Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I am very keen to talk about the Minister for Social Development's Supplementary Order Paper 25 under principles which is to remove the wording in clause 4(e) to help achieve the best possible outcome for people at risk of long-term welfare dependency". But before I talk about my views on this removal of these words I want to actually respond to the New Zealand First member Darroch Ball who I see is so fixated on how to define social investment.Darroch Ball: Yeah.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Yes repeatedly—repeatedly—you're so fixated on that one issue: how to define social investment. I think the member should focus on seeing the outcomes of social investment that we managed to achieve. And the member from the Green Party Jan Logie yes she recognises that jobs are important. We fully agree. Yes jobs are important and that is what a social welfare system is about. It's about providing support to people—those who have no source of income. So yes there are people—they cannot be assisted to get into employment but there are other people that can be motivated.Kieran McAnulty: Part 1.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: It's not "Ha ha". In reality yes there are people—they can be motivated they can be helped to get into employment and I can tell the member that I know that the caseworkers work really really hard—really really hard—understanding what their qualification is what their experience is in and how they can help them fit into some kind of business for employment reasons. They connect with local businesses to the extent that they help them prepare their CV forward the CV to businesses and arrange their interview times as well. So yes there is a lot of work that caseworkers do at the Ministry of Social Development to help these people get into jobs.So the concern we have is that the Minister for Social Development is taking that flexibility away from caseworkers to be able to help these people—those who just need some motivation just need some assistance and they will be in employment. And yes I ask the Minister what's wrong with this wording: "to help achieve the best possible outcome for people at risk of long-term welfare dependency"? It's about identifying risk. It's about finding the evidence. But yes I know you should say "Ha ha." The member should say "Ha ha." now because you don't want to—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order!Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Sorry Madam Chair. I just meant that member there. So yeah because they don't want to believe in evidence they don't want to collect data they don't want to see what's coming up in different information that we can collect. If we try to tailor solutions depending on what the problem is then we can get better outcomes but it looks like this Minister just wants to sprinkle money away and hope that the problem will go away. We don't believe in that. We believe in looking at where the problem is and how we can address that issue. That's why we believe that this wording is really really important.We know that the evidence shows that when people go on benefit at a younger age it's likely that they will remain on benefit for a longer time. So that is a risk. The age of that individual is a risk. So if we know that why should we not act on that? Why should we not help those people in that age bracket who we know are at higher risk of staying on benefit for a long time? I don't see any problem with that and I don't understand why the Minister sees a problem with this. That's why I ask the Minister what's wrong with this wording why she wants to take this wording away. If the Minister will take a call and repeat that "Oh this is just the rewrite of the social security legislation." then the Minister is taking us back to the 1960s.Yes we know that there have been so many sections added to this legislation. The rewrite was important but we also want to reflect on the changes that have come in these years and how we can make the service delivery better. So I believe the Minister is completely ignoring that bit and is just focused on rewriting this bill and wasting the House's time—not only the House's time but I believe that she has also wasted our submitters' time. Actually it has been really a very undermining process where submitters came with a lot of hope they thought they were being heard on this legislation but no because of us going back to where we were. That means that whole process was of no use to us here to make this legislation more effective.So I really urge the Minister to think again about the whole process. We should not undermine the select committee process because that is what the Minister is doing. If it's just about staying away from social investment because that is the term used by the previous National Government that has been so successful—[Time expired]CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I call Kieran McAnulty."