Upston LouisePart 1 General provisionsHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I'm pleased to stand for the first call of what I think will be a long committee stage on this piece of legislation. I want to put on record in this first discussion on Part 1 and to first of all to make it clear that the public haven't had the ability to scrutinise the changes in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25 tabled by Minister Carmel Sepuloni. One of the changes is in Part 1 so I will speak at length about it but of course this is a piece of legislation with significant changes by the Minister that won't have the scrutiny of the public so this committee will need to provide some of the scrutiny in a short period of time relatively speaking in terms of getting on top of the issues that the Government want to ram through.One of the very important issues in Part 1 that this Government wants to ram through is the removal of one of the principles of the bill. When you're talking about the principles of a bill it's pretty substantial. It's a pretty significant part of the legislation that did go through a select committee process has gone through to the public—the public have had the ability to provide submissions at length. Also I want to put on record a misconception that the Minister allowed to stay in this House in the second reading and that was about a report back of the earlier iteration of this legislation. I have to say it's significantly different from when it first started. But that piece of legislation had four months' scrutiny with the parliamentary select committee and with the public—the public had the ability to have their voices heard both in writing and in oral submissions—and all of these changes will get zero. Four months was a shorter process than the set six months so I accept it's a shorter process but four months is a hell of a lot longer than the zero days that the Ardern-Peters Government thinks this piece of legislation should be considered.I know those New Zealanders who are listening at home will be as equally outraged as I am when the Minister in charge of the legislation dumps a 500-page SOP on the Table in front of us literally hours before this Parliament is considering the legislation. So in terms of the significant change in this legislation in Part 1—Part 1 of 10 parts—Part 1 includes the principles and most people would agree that the principles are the things that anchor any activity. In this case it anchors the legislation around a set of principles and of course that's why it is included in Part 1.So I want to read the words that the Government of the day thinks should be removed. This is in Part 1; the principles are in clause 4: (c) to help achieve the best possible outcome for people at risk of long-term welfare dependency … MSD may identify appropriate assistance support and services under this Act for those people." Well I'm staggered. I'm absolutely staggered that the Minister doesn't think those people deserve to be included and considered at the utmost priority of a piece of legislation which is the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. I'm absolutely staggered that the Government of the day doesn't think we should include in the principles of the primary piece of legislation those very people that every New Zealander would want to ensure has better opportunities in life—better opportunities in life. What does some of that entail? I accept there'll be people at home who are listening to or watching the title of this legislation "Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill" and they're thinking "What is that all about?" Fundamentally it's about making legislation fit for purpose. "Fit for purpose" makes sure that our social security system serves those who need it most—who need it most. But no this Minister deems that those people shouldn't be included in this very important piece of legislation and that that particular piece should be removed.When we're talking about people who've been on benefits for a long period of their lives—actually yes adults we're all concerned about but equally across this Parliament—[Time expired]"