O'Connor SimonClauses 1 and 2SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I thought I'd take what might be in comparison a relatively short call but I think a couple of things need to be questioned and noted as we've proceeded through this committee stage. I think it's important to put on the record briefly as we look to set up the commencement and the title of this bill that this side of the committee is once again concerned that we have gone through this at speed. I always say it is the prerogative of the Government the executive to do so but we've found in the past and particularly with social development bills that errors have come in which is unfortunate. I think that's a consequence of rushing and I do apologise but for the last bill we had to do an amendment to a preceding bill which was also rushed in. It had a problem around commencement in some of the details in clause 2 about certain parts of the bill. I think it was a social rewrite bill. There was an amendment. Its commencements—well some; better not exaggerate—were out of whack. So really in terms of commencement we have again two dynamics here: one at Royal assent and then a whole lot of provisions which come into force just under a year from now on 1 April 2020. I suppose I'm wanting to seek if the Minister is willing two assurances. One is that those sections that are to come into force are correct—just an assurance that it's been double and triple checked as I say with the previous social development bill. One of those let's say in clause 2(2)(b)—I'm never quite sure how to say it—there were errors; just to make sure that that's completely correct. There's obviously opposition from this side overall but we do ultimately want to make sure that if this passes the sole parents the power of the commissioner—and I thank the Minister for clarifying that earlier for me—and abatements are done correctly. The second question is really around commencement. It's probably more of a theoretical question but if for some reason Royal assent was not granted before 1 April 2020 what would happen? I'm absolutely sure the Government's not quite that slow and incompetent but if for some reason—I'm trying to be generous colleagues—that Royal assent was withheld to let's say 2 April 2020 what happens then? Would we end up with quite a big jolly mess? Finally it's really around the title. I've got to—and it's not going to be too wacky—make a certain series of points. At the moment its title Budget 2019 Welfare Package" I would suggest should really be termed "Budget 2023". Colleagues like Alfred Ngaro and others have pointed out that actually a lot of the benefits—all puns intended—only appear in 2023 and if I am right I think that's only something like $11. Now every dollar counts but I think it's just important that perhaps we relook at that title just to indicate that what we're debating today in many ways won't take effect until 2023.The final thing I would note is that I think terming this a "welfare package" is highly generous. When one goes to the supermarket and gets a package there are multiple multiple items. In fact a package by and large implies that you're going to go to a queue other than the express lane. We are only implementing through this bill two of 42 recommendations of the Welfare Working Group—what exactly it's been titled I always forget. It's not that particularly relevant. Sorry the work of the group is relevant not my lack of memory on it. But fundamentally 42 recommendations were put forward. So much has been made of this by particularly the Government and its support parties. I think it's unfortunate that only two of those are coming through. Therefore I am suggesting the title really shouldn't be referring to a package. It's implying more than what is there. Had we maybe done 20 or 25 then maybe we could call this a package. So perhaps we really need to call this the "Budget 2023 Two of 42 Suggestions". We might call this—well there's probably a whole litany of elements we could put in there but I won't try the patience of the committee.I think the message is clear: that first and foremost the date in the title should be changed to 2023 when a lot of the benefits are effected and I would argue we should remove the word "Package" and actually be very explicit that only two of 42 recommendations are put in there. I acknowledge that will make it rather long but we do seem to have a habit in this House of creating rather long titles as per my own speech which is a little long as well."