Ngaro AlfredPart 5 Enforcement: sanctions and offencesHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I think this is going to be a very robust part of the bill to debate because it talks about something that has varying views across the political divide—even in the current Government coalition—and it's to do with sanctions. We know that prior to the election there were differing views. I know that New Zealand First had a very clear perspective that they needed to be robust they needed to be reviewed and they needed to make sure that actually they complied and this was to do with those that were receiving a benefit. Whereas on the other side were the Greens who were very clear that they wanted to remove as much as possible almost all sanctions because they felt that they were too punitive. So I'll be interested to see the debates that happen over this part.I want to start off my contribution with regards to Part 5 and it's with the amendment in regards to Part 5 clause 217. What this talks about is that this is to create some continuity and consistency and this is policy-positive. None of this neutral stuff right? There's neutral and positive and this is policy-positive. I'd like us to refer to the evidence in clause 217. What this amendment will do is actually make it consistent with the clause in Part 3 which is clause 99. If I read this for the benefit of the members opposite and the Government it states this: The beneficiary must notify change of circumstances" and the "beneficiary must without delay notify MSD of a change in the beneficiary's circumstances" and it highlights and indicates what those changes are.What this amendment is seeking to do is ensure that in clause 217 when it talks about the hierarchy of sanctions it makes it very clear in the insertion of a new line. In that first part of clause 217 it is to insert the new line which says that "MSD must advise P"—that is the beneficiary—"of the hierarchy of sanctions and ensure P understands impacts of any breaches". Now if one reads in the explanatory note it is simply to do this: "This Supplementary Order Paper amends clause 99 to make it clear that it is the responsibility of the person receiving the benefit to notify MSD of any changes. It ensures that people have an obligation to notify MSD even when they believe their change in circumstances may affect their entitlement not just in [circumstances] where they are unsure that it will." It's consistent with clause 99 where again the consistency is that the beneficiary must notify of those changes.I think this is quite a pragmatic view to be able to ensure that we make a change to clause 217 which I think is critically important. It also affects clause 216 where it talks about the obligations to carry out the sanctions for failure to comply and where it states quite clearly that the obligations referred to are: "(a) obligation to comply with a requirement under section 104 to attend and participate in a work ability assessment or reassessment:"—as well—"(b) obligation to comply with a work-preparation obligation under section 110 or 111:".I know that my colleague Darroch Ball across the way would agree with this. He's been a strong supporter of the Limited Service Volunteers and felt for a long time that they've been very effective in being able to help those young people that are in need to be able to comply with the rules and regulations but more importantly to give them an opportunity to be able to have a career.So I think actually that this amendment is quite clear. It's precise. Number one it allows for consistency which is in clause 99 in Part 3 and it ensures that it is clear for the beneficiary in this particular instance to ensure that they understand and know that the fact is that they must comply. But more importantly it puts some onus and accountability and responsibility back on the beneficiary themselves and I think that's really important as well. It's not just dependent on MSD to do its job. It will do its job it will comply and in most of these cases we think that's critically important.So this is just the first of my contributions and I think that I'd like to again put this order up. If the Minister that's in the chair Kris Faafoi who is very capable—I know that this may not be his brief. He may not have skills but he is a good Minister. He is a great Minister and a great person who I think understands this and I'd like to see that Minister stand up take charge and agree to this amendment. This could be the Golden Kiwi of the night. I think he would agree with this. I submit this amendment to the committee."