O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I'm back people. You always notice in debates that the louder someone—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Can I just calm the chorus every time there's a speaker for or against.SIMON O'CONNOR: You always notice when someone's yelling loud that they're compensating for a lack of argument. But I do agree with the last member's—I'm sort of sympathetic to the last member's suggestion of universalism because I'm sure when you listen to the left they talk about universalism and they talk about non-discrimination and not wanting to have any stigma. So to that member who's resumed her seat Deborah Russell I look forward to her putting in a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) here on Part 2 to allow me to access all the benefits that I choose because that would be universal. It would respect my right because you wouldn't want to offend me at this point.I'd also like to say that if you refused to give me the winter energy payment even though I'm 42 or you refused to give me the sole parent benefit simply because I'm married that's discrimination and it's an offence against universalism. So I just find that you know words are really important but that's typical of the left.Brett Hudson: Selective universalism.SIMON O'CONNOR: Selective universalism that's right. There's another word for that Mr Hudson. So look Part 2 is rather comprehensive. There are 16 subparts which instantly puts into—well it's hard to have various subparts if you're universal. Surely it should have been just basically a one-page SOP from the Government that just said basically We'll give money to anyone who wants it." But Subpart 1 is around what the whole section does. The first is around the residential requirements and there's two questions that the Minister in the chair Carmel Sepuloni needs to address here. The first is why someone who's a New Zealand citizen or holds a residence class must be here for a period of two years. I understand this is what often happens. It's fairly standard in the legislation but I've been hearing from the Opposition and from Ministers in the chair that again stigma universalism and non-discrimination are vitally important. So why we're discriminating against New Zealanders on the basis of their length of time here is a concern and it's a contradiction that I think the Minister needs to address either on their part or on behalf of their governing parties.The other is around clause 16 part (2) subpart (a) subpart (ii) of that—I still haven't worked out how to quite phrase it—just to make sure that those seeking protection or seeking refugee status are also covered. The current piece of legislation says "is recognised as a refugee or a protected person in New Zealand under the Immigration Act [of] 2009"—absolutely prudent. I'd just like to make sure that those seeking protection—because it's my understanding that someone doesn't become a refugee necessarily or immediately.Jumping then to clause 17 around rates we've obviously got in clause 17(2) some changes of nomenclature there—Hon Christopher Finlayson: Nomenclature?SIMON O'CONNOR: Nomenclature. In 17(1) there's a reference to schedule 4 which is around the rates themselves. I have a general question in this regard—it's probably just my lack of understanding; happy to admit that—are the schedules able to be updated regularly? Of course all the amounts of money to be charged—say in Part 1 clause 1(a) specifies that someone will receive $143.55 a week. I assume things change and are constantly changing in this space so I think it would be useful if the Minister could confirm to the House that the schedules are easily amended. I'd be fairly confident we're not going to have to return to the House to move legislation every time we want to change a rate.Linking into schedule 4 through clause 17 why is Part 9 still there? I know there's nothing underneath it—Hon Members: Ha ha!SIMON O'CONNOR: —but this is meant to be—I know some colleagues laugh and it might seem frivolous and it's not the intention. This is a tidy-up bill and I'm just curious about why we've got a part with no substance and we're also referring to the DPB—obviously something that in terms of what we've discussed in this House over many a year has well passed and gone. So just in the context of while we're tidying up why that's there.In Part 1 of schedule 4 as referred to in Subpart 1 of Part 2 clause 17 why has the Minister chosen to remove clause 1(ca)? This is around a single beneficiary with one or more dependent children—I won't read the whole thing for the use of time but I'd be interested in why that has been removed. Similarly again in schedule 4 Part 1 clause 1 we've also seen removals of paragraphs (h) and (i). I assume—look there's probably very good reason for this but as I've heard from my colleagues too this was a bill initially put forward by this side of the House when in Government; I just would like to understand the reasons for the change there.And I suppose similarly too as you go through—and again this is still just only Part 1 of Schedule 4—why are we seeing the changes in the rates? Again using clause 1 for an example it's gone from $140.08 to $143.55. I'd be interested to know: is that reflecting some governmental changes and announcements of late or is this a follow-through of some of the National Government's changes; and if it is the latter particularly around the family tax credits and so forth that these are right and accurate. I would not want to see that the changes that National had been proposing have entered accidentally into this legislation into this schedule 4 and then we have to go back.Look the last one that I'll speak on here if I might is still linking to schedule 4 as it applies to rates in clause 17 of the main bill in Part 2. I think it's probably going to be of interest to the other side of the House because it's to do with unions. It could be my misreading of things but it's again schedule 4 Part 1—I assume that we call it clause 3. One of these days I'm going to sit down with the clerks and get how I phrase this correct but it's around a special rate of benefit. It's been struck out and it's been struck out including in circumstances as I read it and I quote where "a strike either by the spouse or partner or by fellow members of the same union at the same place of employment." So on my first reading sort of a "prima farsay" approach—Hon Christopher Finlayson: Prima facie.SIMON O'CONNOR: Prima facie—that's always the problem of having a Latinist in here. Why is that special rate of benefit being removed? I feel a bit funny as a centre-right National Party politician attempting to stand up for—Jamie Strange: Centre-right?SIMON O'CONNOR: —the unions but it appears to me—you know I thought gentle terms would help tonight. Why is it that a special rate of benefit is being removed in the case of a strike? [Interruption] Isn't it funny that the Government jump up and down about one self-description when we're actually talking about how we help other people. It's funny what they get excited about. They don't seem to be getting excited about the removal as I see it here—and I'd love the Minister to respond. As I see it here—again just for clarity because I know the officials will have to be working on this—schedule 4 Part 1 clause 3 removes a special rate of benefit to New Zealanders on the basis that they may be on strike or that their partner or spouse may be on strike or fellow members of the same union at the same place of employment. I'd be fascinated to know from that centre-left Government—some might suggest something else but that centre-left Government—Brett Hudson: Hard-left.SIMON O'CONNOR: —that centre-left Government; I'd better be generous in return—why they appear to be removing rights to some of their union friends. It's a little bit confusing to me.So really the fundamental questions I have here are around the structure of schedule 4: why Part 9 is there in its entirety; why Minister in Part 1 under "Jobseeker support" the dollar amounts are being changed; and then a little bit of clarity around Part 1 clause (1)(ca) and those following—why have those particular sections been removed—with a particular highlight if one can have a particular in a particular of why the special rates of benefits to spouses partners and fellow members of a union are being removed.And then just because I have bounced around in Subpart 1 it really is that discriminatory element potentially of the two years' residence in New Zealand. I'm personally supportive of it; I just remain a little bit confused by this universalistic talk from the other side of why there is a condition. And finally that recognition of a refugee—are we going to be able to protect those who are seeking protection under the Immigration Act 2009?So I'll leave it there. I do have an SOP to discuss but that's under Subpart 5. I'm sure it's a relief to the House that with these 16 subparts I'm only given four speaking slots so you'll have to see which other four will come."