Social Security Bill, Residential Care and Disability Support Services Bill, Artificial Limb Service Bill

I move, That the Social Security Bill, the Residential Care and Disability Support Services Bill, and the Artificial Limb Service Bill be now read a third time.

It is fitting that I stand here today, almost 80 years to the day since the first Labour Government introduced the Social Security Act in 1938. The 1938 Act established one of the first comprehensive social security systems in the world, overhauling the pension system and extending benefits for families, disabled people, and the unemployed. Since then, New Zealand’s social security Act has been rewritten just once, in 1964. The Social Security Act 1964 remains the legislative basis of our welfare system today, despite being over half a century old.

When the 1964 Act was first passed, it had 135 sections. The current Act now boasts over 500 sections, some of which have been repealed and amended multiple times. This makes for a very outdated, disorganised, and complex Act. Since the 1964 Act, there have been many calls for it to be completely rewritten, both from within this House and outside of it. I’m proud to stand here today to present this long-overdue rewrite and bring our social security legislation into the modern day.

I want to acknowledge the honourable member for the East Coast, Anne Tolley, and her colleagues on the other side of the House for the role they have played in bringing this important piece of legislation to the House. I’d like to acknowledge the many people who have given their time and expertise to this rewrite. Thank you to the Social Services Committee and the 121 submitters, who provided invaluable insight into this legislation. To the Ministry of Social Development staff and Parliamentary Counsel Office drafters, who have worked on this rewrite over the past five years, I want to thank them for their dedication and commitment to rewriting this legislation, and I am sure they are all breathing a breath of relief.

When I came in as the Minister for Social Development, I had to consider how I wanted to progress this piece of legislation. I had made my opposition known in regards to the legislation as it had been introduced. I, like my colleagues on this side of the House and many others who presented during the select committee process, had concerns about the policy changes that had been included in the legislation. As the Minister, I could have chosen to put some new policy changes in there as well. However, I made the decision to remove those policy changes that had been put in and to progress it as a truly policy-neutral rewrite.

I’d heard the concerns about the legislation itself—about how hard it was to understand and use—and I experienced this myself when trying to look up different parts of the Act. This was too big an opportunity to use it as a political football. We needed a better legislative foundation for our social welfare system, and that is what this legislation provides. I really liked the analogy my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta used—you have to sweep the floor before you can put down the new furniture—and that is what this legislation is. It is the sweeping of the floor so that we have a solid platform to make some real, positive changes to the welfare system.

I hope it is now clear that the purpose of this rewrite is to improve the clarity, coherency, accessibility, and legislative structure of the Social Security Act 1964. I have remained committed to this purpose, and before the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill’s second reading, I released Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25 that built on the widespread support for rewriting the Act whilst removing the significant policy changes from the bill.

One of the most controversial policy changes that I removed with this SOP—which I’m sure will be spoken to today in the House by the Opposition—was the insertion of a principle to further the previous Government’s rhetoric around social investment. Now, for me, personally, the idea of social investment itself is not a bad thing—investing more now to achieve better outcomes in the long term for our people is something that most people would agree with—but what the previous Government had called social investment was not that. For one, they seemed to forget about the actual investing part, which requires more support, more services, and more money towards people in the short term, and the narrative they used was not one of investing but, rather, one of liability and risk, and that is not what this Government believes in.

We know that our people are our greatest asset, and in order to further New Zealand economically and socially, we need to believe in people and support them so that they can reach their full potential. That drives everything this Government does. Already, we have made some positive changes to the lives of New Zealanders, which is reflected in this legislation. Through our Families Package, we have increased the income of 384,000 families by an average of $75 per week, and we will lift 64,000 children out of poverty by 2021.

I’m proud to have made progress in this rewrite and to be standing here today in the final stages of the legislative process to bring this old and patched-up Act into the modern era. Both sides of the House have recognised the significance of this legislation and that New Zealanders deserve social security legislation that can be read and understood by people without years of legal training.

The legislation we are debating looks very different to the 1964 Act. Following enactment of these three bills, the 1964 Act will be replaced by three new and separate Acts: the Social Security Act, the Artificial Limb Service Act, and the Residential Care and Disability Support Services Act. Legislation regarding the Artificial Limb Service and residential care and disability support services does not fit well within the current Social Security Act, and it is appropriate that these both become stand-alone pieces of legislation. Once enacted, the separation of these Acts will ensure clarity and accessibility for the public and it will also ensure that provisions are fit for purpose within the relevant legislation.

The Social Security Bill has a logical structure and flow, and there is a helpful guide to compare the 1964 Act with the new Act. The new legislation is clear, coherent, consistent, and accessible. As an example, the Social Security Bill groups all financial assistance measures together, unlike the 1964 Act, where main benefits are separated and supplementary assistance is included in seven different parts.

The legislation uses modern drafting style and provides more explanation and guidance for users. To improve accessibility and readability, there is a full contents table at the start of the Social Security Bill and a further contents table is provided for each part and each corresponding schedule. Taken as a whole, the legislation is easier for people to navigate, use, and understand. This will help ensure New Zealanders understand and have access to their entitlements. This year, we celebrate 80 years since New Zealand implemented one of the world’s first comprehensive welfare States through the 1938 Social Security Act. This will be the second rewrite in the Act’s history, and it is an essential and timely update of this legislation.

Most New Zealanders have relied on, or will rely on, this legislation at some point in their lives. It is the basis of the safety net that lies beneath all of us, and it is critical that we can all use it and understand it. I am proud to be here as the Minister for Social Development to herald in a new Act that will provide the foundation for a more empathetic, supportive, and positive welfare system for people, whānau, and their communities across Aotearoa New Zealand. I hereby commend the Social Security Bill, the Artificial Limb Service Bill, and the Residential Care and Disability Support Services Bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. National, of course, did recognise the need to rewrite and update the Social Security Act after 80 years—a significantly complex piece of legislation. I also want to commend the Hon Anne Tolley, as she was the Minister who did the very, very heavy lifting to put this piece of legislation into a more workable order so that it was more user-friendly.

It is unfortunate that I stand, as the first speaker on the National side, to say that we will not be able to support this legislation because of the farce of a process that this Government undertook with a 500-page Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) dumped on us literally hours before the second reading and then refused any ability for the public to be consulted. For the Minister for Social Development to say that she valued the input of 121 submitters in the select committee process is a farce when she turns around and does that to them. The second reading was on 2 May. Even if an SOP that significant had had two weeks, there was plenty of time until now, 19 September, for our final reading.

We hear all these platitudes about this Government being the most open and transparent. Yeah, right! This side of the House did try very hard to improve the legislation with a number of SOPs that were tabled in the committee stage, but with the Government’s own Supplementary Order Paper 49, the Minister in the chair—having dumped it on the House at short notice—refused to even answer one question, which is an absolute outrage for the process in this House.

I want to just also say that it’s a significant lost opportunity, and I want to speak about the lost opportunity. Many of those minor amendments were all around enabling those front-line Work and Income officers to better serve the people who are in front of them. So that’s just the ultimate contradiction when the Minister talks about wanting to have a Work and Income that is more caring and compassionate. Well, Minister, you’ve actually got to give them some tools. This is the opportunity that you had, as the Minister, to give them some tools, and you completely avoided that opportunity. It is a lost opportunity, and it is the most vulnerable New Zealanders that will pay the price of that.

