Speech346HENAREHon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister for Social Development): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare kāti rā tēnā tātou katoa.[Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker and greetings to one and all.]It's clear that on the other side of the House they're scared of a bit of hard work. What's also clear in that particular contribution to this particular bill is that that side of the House don't understand what a policy-neutral piece of work looks like because almost half of the speech that was given by the member Louise Upston who just resumed her seat are new policy initiatives and ones that are tainted by their agenda. That's an important part to remember when we consider this particular bill. Why? Because it's important that when we do this we make sure that we provide the best platform for what truly is something that is going to take a systematic change—a systematic change.In order to do that it's important that we tidy up some areas. It is important that we—how shall we say?—tidy up the backyard. In the order of tidying up the backyard only then can we find a platform that will actually make meaningful change for the New Zealanders out there who the member who just resumed her seat purported to be speaking on behalf of. What we see from the submitters on legislation or bills like this—and we saw it under the last Government when actually submitters were very clear about what they saw in the work that was carried out under the last Government on social welfare reform. Might I add too that submitters were clear about taking a policy-neutral stance or position on the rewrite of the Social Security Act. They were very clear about that policy-neutral stance. We wanted that to happen. The submitters wanted that to happen and the last Government absolutely ignored them. They were very clearly ramming through—and the member used those words ramming through"—their policy changes ignoring completely the submitters who were very clear on a policy-neutral approach. So some of the aspects that are not included in the bill are those policy platforms that the last Government were really keen on ramming through to use member's words. The Minister actually already highlighted the seven policies that won't be considered in this particular bill and some of those are pretty straightforward to me. Why they seem pretty straightforward is because as I mentioned just previously just earlier the tidy-up of the backyard is important to get the platform to make the kind of changes into the future changes that actually align with the agenda of this Government the New Zealand First and Labour Government with the support of the Green Party; to make sure that many of the issues that we heard in our time in Opposition actually are addressed and addressed properly; to make sure that people get their full and correct entitlement as the member who just contributed on this bill—things like that are important. But that particular side of the House actually are opposed to that and I'd argue take a very punitive approach to the administration of the Social Security Act. So it's important that we do these things.So some of the technical parts of this particular bill are—and I've mentioned it—making sure that it's policy-neutral. So the aspects that we won't see in there as mentioned by the Minister—there are seven in particular. One of those is of course the emergency benefit renamed the exceptional circumstances benefit. Another one is the regulation-making power to identify specific client circumstances where compulsory redirection of benefit payments is appropriate in order to ensure positive outcomes for clients.It's in that vein that I actually want to touch on a point that the member who contributed to this bill before me made. She talked about investment and social investment. When I look at the parts that have been removed from the original piece of work that was started with regard to this bill by the last Government it's important then as we progress forward that actually investment and social investment takes on a meaning that will provide more change and better outcomes in my opinion for Kiwis for New Zealanders out there.Some of the parts that are being retained under this particular bill are the rebalancing between primary and delegated legislation as drafted except the definition of "accommodation costs" and "cash assets" for the accommodation supplement will be returned to primary legislation and the eligibility criteria for funeral grants will be returned to primary legislation. These are all technical aspects that need to be tidied up and I can't reiterate this point enough: those have to be tidied up to make sure that like I say the pathway that we lead the social security legislation on into the future is one that is more responsive to our people and the communities that it's there to serve.We talk all the time about the kind of administration of public services that our people have received outside the bubble of this particular House. We know that there are some significant issues there. So for the systematic change to happen I say it once again: this is why we are proposing this particular bill as a rewrite to make sure that the platform once again is a lot more solid into the future.So look I don't want to go on too much longer but I do want to just make it clear that that side of the House have also moaned about the truncated process. I'll say it once again: they seem scared of a bit of hard work and they also are scared that in the true progression of a policy-neutral piece of work their agenda—that didn't work for our people over the past decade—is going to be scrapped and thrown to the side. That's the important point that we want to make with a piece of work like this—to make sure that the navigation of the public when they come into the requirement of services like the Social Security Act actually meets their needs is more responsive and caters to obviously the needs of the public and those who need it the most.So look I won't labour the point any more but I do want to support the Minister in this particular piece of work and say that I commend this bill to the House."