministry of Social Development are at risk of welfare dependency already starts it off on such a negative deficit foot and I don't think the previous Government understands that by having that type of framing and making that type of assertion they are actually willing those seeking support to fail. So you know like to achieve the best-possible outcome for people—absolutely—but then to assert that they're all at risk of welfare dependency is just unnecessary and actually counter-productive. I want to actually refer to a meeting I had not long after becoming Minister with the 20 top case managers in the country and they were deemed top case managers because actually they were the most successful at getting people into work but the conversation that they had was not about welfare dependency. The thing that they raised as being of number one importance to them and what helped them do a great job was making sure that everyone that sought their support got what they were entitled to up front so that they could stabilise that person and that family situation. That was what helped them be successful. The second thing was they'd built a meaningful relationship with that person that was seeking their support gained the trust of that person and actually ascertained what their needs were. If they weren't immediately ready for employment then they worked out maybe what were the steps to becoming ready for employment. Perhaps it was upskilling and training so they didn't try to privilege the next minimum-wage job over an upskilling or training opportunity; they actually worked with them where they were at to see what was the best pathway for them. Then by doing that—building trust giving them what they're entitled to up front working with them with respect to where they were at and sometimes you know supporting them to take up upskilling and training opportunities rather than going into the next job that popped up—they were able to be successful in their job as case managers in terms of placing people into employment. So I just want to point out that it's not necessarily about—well actually it's not at all about and it shouldn't be about trying to avoid situations where someone might be welfare dependent because if that's your primary consideration then you're already starting off on a really negative foot with the person that's seeking your support. So I really liked what those 20 top case managers had to say about how they got to the point where they could support people into meaningful and sustainable employment. A lot of what they had to say were things that the previous Government completely overlooked as being of any importance. So it's good to listen to front-line staff. I do value the front-line staff and the learnings that they've gained on the job and I am looking forward to working with them with respect to tidying some of this stuff up."