Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Madam Chair. The two previous speeches from Greg O'Connor and also Deborah Russell too were the worst speeches of chardonnay socialism. They were both incoherent and inconsistent. One was full of arrogance the other was full of ignorance and obviously both of them did not read the bill because if they did they would've actually known what the bill is all about.This reminds me when I look at this bill and the changes that have been made in Part 2 of this bill and the whole part of the bill in amendments there was an academic theologian by the name of Marcian. He was in Rome in 160 AD. What he did was that he took the Bible the writing of the Bible and the Word and what he did was that he decided he only wanted to make it sound good so that he was pleasing to the people. This reminds me of him. So he took out all the bits that revealed the truth and he had all the bits that made people feel good about themselves. The big problem with him was that when he talked about a God of love and a God of hate and a God of war he was unsure about how to make it consistent because what he was afraid of was the truth. This bill that is before us today is similar to that: it's afraid of the truth. So they've got the razor blades out like Marcian they've cut out all the bits the bits that made them feel uncomfortable. They want to play populist politics and in particular in Part 2.I want to refer to the part of the bill in Part 2 in clause 59(5) and here's what it says 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 by MSD: (b) impose on [the beneficiary] the work-test or work-preparation obligations…". Now what is so hard about that? What's so bad about that? Well here again are a Government and a Minister and members on the other side who have not read this bill because you need to go all the way back to the purpose of the bill. What does the purpose of the bill state? Yes it's in Part 1 but it relates to Part 2 and it simply says this in clause 3(a)(ii): "to help people to find or retain paid employment;". Let's look at the principle of the bill and here it is clause 4(a) "work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve"—let's wait for it—"social and economic well-being:"—social and economic well-being.So here's what I want to say to the Minister in the chair Peeni Henare and to those opposite: give us the rationale and the reasons why you would take that out altogether. It's not mean-spirited; it's consistent and congruent with the intent of the bill. But where does this come from? The previous Minister in the chair Minister Sepuloni said to us in the Chamber just before the dinner break that this is old stuff that we were bringing in—this Opposition was trying to introduce old ways. We're talking about the new ways.Well I just so happened to go out into the back there into the lobby and what do I have to pull out? The Hansard of 12 September 1938. Let's look at the speech that was made by the Hon Mr Fagan who by the way was a Labour Minister and a Labour MP. When he introduced the bill—and I know Mr Greg O'Connor talked about it being a car. It was actually not 1936; he's got to get his models right—it was 1938 when the bill was introduced into Parliament. I love what he says here. Now you may call it old school but nothing has changed either in the purpose or in the principles of the Act. But I love this and here's what he says to us: "We all know [that] the old saying 'Cut your coat according to your cloth.'"—that's a little bit of the old school; in other words: live within your means—"An idealist and a visionary [must] use all the cloth in making a coat and find himself minus [his] trousers."—minus his trousers. Madam Chair I hope I haven't breached any protocols here but it just seems really simple to me—in 1938 live within your means. So while you're up there and you want to have the lolly scramble you want to be nice and you want to be caring and kind what's wrong—sorry Madam Chair—what is wrong with ensuring the fact that people have the great opportunity which work affords to them? It's clear that since 1938 amended in 1964 nothing has changed. Those key purposes those key principles are consistent today and here we are in 2018 debating this bill. This is like the Bible of social policy that exists here in Parliament and for us as legislators. Are we going to be like Marcian to cut out all the good bits—Marja Lubeck: Marcion! Marcion not Marcian.Hon ALFRED NGARO: —all the bits that we don't like? That's what we'll do. Well Marcion—that's right. You may like to call him there. I don't think he was Dutch; I think he was Italian. But that's OK. But the fact remains this: what this bill is actually all about and what's being removed by this Government today is they're taking out the bits they think are nasty. They're taking out the bits that they think are unkind. There is nothing wrong with giving people an opportunity—for those that are on a benefit—for work because why? What does it say here? And I'll read it again for the members on the other side to the chardonnay socialists: "work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being:". Isn't that the intent of the House? Isn't that the intent of this bill? If it is then why would you take out work-test obligations? Why would you remove that? So I move that we accept Supplementary Order Paper 31 in my name which happens to be written so well which talks about in clause 59 replacing that which has been amended."