Sepuloni Carmel; Rurawhe AdrianHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I'll take this opportunity to speak just to respond to some of the issues that've been raised by the Opposition members. I just want to start by reminding the Opposition that the entire bill that you have in front of you is the entire bill. It's not a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that's this thick. It's got the changes that we are making or the amendments we are making put into the bill because without the context it's very difficult to understand. So to stand up and say that we've given you a very thick SOP which is this SOP 25 is very disingenuous because we know that is the entire Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill with the amendments in it. So I am just clarifying that and hopefully someone remembers it.I also want to just say—it's been brought up by the two speakers so far tonight—that this section's about obligations and questions have been asked of us about our intentions with respect to sanctions in this rewrite bill. Well I just want to remind the Opposition that the SOP that we've got up on the rewrite is policy-neutral so we're not making any changes to the current sanction regime. However we have publicly stated that as part of the welfare overhaul we will be looking to assess the sanctions that are in place and we are particularly interested in looking for excessive sanctions. So that's the language that's being used but that's not part of this because this is a policy-neutral rewrite.The one place where there are changes is where in the rewrite the previous Government were trying to impose work obligations on those receiving the emergency benefit—or in the previous Government's rewrite it was going to become the exceptional circumstances benefit. So the previous Government were going to impose work obligations on those receiving that particular benefit. That's not policy-neutral and we had concerns—and others expressed concerns during the submissions process—because of the very nature of that particular benefit.That particular benefit is a benefit that has the purpose of alleviating severe hardship in times of emergency. Many of the people that receive that benefit are actually over the age of 65. Many of them are grandparents or whānau caregivers and some of them don't qualify for other supports. So the nature of this particular benefit in our minds does not lend itself to the imposition of work obligations as well as the fact that it was not a policy-neutral move by the previous Government.So that's why the major change in here is that we are taking out the Opposition's expectations in the previous Government's rewrite—if that makes sense—for there to be work obligations on that particular benefit. So it's not changing what is currently the status quo because this has never come into action. It was a rewrite that's been kind of floated around here and not actually actioned and so therefore there's no real change there.The other part to Part 3 I guess that I should mention is that it clarifies that the cost of evidential drug tests cannot be reimbursed—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm sorry to interrupt the Minister but it is time for me to report progress.House resumed.Progress reported.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.