Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you Mr Chair. This time I want to talk to my amendment—this is a different amendment—to clause 146 in Part 3. This amendment to clause 146 inserts new subclause (1)(a). This is in line with what is already there in clause 146 because clause 146 is headed Person who fails to comply with the requirement to attend interview is subject to sanction". In that there are two subclauses and these two subclauses don't cover the policy that I want to see introduced here because this is about providing cover for all aspects when someone is subject to sanction. So we want to make sure that the sanctions are not applied without having a full review of that person that goes for an interview. It's really unfair for that person if any kind of sanction is applied without providing the full support that a person might need when that person turns up for an interview.So in clause 146 what we see in the first subclause is that "A person (P) is subject to a sanction … if MSD is satisfied that [the person] has failed without a good and sufficient reason to comply with a requirement under section 144(4) to attend an interview." There is a provision for young people not to have this sanction. So my amendment is to see that a person not only attends the interview but is also actively involved in the process; the person is prepared and is ready to work. It's important that person doesn't only attend the interview but they are also open to accepting the role and undertake the interview in good faith.In this call I want to commend the work that the Ministry of Social Development staff do and the work that Work and Income do because they work really hard to help people get into employment. We know that one of the roles of our welfare system is to be a safety net. People can fall back on the welfare system if they don't have any source of income—it could be for several circumstances. But when a person is fit and is capable of getting back into employment then Work and Income plays a very important role in helping people get into employment. I have heard that businesses get calls from Work and Income case managers asking if there are any vacancies. Then what happens is that if they find a suitable match in their database—someone who is on a benefit who can get to work—they send that person for an interview.I think it becomes really important to know what happened in an interview if the role is declined—if that interviewee is declined for the opening that was available. It is really unfair for the interviewee to not know what went wrong during the interview process and why the job was not offered to that interviewee. So what my amendment is saying is that the case manager should be actually requesting an assessment report from the potential employer to see that the person was willing to take up the role and was prepared for the interview. With that what will then happen is that before the sanction is applied on that person for some reason the case manager can see if that individual needs any help to be prepared for an interview.We know that people can be on a benefit for a long time for several reasons. It could be intergenerational or it could be because they have gone on a benefit and they have somehow lacked motivation to get back into employment and they are not sure how to be prepared for an interview. So this assessment report will help the interviewee when they turn up again for an interview. It will help them to be fully ready to take up that job and show the willingness to take up a job because if the potential employer is declining that interviewee because the interviewee expressed unwillingness to take up the role or because some other indication was given in the interview then the intention of that person to be in employment is not fully proven.Before I finish I want to quickly respond to the call that the Minister in the chair took on my amendment to clause 120. Clause 120 applies to people that are on a benefit and my amendment which inserts subclause (3) would mean that the provision about newborn enrolment with general practitioners would apply for all parents. That should not be only for people that are on a benefit. Why can't it be extended to everybody? I did hear the Minister say that they want to keep it policy-neutral—[Time expired]"