It’s interesting that the Minister in charge of this legislation, which is now split into three bills, is also the Minister responsible for the Social Investment Agency. It’s pretty dire that nearly a year into this Government’s term—a third of the way—they still don’t understand what social investment is. They still don’t understand it. The principle that was put into this piece of legislation—which National, when we were in office, actually believed—was about the most vulnerable New Zealanders: the families and the individuals that have the most complex and challenging lives. We wanted to serve them better than the system was serving them today, and the Government—the Labour-led Government—has removed that opportunity. It says that for those who are at risk of long-term welfare dependency, the Ministry of Social Development may identify appropriate assistance, support, and services. Why wouldn’t the Government want to do that? Why would the Government not want to provide the individuals and families in this country who are the most vulnerable with better support, better services, and better funding?

It’s very practical. It’s about changing lives of New Zealanders, that probably everyone in this House worries about—well, at least this side of the House does—and it’s about enabling and ensuring that people have the opportunity to lead better lives, to be able to move past what are incredibly difficult circumstances to lead lives that look quite different. I just wanted to touch on some of the very practical changes that the Government’s ripped out of this legislation, and there was a lot of work that had gone into this piece of legislation before they turned up.

One of them—it’s just an absolute no-brainer. Unfortunately, in some circumstances, we will have families that are separated where both parents have a requirement to seek support or benefits as sole parents, where both parents are looking after children from that family. The simple change with this split-care scenario was to allow both sole parents to apply for and get the sole parent support benefit—a bit of a no-brainer, really. Oh no, but the Labour-led Government have decided that that’s not a practical solution. Instead, you would deny the financial support of one of those parents and not allow them to get financial assistance through the sole parent benefit. How is that helping the most vulnerable families? How is that helping a family in need when you deny the opportunity of a parent who is a sole parent applying for the sole parent benefit? Absolutely ridiculous—it is an absolutely crazy, crazy change, particularly from a Government who bleats on about putting children at the centre of everything. Well, this was a lost opportunity. The Government could have made it easier on those children but decided not to.

Another practical example that, again, actually speaks to the heart of child-centred policy was the combining of the orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit—pretty much putting them into one benefit and giving it a new name. It was actually a name that was far more positive and meaningful. It would have made it the “supported child’s payment”. But no, that was too much. That was too much of a stretch for the Government to think of that particular change, which introduced a new single rate of sole parent support and actually meant that those who are caregivers for orphans or for supported children would get the same entitlements and the same access that other sole parents do. So, again, it was a very, very, minor amendment and an opportunity to actually make it easier for the life of a parent—in this case, a foster parent—who is looking after a child. But, no, that was too much as well.

The third change—again, a very unusual one that the Government would dump—is a change in the name of the emergency benefit to the “exceptional circumstances benefit”, which actually reflects what it is: it is about exceptional circumstances. So part of that was clarification, and the whole process for this legislation was about making the legislation easier, making it more simple to use, and making it more user-friendly for Work and Income staff and policy makers, as well as, of course, for customers. But, no, the Government couldn’t accept that change either.

In terms of the process, I referred to the fact that it’s hardly been an open and transparent process when a significant SOP—500 pages—is dumped on us an hour before a second reading. The social security legislation covers $25 billion a year of taxpayers’ money—$25 billion a year. So, to the Minister in charge, Carmel Sepuloni: two weeks—two weeks—you could have given and provided the opportunity for consultation. In this House, the Minister in charge of this legislation could have answered questions on it and could have answered questions on SOP 49, which in her mind obviously didn’t even warrant any answers, which I think is a disgrace. When you’re talking about the scale of funding that this particular legislation will govern—$25 billion—this Parliament and the people of New Zealand deserve openness and transparency. But that’s a bit of a common thread of this Government—Labour-led coalition, New Zealand First - led, whatever we call it these days. What we do know is that it’s definitely not open and transparent, and, unfortunately, this is now legislation we can’t support, because this is a Government that actually didn’t take the opportunity to support the very people we’re all supposedly here to serve.

Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity. I rise in support of the third reading of these particular bills. I do want to acknowledge both you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and, of course, my colleague the Hon Carmel Sepuloni for the hard work done to reach this point in time. I just want to pick up on a couple of points made by the previous speaker, Louise Upston. Talk about missed opportunities. Nine long years is what the last Government had to make sure that we had a piece of legislation that would serve the most vulnerable in our country, that actually would make sure that it empowered them and caught them at times of vulnerability, not actually penalise them, and not have a more systematic regime to make sure that we’re measuring the way we invest in helping these people instead of—guess what?—actually helping them. Our Prime Minister in this Government has made it very clear that we want to do everything in a humanistic way. Every piece of work must be humanised and must show empathy, compassion, and care.

For that side of the House, who don’t understand what a policy-neutral bill is, I’m going to offer, on behalf of the Minister and myself, the opportunity to sit down so I can explain what a policy-neutral bill is, because everything that that last member’s contribution pointed to was actually policies from her time in Government—her time in Government. What we set out to do was a policy-neutral rewrite that would allow us to actually build a platform—a strong platform—that showed empathy and that showed support to Kiwis and New Zealanders who needed it the most.

I don’t wish to take too much of the House’s time, but I do want to say this. On 14 September, great things happened. On 14 September 1938, 80 years ago, this particular piece of legislation, the Social Security Act, passed into effect. On 14 September 1975, a kuia by the name of Dame Whina Cooper set out from the Far North to march upon Parliament with the moniker, “Not one more acre.” On 14 September 1979, it was my birthday. I want to commend this bill to the House.

Can I wish the Hon Peeni Henare a happy birthday. I’m not sure if it’s 25, 26—he looks very young; he looks still like a spring chicken. Mind you, when he’s out on the rugby field with the Parliamentary Rugby Team, he’s still active and still very strong. So I wish him well on his birthday.

I want to make a couple of comments in regards to this legislation. We are discussing the Social Security Bill in its third reading.

The member talked about the phrase “policy-neutral”, and I want to take to task that comment. I’m happy to take his tutelage—he actually said that he’d be willing to spend time. But, when we say policy-neutral, then when we talk about Part 2, Subpart 9A, where it actually talks about the winter energy payment—well, that actually has come from a policy from the Labour Party. I’m not sure whether it’s Labour-led, and New Zealand First—bit confused at the moment—but it is a policy. So I want to challenge the member in regards to the fact that when he says and declares in this House “This is policy-neutral”, well, actually, it’s not, because that is a direct correlation to a promise that was made in a manifesto in an election in 2017. So I have to say that it is not policy-neutral. Winter energy payments actually come from the Labour Party itself.

I want to go back, because I want to—again, on the record—remind the members of Government in regards to what they are actually voting for, and what they are standing up to support in this bill, the Social Security Bill. I want to remind the members that—as the Hon Peeni Henare talked about—from 1938 to 1964 to now in 2018, in this rewrite bill, the purpose and the principles have not changed. And we support it. We support those purposes and those principles.

And here I want to read what those principles are, because I think it’s really important that the members and the Government actually realise what they’re voting for. So the principles on page 24 and clause 4 declare this: “Every person performing or exercising a duty, function, or power under this Act must have regard to the following general principles: (a) work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being: (b) the priority for people of working age should be to find and retain work: (c) people for whom work may not currently be an appropriate outcome should be assisted to prepare for work in the future and develop employment-focused skills: (d) people for whom work is not appropriate should be supported in accordance with this Act.”

I make this point because in this House, and even outside the House and in the public, in forums and debates, the National Party has been criticised. It has been criticised because it has upheld the principles that are declared in the Act. The best thing for all peoples, in reliance to the Social Security Act, is work. We’ve declared that, and yet many times I’ve heard this debate, I’ve heard the rhetoric, saying that we’ve become hard-headed and we’ve become cold and careless as a party. But today, in the third reading of this, members opposite will be voting for these principles. So what I would like to say is that if we have the rhetoric, if we have people debate and talk about this, then they are voting for the very things that we have declared that we support in this House.

