Ngaro Alfred: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNgaro Alfred: Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8238. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call in the third reading of the Social Security (Commencement of Benefits) Amendment Bill. I do so because one of the things I want to make a point about which has been made is that we know and we have talked about the date of 1998. So like a previous member of the House who actually went to the Hansard I too decided it would be of some interest to look at the Hansard of 1998—and it was on 14 May.It was the Hon Roger Sowry who was the Minister of Social Welfare who put this legislation through. I want to just take a couple of lines out of that and this is what he says: “The bill also extends work obligations to some groups of beneficiaries with expectations about their capacity to take up part-time work.” So that was the intent of the bill. There was a sense that there was going to be welfare change. He also concludes his speech and contribution saying: “In conclusion the changes to welfare benefits contained in this bill herald a radical change in the direction of welfare in New Zealand.” So that has not changed—the intent of that bill. Obviously it is the technical aspect of that bill that is of some concern.As I was reading through the Hansard with some interest not looking on Facebook and so forth I actually came up to the Rev. Ann Batten from New Zealand First. I thought that New Zealand First and Mr Darroch Ball may have some interest there. This is what she said: “One thing I’ve learnt in my time here is just how shallow and simplistic the howls of outrage that emanate from Opposition parties often are whenever the Government attempts to make any improvements whatsoever.” So I think that there is some precedent there that Mr Darroch Ball is taking—that the Rev. Ann Batten a member of New Zealand First also too was in support of this bill and that is what she was saying there.Barbara Stewart: Years ago. Years ago.ALFRED NGARO: That is just here in Hansard Barbara so I think that is important. One of the things that I think is important that also has been raised and also came through in some of the 26 speeches in the Committee stage by the Labour Party members was the need for urgency. Again how wonderful history is. I know that Mr Faafoi is a great historian. He loves reading history though—Kris Faafoi: Someone’s going to be history.ALFRED NGARO: OK—and here is what it says. The attack from the Opposition was around the fact that here we are in urgency not going through the select committee process. Well in 2003 there was the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill. I know that the Hon Ruth Dyson will remember this and in the first reading the Hon Rick Barker said this: “I move That the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Because of the urgency accorded to this bill it is the Government’s intention that the bill be passed through all stages without referral to a select committee.” Throughout this afternoon and into the evening we have heard from the Opposition about the fact that there was no robust process and about heading to select committee.But it gets even better—and here are the little Ginsu knives—because here is the next one in 2006. That is right. They may not want to hear this. This is from the Hon Michael Cullen and this is the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill—in other words that was the pledge card. Mr Cullen said: “I move That the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill be now read for the first time.” There was a point of order around the fact that the National Government asked for the bill because there was no bill at that time. The Hon Dr Cullen said this: “Speaking to the point of order I say that a copy of this was made available to the National Party … this morning …”. There has been a lot of criticism about the process. I think that the honourable Minister Anne Tolley has actually been working alongside as well as possible with Carmel Sepuloni to try to come to some compromise and agreement about the intent of this bill.I want to just finalise my comments by saying that this bill has been under urgency. We know the importance of the bill for that: 8500 applications so far for review and on average involving around $105. So there is not a point that is there. The Supplementary Order Paper by Jan Logie talked about the ability to advertise this. We know that there has been a promotional campaign by those departments which has already begun—a few weeks—encouraging clients to seek reviews about their entitlements. The Government has made every step possible. It takes responsibility and knowing the fact that this is a technical area that it needs to correct we have ensured that as well as possible we can not only meet the needs of the requirements of the vision of this Government but also too meet the needs of those clients. I commend this bill in its third reading to the House.