Ball DarrochDARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you very much. I'm not surprised that Mr O'Connor couldn't fill another three minutes' worth of what he was saying just before the dinner break because it was just rubbish and I don't think any honourable member in this House would want to repeat any rubbish they've already mentioned.There's a couple of things that I'd like to highlight firstly before I get into the substance of what I was going to talk about. I'm going to react to a couple of the things a number of things that the National Party has spoken on already. One of the things they keep saying is this term policy-neutral". What they've failed to mention is that that was the actual intent from the National Party. When they put the bill in in the first place it was a policy-neutral bill. I remember coming into this House—and it was quite a while ago now. I think it was over a year or two years I think for the first reading. I remember thinking to myself that this wasn't a policy-neutral bill. In fact it was quite the opposite—it was quite the opposite. And not only was it full of policy changes what the National Party and the Minister at that time were saying was that they were minor policy changes. They weren't minor policy changes; they actually were changes in policy that had some quite substantial flow-on effects that a number of submitters actually challenged and actually had some big issues with and that the current Government parties as well had a big number of issues with.One of them—which was a huge one from New Zealand First's point of view and perspective and I think from the Greens and the Labour Party as well—was how nestled into the half a dozen so-called minor policy changes there was a change in principle a change in the guiding principle of the entire Act. That isn't minor in anyone's books—not minor in anyone's books—especially since at that time when New Zealand First the Greens and the Labour Party were in Opposition we had vehemently opposed the social investment approach which was what the then National Government was trying to put into the principle of the Act. I noted back then during the first speech of the Minister for Social Development—back in 2016 I believe it was—there was not one mention of the social investment approach being put into the principles. So I think that the National Party needs to recognise where this bill has come from what the absolute intent of this bill was originally when they were in Government how they didn't manage to be able to do that and where we are today with ironically going back to the original intent of what the National Party wanted it to be which was a policy-neutral bill.We've also had complaints from Louise Upston I think it was that this wasn't a policy-neutral bill and that's why it should go back to select committee to be scrutinised by the public. What the Hon Louise Upston needs to do is just read the explanatory note of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25 and it might give it away that it's not full of policy. So it states that "This Supplementary Order Paper sets out amendments to the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. The amendments are in 4 groups:" and I'll just read the titles and not read through the couple of pages. First of all: "Removing some identified changes to effect of current law". So that is what we've said it would do—it is going to remove the policy that the National Party wanted to place into the bill in its original form. So we're going to remove it to make it policy-neutral. The next heading is "Adding some minor … clarifications to effect of current law"—so just some minor clarifications. Then: "Making some minor drafting corrections or improvements"—making some minor drafting corrections or improvements. And: "Updating since Bill reported from [the] Social Services Committee" because that's how long ago it was—the law changes since then and now. So all of the law changes that have occurred between when the original bill came back reported from the select committee to now—logically we've got to put in and update the laws that have been put in place to make it sensible. The references we updated the commencement date will be updated and that's it. There's no actual policy changes in this SOP just like the Minister has stated just like every other Government member has stated and that clearly the National Party and the Opposition have not been reading.There's been a few changes since this was in its first reading in this House. There were originally a few small changes recommended by the select committee. There's definitely changes been made through this SOP getting rid of those policies but the biggest and most important change to this that happened since its first reading in this House is that the Government has changed. So now we can actually make some sense of what the process should be in actually rewriting the social security legislation. The original intent was to make it so that it is more readable more accessible and easier to understand. That's the starting point at which we need to start adding policy through the overhaul that will be coming later on through this Government. But what the previous Government and National Party wanted to do was add in their little bits. They could have had this bill through a lot earlier a lot sooner and likely with the support of every party in this House if it was just a policy-neutral bill and tidying up because we all agree on that. I believe that 99 percent of all of the submitters praised what the bill was intending to do. The original intent was to make the Act more readable.I am—like I mentioned—happy and New Zealand First is happy to see that the social investment approach is not going to be used as a guiding principle in the Act. We have forever stood in this House and given evidence upon evidence and reason upon reason about why the social investment approach doesn't work with the provision of social services to the people of this country. It's got evidence from around the world where they have implemented it or had trials of implementing it and it does not work. It just simply does not work.What the National Party would like to do is to try and own what the term "social investment" means the definition of social investment because even with bills going through this House at this moment with the Social Services Committee we get the National Party members asking submitters—talking about what the social investment definition is and why and if it should be implemented in the legislation coming through. They believe that the social investment approach is investing wisely in the people who need it the most. Now that's a nice-sounding thing and sound bite and if that was the actual case then I don't think we'd have any problems with it. It's not the fact that New Zealand First or the Government is against investing socially responsibly or the social investment approach. It's how the previous Government—the National Party—took the social investment approach for what it was and it was totally wrong.What I'd like to just quickly do in my last couple of minutes is have a look at the departmental report from the Social Services Committee. It's dated August 2016. One of the things that I got highlighted for me was the comments from the submitters around the purpose and the principles of the Act and what social security actually means and what it should mean. A number of them mentioned that social security should be acting as a safety net and a minimum social floor that no one falls below. With the nine years of the National Government when they moved through with this legislation and the social investment approach that was not their main purpose. That was not their definition. What they hooked themselves on was Better Public Services targets—things like reducing the number of beneficiaries and not necessarily at all looking at where they are going to if they move off the benefit or whether that is a good thing for that individual. What the National Party lost over the last nine years—or the better part of a decade—was the meaning of what the social security blanket should mean.New Zealand First will be supporting this bill and the changes that the current Minister is wanting to make over the next little while because we support the original intent of this bill which is being policy-neutral. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker."