Ball DarrochDARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm trying to figure out why the National Party isn't actually supporting these bills. There is no real reason at all why the National Party is not supporting these bills. I was just having a think and I made a note that I was going to say at the end but I think I'll say it at the start. All they're doing is whingeing. They're whingeing and having a cry because for everybody that doesn't know and is watching the progress of this legislation it was first put into the House in the last term by the National Government. They stood up in this House multiple times and said that this was non-controversial legislation—policy-neutral—with no policies. And what did they do? They tried to put their policies into these bills.Hon Member: That's right.DARROCH BALL: There were no comments from the National Party—no comments from the National Party because that is the truth. They tried to put their own spin and their own doctrine their own mantra into this legislation. If it was truly policy-neutral like these current bills are written now—and they will pass—then we likely would have supported it. The reason why we didn't was because it was anything but policy-neutral.Now I just wanted to catch Mr Ngaro because he said that these bills here are not policy-neutral. What he doesn't get is that when the National Party brought this legislation into this House they specifically wrote up policy to put into the bill. The policy that is in these bills as they currently stand arising from the rewrite bill was already passed. This is to ensure that the policies that have already been passed through this House can be—and it's reflected in the foundation document that is looking after and ensuring that the social services of this country are well looked after and go to the people that need them.The one major issue that has been spoken on by both sides of the House which it is quite clear we have opposing views on is the social investment approach. One of the main reasons why New Zealand First didn't support this legislation in its original form when it first came through from the National Party was because they tried to have that tied into the purpose and the principles of the entire Act. And we have got a huge fundamental issue with the definition—and not only the definition but the outcomes; the evidential outcomes that social investment has had on this country and on other countries within the social services sector.I'd also like to mention what Louise Upston was saying and she used the word farce"—that these bills were a farce. The question that Louise Upston needs to answer is: how on earth can a policy-neutral rewrite that is trying to make it easier to read and more accessible for people to understand and for people to access their entitlements and what they're entitled to—how could that be a farce? The only farce is that the clear message that we got from the National Party today is that "It's either my way or the highway." "It's either what we want"—as in what the National Party wants in regards to policy and social investment and the way they want to run social services—"or it's going to be nothing at all." There is absolutely no loss whatsoever if the National Party votes these bills through as they are because the legislation is a non-controversial policy-neutral rewrite. Those are the facts.Here is what the National Party is not supporting when they're not voting for these bills today. Here is what the National Party is not supporting. Here are the main reasons why it needs to happen. The 1964 Act rewrite is long overdue. There are now well over 500 sections and only four remain unchanged. Only four of the 500 sections remain unchanged while the other sections have been repealed or amended sometimes hundreds of times. The National Party doesn't want to see that changed. Obviously the Social Security Act 1964 is one of the most important pieces of New Zealand legislation. It is as mentioned the basis and the foundation of our safety net. It sets out the financial supports available to people who are not able to fully support themselves. The National Party does not want to see this legislation go through which will make it better for them. It makes it easier for people to navigate. It makes it easier for people to use and to understand. The National Party doesn't want to support legislation to allow that to occur. And one of the most important things or one of the good things that I've noted is the fact that it actually brings the Act into modern drafting styles. That's how old and outdated this Act is. And it sets provisions out in a more logical structure. With the National Party staying out and not wanting to support this legislation those are all the facts that the National Party is denying that they want for the people of this country. It is an absolute shame.New Zealand First will be supporting this obviously through this final stage. I congratulate the Minister for bringing it to the House and for the select committee for doing a good job on it. I think that the fundamental aspect of this and the best part of this—which is quite a shame the reason why the National Party isn't supporting it—is what the Minister mentioned the analogy was: the sweeping of the floor before you put the furniture down. I think that's quite apt. New Zealand First will be supporting this piece of legislation through the House."