Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Mr Chair. It's interesting that the Minister stood up and one of her statements she made was that she's only doing what the public have asked. Well the public asked for Roxburgh children's camp to stay open. The public asked for partnership schools to remain open and functioning as partnership schools. But however the Minister has said she's doing what the public says. I don't think that rings true from this side of the Chamber. I think all of those in the public who are listening today may be a little bit confused by the Minister's words.In regard to the comments that the Minister made around this and the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) being policy-neutral her response to the fact was that the reason why we do not have a departmental disclosure statement is because the officials said that this was policy-neutral. So if she was claiming that the advisers said that the removal of her further SOPs of those amendments was policy-neutral then why in the second breath did she also say that they were snuck in as being policy statements? I think the fact is there's a bit of confusion by the Minister there because it's clearly not indicating the fact that they weren't policy statements so why didn't they have a disclosure statement in it as well?But I want to go to the heart of what we are talking about here and it's in Part 1 of this bill. In particular what the Minister and the current Government have been saying to us is that we've snuck this in—in other words when we look at Part 1 the principles and we look at clause 4 and especially subclause (e) it says: to help achieve the best possible outcome for people at risk of long-term welfare dependency". I have to say one of the interesting challenges is that it's been called a stigma—the fact that we're imposing this view. In some words they say it's "beneficiary bashing". That's not the truth. The truth is if one looks back at Part 1 and the purpose of the bill here's what it says—this is an Act that's over half a century old it's from 1964 and in its clause of purpose it declares this: "to help people support themselves and their dependants while not in paid employment". If one turns over in clause 3(a)(ii) it says: "to help people find or retain paid employment;" and in clause 3(a)(iii) "to help people for whom work is not currently appropriate—[be] … sickness injury disability". What it's clearly stating is it's the circumstances that a family or an individual finds themselves in that the role of Social Security Act and the responsibility of the Ministry is to support them but more intentionally to help them out of that circumstance and situation. That's what was intended.Back in the days when Joseph Savage sat back and the Government of the day put together the Social Security Act of 1964 the principle was this: that the best thing for all people is work. Therefore what is wrong with this clause here: "to help achieve the best possible outcome"? Is there anything wrong with that statement? No. And: "… for people at risk of long-term welfare dependency"—is there anything wrong with that statement? All it states is this: if the intention of us is to do good why would we allow people to still be dependent on a welfare benefit? No—if it is our intent to do good then we should be helping support them which is congruent with the purpose of the bill. That's what the intention is.I take exception to the Minister saying that these clauses were mean-spirited and these clauses should not be included when the intent of the clause is quite clear. It says this: "MSD may identify appropriate assistance support and services under this Act for those people." I have to say to you when one thinks through this the wording of that is quite specific. It's identifying who the people are that we should be supporting and how we should wrap around that support to ensure that we help them in the best possible way. It's congruent and consistent with the purpose of the Act. It's consistent in the ways of what we're trying to do. When this Government stands up and proclaims that we're here to help the people their welfare and their concerns then I cannot see how the Government of the day can oppose this inclusion in this bill.I have to say I'd like to see some more robust rationale that would come out on the Government side to explain the reasons why—to explain the reasons why. When we look at the previous Government it was under the National-led Government that 85000 children were actually brought out of welfare-dependent homes—85000. You see the thing is what will happen is this: this Government of the day will not set a target will not set a figure and what they will do is they'll just open up their arms—because everyone loves populist politics—to care and love and say "We'll do good." But the truth is the legacy they will leave behind is another generation dependent on welfare.Hon Scott Simpson: Servicing misery.Hon ALFRED NGARO: I have to say that's going to be the real concern: servicing misery in our communities and in our country."