O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Madam Chair. Look this has been a somewhat lengthy debate over a number of days and it's good that we're up here now to obviously the title and commencement. But we haven't in effect had enough debate and the reason for that is ultimately twofold: one is that we have not sadly heard from the Ministers in the chair and secondly we've had a substantial 600-plus page Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) tabled at the last moment bringing about substantial changes—and as my colleague who has just resumed her seat noted changes that have not gone through select committee have not been engaged with by the general public and in effect even as hard-working MPs we haven't had the full amount of time required to go through. But in the time that we have had in the debate in the House and outside there are a number of problems. Fundamentally the first is this is no longer policy-neutral. Pretty much the only contributions we got from Ministers in the chair were waxing lyrical—or perhaps waxing boring—on the fact that this is policy-neutral and it's a case unfortunately of the lady doth protest too much". It's the complete opposite of what's being said. This is no longer policy-neutral and it's one of the key reasons that National is unable to support the bill. In fact I'd better be clear: we could support the bill but we cannot support the bill with SOP 25 dropped on it. So for that reason I suggest that the title should really be something like the "Social Security Legislation Rewrite and Last-Minute SOP Dropped on the Public Without Discussion Bill". I would suggest too that the commencement needs to be pushed at least a year out. So basically they're suggesting at the moment via the SOP that it should be 26 November 2018. It should go at least to 2019 and there are two reasons for that. First and foremost I think it remains an affront to the House and democratic process that the public hasn't had their say. I think the Minister should take this last opportunity to actually seek the leave of the House or go to the Business Committee go to the Speaker and send this back into select committee to allow people to have their say. In fact probably most of their friends—when I think of the poverty action groups and so forth one of the things they always talk about is they want to talk and engage and have a discussion. They seem a little bit mute at the moment which doesn't fully surprise me. The Left often become mute when they get what they want and don't want anyone else to speak but really the public should have their say. The second is I'm not convinced that all these changes can be implemented in time. In fact the original implementation was meant to be in July—in fact a couple of weeks ago. We've obviously gone past that time because the House has not been able to agree on this legislation and it's been pushed out to 26 November. Again that was done by SOP 25 weeks and weeks and weeks ago and here we are almost in August. So I think there's a bit of a problem there. I can't speak for the good people at the Ministry of Social Development but with the changes that are being put through—the non - policy-neutral changes that are being put through—more time is required.Look fundamentally where the opposition has come around this is not just the lack of neutrality—which is what the intention of the rewrite bill was to do to try and modernise various points of language—but it was to enable flexibility in the welfare system. The one example—and it's only one of many—that we on this side particularly used is around the care of children. In effect under the previous rewrite and before this SOP Work and Income in particular had the flexibility to divide payments where necessary to those parents who are looking after children. It's not the case with two parents and let's say three or four children that all the children will be with one of the parents. That's a really simple situation and I suspect a case manager in Work and Income would be relieved when that situation comes up because it's very clear: if one parent's looking after all the kids all the entitlements go to that parent. But we know that parenting these days is quite complex. I know that myself. You can no longer because of this SOP and this proposed legislation split the moneys. Now that's going to cause all sorts of strife I would suggest in so far as if the four kids are split between the two parents only one gets it—I suspect probably the mum which she might be happy about. But then all of a sudden how is the father going to access some of those funds? Is he going to have to negotiate with the mother? Is he or she going to have to engage lawyers? And the cost—it just all gets a little bit messy. So it's just an example—just an example—of how this is not flexible and I think a contradiction to the suggestions that have been put that this is about putting the child at the centre. Fundamentally if that were the case then elements I would say of this SOP would be rejected. But with that I end my contribution which is probably a great relief hours and hours later to the honourable member Kieran McAnulty."