Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Well it just seems that the Minister seems to be getting a bit angry because she's not liking the debate that's happening in the committee of the whole House. The committee of the whole House is an opportunity to debate the issues. She talked about the fact that at select committee these issues weren't raised up. Now it's not unheard that the fact is that when the bill returns back to the House actually amendments are quite commonly brought within the committee of the whole House—that's the reason why it's there. So actually to have these amendments—OK—is not inconsistent with the process.The second thing: I'm glad that Mr Chair you're the only adjudicator.The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And the honourable member might actually come to the amendments rather than talk about the process about it.Hon ALFRED NGARO: Thank you Mr Chair. So what I want to address is actually the comments in regards to the amendments that the Minister Carmel Sepuloni actually got up just a moment ago to talk about. I actually spoke to this amendment in regards to clause 217 in the name of Louise Upston and the reason why we mentioned a clause in Part 3 in the explanatory note was for the purpose of consistency. If the Minister would like to look into that I can do that for her.The reason why the explanatory note referred to Part 3 clause 99 was because it states this: Beneficiary must notify change of circumstances". If we look at the amendment it clearly states to insert in line one: "MSD must advise P of the hierarchy of sanctions and ensure P understands the impacts of any breaches". The point that was made in this clause was to clarify the fact that there is consistency from clause 99 through to clause 217. So I just wanted to flag that. I want to put that on the record for the Minister so that she understands the purpose and the reason for that amendment.The other part that the Minister was talking about was Louise Upston's amendment to clause 232. Again for clarity purposes it's consistent with the changes—what's been amended and by the way already supported and passed—in Part 3 in clause 99 which again are about the issue around compliance. It reads here in proposed amended clause 232(a): "compliance was dependent on any assistance specified by MSD including availability of online MSD services;".The point in the explanatory note is the point of consistency with Part 3. So I just want to say that you know the Minister maybe tried to school us to go away make changes and come back again. If the Minister reads the explanatory notes that's the purpose and the reason for that.So I want to again look at that point—and this is in clause 232 in Part 5—about "Good and sufficient reasons for non-compliance: default by MSD" and again talk to that point around the "Compliance was dependent on any assistance specified". Sorry this is the new insert that we are seeking in this amendment. It would say this in clause 232(a) that it would read—and this is the new insert—"Compliance was dependent on any assistance specified by MSD" and the new part is "including availability of online MSD services;".Now it may be a small part—and again what we are saying to the Minister is clear. We're not disagreeing with the sanctions. We're not disagreeing with the policy intent of the bill. The committee of the whole House is to make small amendments and hence the reason why these tabled amendments are simply small amendments. It's talking about including the fact that the Ministry for Social Development has the number of online services that it has. So all we're seeking from the Minister in this amendment is that she would include that inside—as a small amendment not a policy change. Policy-positive is what I like to call it—not policy-neutral—and this is the inclusion of this part.So those are the contributions I want to make. It's to bring clarity to the explanatory notes. It's to say that the fact is that we think that's important and again these are small but significant changes as my colleague Chris Penk actually said. It's in the detail that it becomes important. It's important because when we think about those on the front line that deliver the policy platform that's in the intent of this we want there to be no misunderstanding. We want clarity that this is exactly what the bill says and it should be inclusive of all the different services.We know there's been an increase. We had that in Estimates. We talked about the increase in the number of online services that are offered through to a number of our customers—those who are clients those who are beneficiaries as well. Why can that not be included?I don't think this is unreasonable. I think it's a very pragmatic and practical way of including that. I hope that the Minister will again see this as something that she could include. It's policy-positive it's a way of moving forward and again it's no change to the policy intent or direction. We believe in sanctions.I've yet to hear a speech from the Greens. I'd love to hear that and hear what they have to say."