Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm pleased to start my contribution to the debate in this committee stage on Part 2 as Minister Henare who has resumed his seat has talked about the very wide range of areas of assistance that's available under the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. For those that have just tuned into this debate this is probably the chunkiest most significant part of the bill. It really talks about all of the assistance that's available and what is not going to be debated today is ensuring that those who require support get support in their times of need. Actually I just want to reflect on a comment that the Minister for Social Development mentioned prior to the dinner break in terms of the top caseworkers. The top caseworkers talked about—you know one of the critical skills they have is ensuring that those who need support get what support they are entitled to and so that's going to be a theme that runs through this Part 2 debate.I do have a couple of amendments in my name but first of all I just would like to bring Minister Henare's attention to the combining of the orphans benefit and the unsupported child's benefit and ask for some clarification on a matter that came out of the departmental report when the bill was before the Social Services Committee. There's been quite a lot of comment about how important it is that select committees scrutinise legislation and last week we spent quite a lot of time in the House debating whether or not mistakes should be tolerated in legislation and the fact that a piece of legislation had to be referred back and a new piece of legislation actually written to correct a wrong. So it is important that we focus the committee's time given that the public don't have the opportunity to scrutinise it. The public don't have the opportunity through the significant Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25 that Minister Sepuloni has tabled so the committee's responsibility is to provide that scrutiny and to absolutely ensure that there are no mistakes. The Minister in charge of the bill Minister Sepuloni gave her undertaking last week that there would be no mistakes in this SOP so this is the opportunity tonight in this committee to provide the scrutiny because there will be no other opportunity.I did ask for it to be referred back to the select committee so the select committee could provide scrutiny and the public could provide submissions but on this particular one which is the unsupported child's benefit—the earlier intention which is being unwound by the Minister's SOP was to merge two benefits and that was merging the orphans and the unsupported child's benefits into what would then be called the supported child's benefit. We actually haven't had a clear argument for why this change has been undone and it's quite interesting because in the departmental report the officials' comment on this particular section—so I do want the Minister to provide a fulsome answer on this particular one—was that there was a drafting error. So here we have a situation where we are putting a significant SOP through without scrutiny and what we are finding in a change that they are taking out of the legislation was something that was already being changed because of a drafting error. So I really hope—and I really want the Minister to answer this in detail—to make sure that the drafting error that was identified by the officials is being corrected by this legislation and they're not reinforcing an already wrong issue in legislation.I accept that a piece of legislation like this is complex; it's only tackled every—well we tackled it in our time: a significant rewrite of legislation that had become very clumsy and very unworkable. With this particular section with Part 2 it is absolutely about making sure that it is clear that it is concise that it's workable so front-line staff understand the guiding legislation that drives their decisions and drives what they do at the front line to support the very people that need assistance. So it does need to be clear. I'm confused. I'm confused because in the departmental report it talks about the change that was being made that now the Labour Government are unmaking. So we do want to make sure that this particular issue is clarified that we do have the correct drafting in the new SOP—well we hope but we're not confident that it is—to make sure that it is right because we have a number of SOPs on the Table. We're happy to offer the Minister our assistance to ensure this legislation is fit and proper and it's fit and proper so that it's easier for front-line staff to provide assistance to those who need it most.And let me tell you who's affected by these particular clauses in this part: step-parents. Step-parents should be entitled—if in the very unfortunate situation that a child's natural parents have passed away they should qualify for a supported child's benefit. That child is not an orphan if they have a step-parent who is a responsible parent who has taken on their responsibility and their welfare and I'd be shocked—I'd be absolutely shocked—if that side of the Chamber is suggesting that a child who is particularly vulnerable would not be supported through this legislation. Is that side of the Chamber seriously intending to make it harder for a child or for the step-parent of a child who is responsible for that child's well-being or going to deny them support?As I said in the departmental report it clearly talks about the fact that the wording in the current Act is due to a drafting error so in the rewrite legislation that was fixed and yet the Minister who has presented this 500-page SOP has changed it without a clear explanation of why. So this committee deserves as I said to those that have only just started listening to this debate or watching this live debate on the internet—this is the only opportunity to get this legislation right. When it affects decisions that front-line staff make every day in supporting those who need it most they deserve to get it right. More importantly though the very children that are supported by this particular clause which is inserted by Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25—clause 5(2)(ca) which is the orphans benefit and the change to clause 5(2)(d).So we do want to make sure that we get this right because as I said the intention of this originally was to correct a drafting error to make it simpler for front-line staff to support those people who have turned up seeking assistance seeking financial assistance and support which we absolutely want to make sure they receive. As the Minister said before the top 20 caseworkers—one of the top things that they said made them successful was ensuring the people in front of them got what they were entitled to.This side of the Chamber believes that a step-parent should be entitled to support their child in their care and that child's not in our view an orphan. So we want to ensure that it is a supported child's payment because they're not an orphan and the child is not an unsupported child. This was a sensible change and I'm asking very clearly for the Minister in the chair Peeni Henare to clarify the statement from the departmental report about the wording in the current Act being due to a drafting error. I do have proposed amendments on this.I'll come back to those amendments but I want to focus this part of the debate—I know there's other members on this side that do want to seek clarification or who have SOPs that they want to put on the Table with the intention of assisting the Minister and assisting the Government to have legislation that works for the most vulnerable children in New Zealand and to have a social security system that serves them that is straightforward and not complicated. We see this as a great opportunity—we're here to help. We are more than happy to help the Government to ensure that the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill works and this is the only opportunity for scrutiny.