O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): With respect to that member Peeni Henare both of us worked within the Ministry of Social Development and I suspect both of us know that a document of 501 pages which then sits on top of an existing 500-and-something pages—something like this is not policy-neutral. In fact that member will know as I know that pretty much when any Government Labour or National gets into power there's very little which is policy-neutral.I also take a little bit of umbrage around the notion that we're scared of hard work. I don't think any member in this House is scared of hard work. But if the suggestion ultimately is that we are best to somehow deal with 501 pages of Supplementary Order Paper in the committee of the whole House—that that's where the hard work takes place what's being implied I suppose consequently is we don't need a select committee process. If this is about hard work for the members of Parliament by going through 501 pages of a Supplementary Order Paper in the committee of the whole House then we just don't need select committees. I don't say that because I'm a select committee chair but actually hard work continues in two ways in this House: one obviously through the committee of the whole House but importantly engaging with the public. That is hard work but it's rewarding and useful hard work.So we've heard a lot about this rewrite bill—that it's to be policy-neutral. That was certainly the intention of the previous Government but what we've heard from the other side—and it was in their minority report—is that they did not believe it was policy-neutral. So let's for a moment accept that whatever came through from the previous National Government was not policy-neutral. You would expect then having the new Government taking the moral high ground that they couldn't vote in support for this bill because it wasn't policy-neutral that they themselves would introduce something like that but no they haven't.The incredible irony has been for them to take what they deemed to not be policy-neutral which is this document here and to add their 501 pages if you will of a Supplementary Order Paper to really sort of ratchet up the policy quality of their own side. It's a huge huge paradox.It's also a paradox in light of our previous discussion—Hon Member: It's an abuse of Parliament.SIMON O'CONNOR: Actually it is an abuse of Parliament. It's actually an abuse I would suggest too of the public who should have their say. I was talking about it briefly in the previous Government order of the day around the exclusive economic zone—that the public should be allowed to have their full say.The thing about Supplementary Order Papers that are introduced in the committee of the whole House in a stage after the second reading of this legislation passes is that the public do not get to have a say on this. They get no chance to have their say. This is 501 pages of Supplementary Order Paper dropped on this Parliament at the very last moment around arguably one of our most important areas which is that of social welfare or social development. For me this is 501 pages of legal jargon which really dismisses the importance of the people that I used to work with on the front line who deserve better.So what we have here is ultimately a good intention which has gone array. The bill started as a rewrite an attempt to modernise our legislation. I think all of us can accept that and in fact if that's where this bill had remained that would be excellent. However it has not. It has returned as a particularly legislative implementing if you will of the legislative programme of the Government in a variety of areas.My colleague the Hon Louise Upston pointed out one area which to us is not policy-neutral and cannot be policy-neutral and that's affirming that a sole parent benefit will only ever be paid to one parent. Under the arguments of some in the social sector that to split the payment on occasions where parents may be actually dually looking after multiple children—so we're not talking one child; we're splitting the payment. If you've got two or three children—let's say the dad's looking after two the mum's looking after one—the current proposal in this 501 pages of early-drop Supplementary Order Paper says that that benefit can only be paid to one parent with the argument being from the social sector that it could cause the splitting of families. I think it's a valid argument but that's probably a small number of people compared to the large number of people who rely on the sole benefit and those parental arrangements and I can think of a number in my own electorate that would fit into this. We could debate that policy aspect all night but it is not policy-neutral. The most concerning element of this whole process is that the New Zealand public will not get their say.The final thing—because I'm conscious the bell will go for the dinner break soon—is that in the minority view from Labour the now Minister Sepuloni made a big big plea that her push to basically create an affront to the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child to say that a father doesn't have to be named—we could get into that of course. She made a big play that she wanted that removed. She didn't want that to be part of the legislation; she made a very big push that she'd remove the sanctioning. She was very strong on this. It's very strange that as the Supplementary Order Paper comes she's neglected to add that in. I'm pleased she hasn't added it in because again I know the UN and a number of people have a lot to say about that. So at that point I think the contradictions continue to abound. Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.