Bidois DanDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Oh! Ha ha! Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on the legislation arising from the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. It's been interesting hearing debate from both sides of the House today. I just want to start off certainly by wishing the Hon Peeni Henare a happy birthday. I wish though his contribution in the House today reflected the uniqueness of today for his birthday but unfortunately it did not.I want to make a few comments and observations on the speeches that I've heard. Firstly from the Minister for Social Development Carmel Sepuloni—you know I'm very happy that the Minister has acknowledged that social investment is not a bad thing." Then she goes on to say that the whole purpose of Supplementary Order Paper 25 (SOP) is to make it easier to use and understand and navigate. My question to the Minister is: how is a 501-page SOP easier to navigate? The Minister goes on to say that everyone in our lifetime will in some way have an interaction with social services. So if that's the case why not make the legislation a little bit easier to understand and that is what our original proposed bill that went to select committee was all about.I would like to certainly acknowledge the former Minister the Hon Anne Tolley for taking the courage to rewrite this legislation and put it through to select committee. It is a shame that we can't go back to that bill. I'm sure our party would be supportive of that bill. But unfortunately this lengthy essay—501-page document—really doesn't lend any weight to us supporting it.I want to start off by certainly acknowledging my Social Services and Community Committee member Greg O'Connor who I understand is still taking learnings from certain radio interviews that he's given in the past. I want to offer him some learnings that I have taken from the visits to the Work and Income offices—[Interruption]ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!DAN BIDOIS: —both in Willis Street and also in my electorate of Birkenhead. So I've visited the Work and Income office in Birkenhead and the feedback that I've heard from the Work and Income office in Birkenhead is that the transition to work off the benefit is still an issue for many of our beneficiaries. It is still difficult for people to find and retain work and that is what the social investment approach was all about. This legislation really suffers from bad process. I'm still a newbie as you might suspect and I'm amazed that a 501-page document gets tabled literally hours before it is to be debated in the second reading. This SOP didn't have any regulatory impact statement attached to it. The public were not able to have their say in this very important rewrite. I just think that it sets a very bad precedent for this House but it doesn't surprise me with this dysfunctional Government that we have at the moment. Now we tabled a number of SOPs in the committee of the whole House and even I did as a newbie and unfortunately the Minister didn't listen to a single bit of it. This SOP—the 501-page document—will have an impact on child poverty which is as I understand a very key priority for the Government. But the most important reason that we oppose this legislation is that it removes the ability to target support for those that need it most. In particular in Part 1 it removes the ability to help those that need it by giving the Ministry of Social Development the ability to target their responses to those people. That is what the social investment approach is all about. My colleague the Hon Alfred Ngaro said before around the principles of social investment—and for all of you at home I know it's a very abstract concept but social investment is really about changing lives. It's that simple. It's about prioritising spending. You all at home want to make sure that your tax dollars are being used in the most effective way according to our ability. So for every $100 million that goes in to social welfare you want to make sure that it's targeting the people that need it most—Hon Tracey Martin: There's a Treasury wonk for you. That's what it's about: money. Money money money; not people!DAN BIDOIS: —and that's what social investment is all about. The priorities and the principles of social investment are about prioritising—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!DAN BIDOIS: Now I hear some sort of chatter in the background. It's too light for me to hear but I believe it's coming from the New Zealand First member right over there. But look I'll go back to my speech which is around the general principles of social investment. Now you know again I want to talk to the people at home because that's really what matters here. You want your tax dollars to be spent the best and most efficient way that we can. Social investment is all about taking the fixed money that we have for social welfare and making sure that it meets and targets those that need it most. If you don't need it we're not going to give it to you. That is the whole idea behind social investment: using the data to better understand who needs it. "What's the alternative?" I hear some people at home say. Well the alternative is this Government's approach which is to spray and walk away: the universal approach to basically dish out money left right and centre; whoever needs it come and get it no matter whether you're high-income you're in a job then you can come and get it. And that quite frankly is not the best use of taxpayers' money and that is why we support the application of social investment which is about helping children particularly at risk of poor outcomes as young adults and targeting those families in particular. Other aspects of this legislation—of course we've had a conversation about the winter energy payment and that it is not net neutral; it is part of Labour's election manifesto as my colleague the Hon Simon O'Connor mentioned.Let me talk about other things. We've talked of course about the separated couples who split the responsibility of their parenting duties. Unfortunately under this rewrite—this lengthy 501-page rewrite—only one of those parents will be able to access that benefit. That is just a shocking set of principles that this Government is you know working under.Chlöe Swarbrick: Occupying.DAN BIDOIS: Yeah good—excellent. So look I just wish we could go back to the original rewrite bill which would have simplified this important legislation dramatically. It would have ensured a modern approach to social investment in terms of targeting and it wasn't about reform of the welfare State; it was just completely tidying up the legislation. Unfortunately this legislation removes a suite of support for parents who have split responsibilities and Labour wants to essentially remove the hard-line obligations for people who are on a benefit to get back to work. We support the transition back to work as quickly as possible.There was a member here who said that the National Party doesn't support the people at the bottom. Well I flat out reject that assumption and that is about the social investment. We believe in giving people a hand up not a hand out. The member opposite Greg O'Connor will remember—if he's taking learnings on this as well—that in the select committee exchange to Australia we did see a lot of that: a hand up not a hand out.We in the National Party will absolutely flat out not be supporting this legislation rewrite. We believe that unfortunately this is not a friendly document to read for the people that actually are going to need to read it. It is 501 pages and let me assure you it is not easy bedtime reading. Also it removes the general principles of social investment and for all of you at home let me tell you what the principles of social investment are: it's about prioritising paid employment as quickly as possible; it's about prioritising the ability to find and retain work; and it's about giving the Ministry of Social Development the ability and power to target assistance where we need it most and that is our most vulnerable children and families throughout New Zealand. We will not be supporting this horrible legislation in the House. Thank you."