Hayes JoJO HAYES (National): Thank you Madam Chair for giving me the opportunity to speak on this particular part of the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. I too want to add my concern around the deletion of clause 4(e) in Principles". I think that a lot of this particular bill here is focused on the high number of Māori that are actually on benefits. To be honest some of my family have been long-term unemployed. They've been on a benefit for most of their lives. They've seen that there has been no hope for them. I think by removing this clause they will actually see that Government really doesn't care—they don't care. They don't care that they can linger on as a long-term beneficiary for the rest of their lives. Their children will see it their mokopuna will see it and it will be something that will be normalised in that whānau. I don't want to see that happen.I've talked to a number of my family members that suffer from this long-term welfare dependency and a lot of them have lost hope. By retaining this particular clause we give hope that those people—my whānau—will actually have a hope to actually stop being long-term welfare dependent. To be honest the Supplementary Order Paper that has been submitted by my colleague Simon O'Connor will actually help to put that particular clause in a bit more perspective and actually give some hope to those that are long-term unemployed.I think that a lot of it doesn't really address anything around those people that are dependent on welfare. I think we need to give them hope. We need to be able to show them a way and support them. I think that this bill by taking out those words—and some people might think oh well they're only a few words but they're words that are very very important. I think that the key aim of welfare is to reduce dependency. That's what I believe it to be—to actually reduce dependency to give people a hand up not necessarily a handout. Welfare is the type of support that you need every now and then but not all the time for the rest of your life. I see it in the eyes of some of my family members that are long-term welfare dependants. They have lost hope in their eyes. They don't see anything past it. They don't have any support there with this clause taken out. I think that it is a bad move. I would like the Minister I ask the Minister I plead with the Minister to please consider Supplementary Order Paper 28 and the wording that my colleague Simon O'Connor has actually put together to reinstate a clause that will look at helping to achieve the best possible outcome for people at risk of long-term welfare dependency to reinstate that particular paragraph in "Principles" clause 4.I think that today many people have talked about it but talking about it and actually seeing the whole thing rolling out are two different feelings. For some of my family members I think that they do need hope they do need the ability to be able to get that support from Government to move them off long-term welfare dependency and I think that the Minister does need to take another look. I think it's our responsibility as Opposition MPs to keep debating this bill since it's not going to be open for public scrutiny; that it is our responsibility to make sure it is scrutinised to the nth in this House to give the people of this country some sort of satisfaction that we gave it the very best that we could across the whole of the House—but mainly on this side of the House because that is our responsibility to the people not just to ram these Supplementary Order Papers through not just to accept a 501-page Supplementary Order Paper. I don't know why the Minister just didn't pull out those 22 amendments and just start to debate those rather than doing it the way that she has done it.So without any further ado—there are other things that I could talk about. I don't want to hold up the House any longer but I think that we need to debate this particular clause to the nth so we know that we've got a good outcome for all New Zealanders. Thank you."