Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Can I wish the Hon Peeni Henare a happy birthday. I'm not sure if it's 25 26—he looks very young; he looks still like a spring chicken. Mind you when he's out on the rugby field with the Parliamentary Rugby Team he's still active and still very strong. So I wish him well on his birthday.I want to make a couple of comments in regards to this legislation. We are discussing the Social Security Bill in its third reading.The member talked about the phrase policy-neutral" and I want to take to task that comment. I'm happy to take his tutelage—he actually said that he'd be willing to spend time. But when we say policy-neutral then when we talk about Part 2 Subpart 9A where it actually talks about the winter energy payment—well that actually has come from a policy from the Labour Party. I'm not sure whether it's Labour-led and New Zealand First—bit confused at the moment—but it is a policy. So I want to challenge the member in regards to the fact that when he says and declares in this House "This is policy-neutral" well actually it's not because that is a direct correlation to a promise that was made in a manifesto in an election in 2017. So I have to say that it is not policy-neutral. Winter energy payments actually come from the Labour Party itself.I want to go back because I want to—again on the record—remind the members of Government in regards to what they are actually voting for and what they are standing up to support in this bill the Social Security Bill. I want to remind the members that—as the Hon Peeni Henare talked about—from 1938 to 1964 to now in 2018 in this rewrite bill the purpose and the principles have not changed. And we support it. We support those purposes and those principles.And here I want to read what those principles are because I think it's really important that the members and the Government actually realise what they're voting for. So the principles on page 24 and clause 4 declare this: "Every person performing or exercising a duty function or power under this Act must have regard to the following general principles: (a) work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being: (b) the priority for people of working age should be to find and retain work: (c) people for whom work may not currently be an appropriate outcome should be assisted to prepare for work in the future and develop employment-focused skills: (d) people for whom work is not appropriate should be supported in accordance with this Act." I make this point because in this House and even outside the House and in the public in forums and debates the National Party has been criticised. It has been criticised because it has upheld the principles that are declared in the Act. The best thing for all peoples in reliance to the Social Security Act is work. We've declared that and yet many times I've heard this debate I've heard the rhetoric saying that we've become hard-headed and we've become cold and careless as a party. But today in the third reading of this members opposite will be voting for these principles. So what I would like to say is that if we have the rhetoric if we have people debate and talk about this then they are voting for the very things that we have declared that we support in this House.We support the importance of work. We support the importance that all those who should be assisted to regain employment should be assisted. But for those who cannot then we support that it's important to wrap around them to give them the ability to go through training or otherwise or those with a disability—we understand and recognise that. But in clause 4 "Principles" the word "work" has been named six times. I want to put that on the record. So for those on the opposite side this is what you'll be voting for and actually we support that. Here's what we find really confusing on the opposite side: that the Minister then comes in with a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) and here's what the SOP declares. The SOP then declares this—and it is this from the Minister: the removal of hardened obligations for beneficiaries with additional children in regards to finding paid employment. Yet in regards to that the whole intent of this under the principles—four times mentioned; six times the word was said—is to help people find employment. So I find it really difficult that the Minister in the House has tabled an SOP that would ensure that the fact is that if it's too hard actually it's OK. That's not the position that we have as the National Opposition. That's not the principles that the Government and the coalition—and again Labour-led New Zealand First; whatever the mix is OK—will be voting for. And so it'll be interesting to hear their speeches because their speeches should declare that. I think that's really important. The Minister then talked about social investment. And I know that members opposite—I know the honourable member Greg O'Connor doesn't like it when he hears the word "social investment" because it simply says this: social investment was asking the question that actually if we have the data if we know where we can invest most and if we invest early then we can ensure we have better outcomes over the long term of the life of an individual of a child of their family and even of their community and then that's what we should do. So what's wrong with that principle? That's exactly what it was. What concerns us on this side is that at the moment the current Government of the day the Labour-led Government actually don't want to ask those hard questions. Those questions were first asked to the Government departments. Better Public Services was a target that was set aside and in line with this Act to ask those Government departments to hold them to account: what is it that they are doing to make a difference? It's concerning to hear that the Minister who is the Minister for this piece of legislation but also for social investment actually now is saying "We're not sure what's going to be happening." Ten months on we still don't know what the Social Investment Agency are going to be committing themselves to. That is a concern.I think on our side what we would say is that again this current Government is not prepared to ask the hard questions. I'd have to say that we had quite a courageous Minister the Hon Anne Tolley who was courageous enough to ask the question: actually if we could invest early if we could invest in a place that actually made the greatest difference then why wouldn't we do that? And that's what social investment is actually all about. I want to make just a couple more remarks as I finalise my speech in regards to the Social Security Bill in its third reading. We were looking for some flexibility and inside that I know that I made a number of submissions of Supplementary Order Papers to the House. I'm disappointed that the Minister didn't take this up. And again not policy-neutral: the winter energy payments—an opportunity to be able to look at the reality for some of those beneficiaries where actually the paying of the power bill was not the biggest issue but it was actually keeping the house and the rooms of their house warm and dry. We were asking actually: would there be consideration where there was a discretion to allow them to look at other areas for instance? It could be the top-up to paying for the insulation of their home. It could be other ways—of curtains. There are other areas that we felt were really important that could've supported that. There are a number of SOPs that were put forward to this House that unfortunately weren't accepted by the Minister in the chair as well at that time.We are really clear on this side that we are supporting the principles and the purpose of this Act that we believe and we uphold from 1938 and 1964. We support the aspect that we are proud that as a country and as a nation the Social Security Act of 1938 was world leading. It said to the world that actually we cared. Those principles are still the same and we uphold those principles. So to the Government of the day what would be really interesting is if they're upholding those principles voting for them as they are what will they do to ensure that those who can work should work? How will they be holding them to account or will it be too tough? I know that others on the other side different members of different parties have again turned around and said that the focus on work is too harsh and the focus on retention of work is too difficult. The fact is that we make a commitment to hold people to make them accountable and obliged to the fact that if you receive a benefit if you can work you should work. We uphold those principles and those values because they are actually what's inside this Act.We cannot in all conscience support these bills. There are many parts that we do but in principle—to the intent in regard to this bill of the Minister and this current Government of the day—we cannot support this bill to the House."