Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise to speak on Part 2 of the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. I'd like to begin by reminding this committee that it is actually a part of the bill which sets out more than 16 categories of assistance that—we have in general agreement—should be available to New Zealanders. It is to the credit of this House and indeed the credit of New Zealand that there is generally broad agreement on the important role welfare assistance plays in New Zealand society of the important role that having a safety net for those falling into hardship provides. So what this debate actually comes to in this committee today is the way in which we approach that assistance in terms of targeting it at those who need it most. Here on this side of the Chamber we philosophically believe that it is kinder to someone to help them into the dignity of work and the dignity of independence wherever possible whereas on the other side of the Chamber there seems to be some question about that. So we see that philosophy in play as we look to the various subparts of this bill because we see that again and again where the previous bill that National had put forward proposed to have a targeted approach a tailored approach an approach that provided discretion to ensure that those receiving assistance received the right kind of assistance that would allow them to get back on their own two feet—that approach is rejected by this Labour-led Government.I want to take you through a few examples of that. Let's look at Subpart 3 because I think it is extraordinary that here we had in the original bill the provision for a supported child's payment and the purpose of that was to ensure that where children were in homes where parents had died or where there was a breakdown in the family that grandparents step-parents or other eligible caregivers could be eligible for a supported child's payment. But no that's removed from the legislation here because that tailored approach is rejected on the other side of the Chamber. We would say Well actually that approach is a much more sensible way of ensuring that assistance goes where it's needed." That is why we are presenting a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) on those clauses SOP 29 and SOP 30. I commend those SOPs to members of this committee because actually we can work together on this and we can ensure that this legislation does help those most in need.We then turn to Subpart 8 on the emergency benefit which was just mentioned by the previous speaker. What the National bill did—and what this SOP seeks to remove—is provide an exceptional circumstances benefit that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) on a case by case basis could make subject to grant conditions. That is to acknowledge that there are circumstances that will arise that this House has not foreseen and to acknowledge that MSD may want to put in work obligations to make that relevant. Again on this side of the Chamber we offer an SOP to allow the other side of the Chamber to take sensible action on that.Then we come to the matter of the winter energy payment that my colleague Brett Hudson has spoken about at some length and has offered some useful suggestions on. Here I think we come to the nub of the difference between the two sides because here what the Labour-led Government has said is "We absolutely reject targeting support at those who need it most. No no no no. We're not interested in families who might be cold but aren't receiving benefits; we're more interested in giving grants giving energy grants to superannuitants living in million-dollar houses taking holidays on the Gold Coast. That's our idea of universalism. Because we think that those people need it more for our little sound bites than actually the working families who could benefit from targeted assistance."So we on this side of the Chamber proudly talk about social investment because what it's about ladies and gentlemen is targeting assistance where it's needed most where it can make the biggest difference where it will actually transform lives. We reject the simplistic notions on the other side of the Chamber that say "Oh well if we say it's universal we're going to sound like we're a benevolent people of deep care." Well it is not benevolent and it is not deeply caring to target other people's taxpayer dollars at people who do not need help with their electricity bills ladies and gentlemen instead of helping people in specific circumstances such as those unsupported children which I discussed in this area.So what we stand proudly on this side of Chamber to say is that if you're going to reform welfare you'd better do it in a way that actually helps people into lives of dignity and independence. This legislation does not achieve that."