O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Mr Chair. In some ways this is a reaction to the Minister once again suggesting that in effect members of this committee don't have an ability or the right to re-engage a bill as it goes through the House.I think in terms of Part 5 the Minister is quite correct: there are very few substantial changes. But I think one of the great things about the Westminster democratic system is that we're able to re-engage the text every time and to try and find opportunities to make it better. I have growing concern nay alarm that actually there's attempt to just shut this discussion down and continue to discuss policy-neutral. We have yet to have—and I'm not going to belabour this too much. We've had the terms policy" and "neutral" pushed through without actually any definition.What I need to pick up on is around sanctions around evidential drug-testing so we're looking at clause 240 and following. The particular reason for this is because we've had a question in the previous section in Part 4—which was not answered despite two attempts—around the addition of the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act. Because of what's happened in a subsequent part Part 4 now has contiguous elements in Part 5. When we're looking at clause 240 onwards around the evidential drug-test most of it is fairly logical when you begin to consider a person who is capable of fulfilling the requirements as proposed here in clause 240 onwards. However because of what was voted on as I understand it—and agreed to in the previous part—we are now including or can include people who have a very high level of drug and alcohol addiction and problems.As I noted to the committee at that point—I'm waving something at you Mr Chair sorry—these are people with such a high degree of damage for want of a better word due to drugs and alcohol that the question begins to arise whether they could ever fully engage in an evidential drug-test as prescribed now in Part 5. Their ability to engage in this evidential drug-test again simply because we have introduced a discussion of the substance abuse Act—and I'm still not clear if the Minister fully understands what that Act is or has done. But we may have clients of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) who are physically unable even as MSD clients to conclude an evidential drug-test as prescribed in clause 240 clause 241 through to clause at least clause 247—I do apologise—right through to clause 249. They physically may not be able to engage in an evidential drug-test. In fact it reaches such a high degree of problem that you may not even be able to do a blood test. So an evidential drug-test—we're talking about the likes of saliva and breath. The other thing is they may not have the mental competency or acuity to actually be able to engage that test too. So I think there is a lack of understanding perhaps in the wording of these clauses of how to include those people who have such a high level of impairment.So fundamentally I think most of it works for most New Zealanders. But the fundamental element of law is that we want to get it right first time. Now I know we don't often get that right but we try to do our best. So I suppose the suggestion to the Minister is once again to explain by including or bringing within the ambit those being thought of in the substance abuse Act of 2017. We're introducing a level of client that sits outside the norm of what we'd expect to see within MSD and therefore they will not be able to fit what is required here.So I suppose the fundamental element that then kicks out of all of this—I'm trying to slowly describe it but as I've often found in committee stage it's good to be accurate. These are people arguably who could be sanctioned—who could be sanctioned—for not being able to take a test. As we read through Part 5 we obviously have what the effects are the failure to do it the costs of a drug test and then particularly in clause 244 "Recompliance" and then clause 243 if someone has such a high level of addiction that they cannot engage in these tests then first and foremost they're going to incur more and more costs and according to clause 244 they're not going to be able to re-comply. They'll never in effect be able to re-comply. So I think the Minister will probably need to address that. In fact she may be able to point out to me that there is a clause further on within Part 5 that says basically MSD can just—[Bell rung]"