Ngaro Alfred; Tolley AnneHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Madam Chair. As we are now debating in the committee Part 4 of this bill I just want to reflect on comments that were actually made by the Minister in the chair Carmel Sepuloni just prior to the dinner break. And I suppose the comments created a little bit of a concern but also I'd be interested to get some clarity from the Minister when she stands to then address some of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) and the issues that have been raised in regards to Part 4. She was reflecting on the welfare overhaul. She was talking about elements of the social security rewrite legislation that is before the committee and then she also indicated that there are elements of it that she did not agree with; in fact she was quite clear that actually they would change at a later time but that at the moment they just needed to get through.I'd like to remind the Minister that the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill is the most significant rewriting of the legislation in a number of years. In order to be able to make those changes I'm just wondering whether the Minister can clarify what changes she would make because I would think that she would take the opportunity now to be able to make those changes. So that's the first thing I'd like to sort of see: whether the Minister can talk about that.The second thing that would be important as we are now continuing the debate is what's come up in responses from the Minister in regards to her responses to SOPs that we've put forward—she's ruled them out because they are not policy-neutral. Yet when our colleague here Chris Penk put forward an amendment that was policy-neutral it was not acceptable. I know my colleague Simeon Brown asked the Minister—and I hope that she will be able to take the opportunity to do that—to clarify what she deems as being policy-neutral. So that we can continue to sort of look forward to our SOPs—at least having the opportunity to be able to have some form of debate on them and maybe have some consideration by the Minister.So my contribution at this time is just in regards to an SOP in the name of the Hon Louise Upston who can't be here this evening. This SOP is in regards to Part 4 clause 191. Just to give you the context of this this particular clause of the bill talks about Factors affecting benefit: hospitalisation". It talks about "Hospitalisation" in clause 190—"The main benefit under this Act of a person … is affected by hospitalisation". It gives under that clause—those who are dependants those who are spouses inside of that. It then talks further on in clause 191—"Benefit of spouse or partner increased after 13th week of hospitalisation"—"(1) This section applies if—(a) a person's … main benefit under this Act is reduced under section 190; and (b) … has a spouse or partner who is not in hospital or has been in hospital for less than 13 weeks;".The SOP in the name of the Hon Louise Upston seeks to make a change. Members will see that on SOP 25 this has been removed. The words that have been removed in subclause 3—the first part of the subclause notes "Nothing in this section entitles a single person or a couple who are". I then quote the removed parts—the crossed-out parts—"married or in a civil union or in a de facto relationship" which just then has been replaced with a new part which states "in a relationship". So I was speaking on behalf of the Hon Louise Upston who would like to see that again. This is important. There are numerous other pieces of legislation that actually acknowledge the different types of relationship. Again I would hope to see that the Minister will see actually this is policy-neutral. There's nothing here that would actually be inconsistent with other forms of policy that's there. That would then allow the Minister to consider this. I hope that the Minister will consider this here as well. The Hon Louise Upston also notes that this Supplementary Order Paper—Supplementary Order Paper 33—amends the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill and amends clause 191 to specify the types of relationship which are applicable to this clause. So there are other SOPs I will be speaking on but two things. First of all: the clarification around what's policy-neutral. The second is just in regards to the comments that the Minister made that in regards to the welfare overhaul actually she changed a number of things. I'd like to know what those things are. I think that's important for us so that we can think that we've got an opportunity at the committee of the whole House to debate those.Then obviously the third part of this debate is in regards to SOP 33 and Part 4 clause 191 as well. I hope that the Minister can consider this and in her response consider actually allowing this amendment to be part of the bill as well. Thank you Madam Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Just before I call the next member. It is custom—and I think there have been Speakers' rulings in this House—that we don't mention the absence of a member from the Chamber. You can certainly speak on behalf of another member but it's not in the rules to mention that that person is away."