Ball DarrochDARROCH BALL (NZ First): She couldn't even do two in a row talking about the social investment approach. Thank you Mr Chair. I'm actually glad to take a call right after that last member Louise Upston because I had pretty much the antithesis of what she had to say about the social investment approach.First of all a couple of things that she said—that she was outraged and members of the public were outraged or would be outraged that they weren't able to make submissions on this particular clause or part of the principle. The fact of the matter is they already have. They already did. And for all of the talk that that member and every single member of the National Party have to say on this bill about submissions and being open and wanting to listen to the public—it just ain't so. If they did they would have listened to all of the submissions that were against having the social investment approach put into the principle of the Act—against. All of them were against.So I guess the question that that member needs to answer when she stands up is Why didn't she listen to the people?" If she wants to give all the chances to members of the public to make submissions then why doesn't that member listen to them? That's a question. That's a question that needs to be answered.The second thing she said was that this was a removal of the principle. First of all the principle doesn't exist in legislation. It doesn't actually exist yet in legislation. There is no removal. What Supplementary Order Paper 25 is doing and what we've tried to explain ad nauseam to the National Party is that this is just bringing about the original state of what National intended the bill to be which was policy-neutral. Now all that the National Party seem to be clinging to is the fact that we're actually trying to make it policy-neutral even though that was the original intent in the first place. It makes absolutely no sense and what is I guess disappointing and surprising to me is that the National Party want to draw this out and filibuster this as long as possible even though they know that it's not needed.I'd like the members of the public who are watching and looking back on this to understand one thing. I speak for New Zealand First when I'm standing here but I hazard a guess that a number of the other—if not all of the other—parties that make up the Government actually think the same.The National Party want to try and fool everybody into thinking that the social investment approach means this—that the social investment approach means "whatever they want to fill in there". Then they start a bleeding heart sort of thing going on about why and what the current Government wants to take that out for and why social investment is such a good thing. But the whole entire premise of that argument is that you actually believe and understand that the "social investment" definition is what they say it is. This is not. It just is not.I know that Nicola Willis and Lawrence Yule—they made a couple of speeches in the House on the previous sitting day when we were discussing the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill. They talked about the social investment approach because that's what Bill English wanted—to have his finger in every pie and to put the social investment approach into everything. It's just unfortunate because those two members Nicola Willis and Lawrence Yule they are good people but they've been in for a couple of months now and it seems as though they've already drunk the Kool-Aid of the National Party in their definition of what the social investment approach is. But if you have just a genuine look—look past the smoke and mirrors. Take that little thread that's hanging out and start pulling it out. Take that thread and start pulling it a little bit. Everything starts to unravel.There's a couple of things I want to quote that Nicola Willis and Lawrence Yule said and I'm going to use them in the explanation of how and why they are so are wrong about the social investment approach and why it shouldn't be included in this bill why this Government is taking it out of this bill and what the actual social investment approach means. It's vitally important for any National members who want to speak up on this bill to understand actually what it means—and don't read the notes that are given to you.Lawrence Yule for example says that "for a"—Simon O'Connor: Says the member reading.DARROCH BALL: Well if that member was listening he would know that I'm quoting the member. If he wants me to be accurate then I do have to read it. This is what Lawrence Yule says "for a small number of families a massive investment by the State and caring in a wraparound set of services"—[Time expired]"