Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Mr Chair. It's an honour to take a call on this Part 3 of the bill which is entitled Obligations". I see that my colleague over there Darroch Ball is smiling because he knows what I'm about to say. One of the challenges which they probably find really difficult to work through is obligations because when they campaigned in their manifesto—and staying to the point around obligations—they clearly said that "We want to scrutinise the benefit system." The other thing they also talked about one of their manifesto platforms was work for the dole. That didn't work very well did it because the other guys didn't like it didn't want it—so guess what? It ain't going to happen. But it does talk about work-testing obligations that are really important which is what this Part 3 talks about. It talks about the work-test obligations.So I'm very interested. In fact I know that on the other side Jan Logie—she's really keen because she was the one that was championing the fact that we would remove sanctions but if you remove a sanction then where do you hold people to account to the obligations? I think that's going to be the challenge that the Minister's going to find actually in this bill maybe with her coalition colleagues.My point that I want to raise in particular is around this aspect of the work-test obligations that are here. There seems to be a little bit of inconsistency but I'm sure the Minister can answer this. In Part 2 it was very clear that when one was applying for the emergency benefit—actually in fact it's here in Part 2 Subpart 8. In clause 59(5)—and this has been removed—it says "MSD may on a case by case basis do either or both of the following: (a) make the grant of an exceptional circumstances benefit subject to any conditions imposed … (b) impose on [the person] the work-test or work-preparation obligations"—those are being removed. So if it's being removed because of this I want to ask the Minister then there does seem to be some inconsistency around the obligations—we're removing it from the work-test obligations in regards to applying for an emergency benefit so how do we see the consistency of that when it applies through the rest of this bill? I'm sure that the Minister will be able to get advice from her advisers to be able to talk about that.I want to further talk about Subpart 1 in Part 3 in regards to the failure to comply with these obligations. Here's the point I think that's going to be very difficult and challenging. In Subpart 1 clause 91(1) "Failure to comply with obligation under this Part" it says "A person who is subject to an obligation under this Part and who fails to comply with that obligation without good and sufficient reason is liable to a sanction"—is liable to a sanction. Now that's not being removed but I think it's going to be very interesting. I'd like to hear the speakers on the other side of the Chamber because I know very clearly that they've actually said they're opposed to sanctions. The Minister herself as my honourable colleague Louise Upston has said has spoken out about sanctions. So I just want to get some clarity about what's a good sanction and what's a bad sanction. What are sanctions that we can actually apply in this situation when a person doesn't comply with the obligations?The obligations that I read in Subpart 3 are not too onerous. They're not mean-spirited. They're not difficult because like all of us in this House know—and those who are now in Government and who are part of the executive know—you are held to account because it's a taxpayer fund. It's a fiscal responsibility that you have to ensure that you use it wisely and carefully. So how do you hold people to account when really clearly the Minister who has spoken on a number of occasions has actually said that she will actually look and at times oppose sanctions? So if the Minister can talk about that in regards to what types of sanctions she will allow that we can comply with what they would look like and how they would be applied I think that's going to be important for the Minister to be able to respond to that and that includes that as well.If we move further down in Subpart 1 clause 92 reads "MSD must make people affected aware of their obligations consequences of non-compliance and their review and appeal rights". I guarantee we're not going to hear very many speeches from the Greens. Why? Because they don't like reading this stuff. It's too tough.But how tough it is when someone—we're not talking about everyone. This is not about benefit bashing; this is purely about those who don't comply. All of us would agree with that. There are some people and it's a small group but when it gets to the point when you've done everything possible—you've informed them you've met with them and you've had appointments at the Work and Income office but they get to the point where just for the sake of it they don't want to—how do we ensure then that they comply which means in order for that to happen according to the bill here you would have to apply a sanction. What will that sanction look like?I think it's important for the Minister to be able to answer that question. I think it's important for her to be able to respond."