We support the importance of work. We support the importance that all those who should be assisted to regain employment should be assisted. But, for those who cannot, then we support that it’s important to wrap around them to give them the ability to go through training or otherwise, or those with a disability—we understand and recognise that. But in clause 4, “Principles”, the word “work” has been named six times. I want to put that on the record. So for those on the opposite side, this is what you’ll be voting for, and, actually, we support that.

Here’s what we find really confusing on the opposite side: that the Minister then comes in with a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), and here’s what the SOP declares. The SOP then declares this—and it is this, from the Minister: the removal of hardened obligations for beneficiaries with additional children in regards to finding paid employment. Yet, in regards to that, the whole intent of this under the principles—four times mentioned; six times the word was said—is to help people find employment. So I find it really difficult that the Minister in the House has tabled an SOP that would ensure that the fact is that if it’s too hard, actually, it’s OK. That’s not the position that we have as the National Opposition. That’s not the principles that the Government and the coalition—and again, Labour-led, New Zealand First; whatever the mix is, OK—will be voting for. And so it’ll be interesting to hear their speeches, because their speeches should declare that. I think that’s really important.

The Minister then talked about social investment. And I know that members opposite—I know the honourable member Greg O’Connor doesn’t like it when he hears the word “social investment”, because it simply says this: social investment was asking the question that, actually, if we have the data, if we know where we can invest most, and if we invest early, then we can ensure we have better outcomes over the long term of the life of an individual, of a child, of their family, and even of their community, and then that’s what we should do. So what’s wrong with that principle? That’s exactly what it was.

What concerns us on this side is that at the moment the current Government of the day, the Labour-led Government, actually don’t want to ask those hard questions. Those questions were first asked to the Government departments. Better Public Services was a target that was set aside and in line with this Act to ask those Government departments, to hold them to account: what is it that they are doing to make a difference? It’s concerning to hear that the Minister who is the Minister for this piece of legislation but also for social investment actually now is saying, “We’re not sure what’s going to be happening.” Ten months on, we still don’t know what the Social Investment Agency are going to be committing themselves to. That is a concern.

I think, on our side, what we would say is that, again, this current Government is not prepared to ask the hard questions. I’d have to say that we had quite a courageous Minister, the Hon Anne Tolley, who was courageous enough to ask the question: actually, if we could invest early, if we could invest in a place that actually made the greatest difference, then why wouldn’t we do that? And that’s what social investment is actually all about.

I want to make just a couple more remarks as I finalise my speech in regards to the Social Security Bill in its third reading. We were looking for some flexibility, and, inside that, I know that I made a number of submissions of Supplementary Order Papers to the House. I’m disappointed that the Minister didn’t take this up. And, again, not policy-neutral: the winter energy payments—an opportunity to be able to look at the reality for some of those beneficiaries, where, actually, the paying of the power bill was not the biggest issue, but it was actually keeping the house and the rooms of their house warm and dry. We were asking, actually: would there be consideration where there was a discretion to allow them to look at other areas, for instance? It could be the top-up to paying for the insulation of their home. It could be other ways—of curtains. There are other areas that we felt were really important that could’ve supported that. There are a number of SOPs that were put forward to this House that, unfortunately, weren’t accepted by the Minister in the chair as well at that time.

We are really clear on this side that we are supporting the principles and the purpose of this Act that we believe and we uphold, from 1938 and 1964. We support the aspect that we are proud that as a country and as a nation the Social Security Act of 1938 was world leading. It said to the world that, actually, we cared. Those principles are still the same, and we uphold those principles. So, to the Government of the day, what would be really interesting is, if they’re upholding those principles, voting for them as they are, what will they do to ensure that those who can work should work? How will they be holding them to account, or will it be too tough? I know that others on the other side, different members of different parties, have again turned around and said that the focus on work is too harsh and the focus on retention of work is too difficult. The fact is that we make a commitment to hold people to make them accountable and obliged to the fact that if you receive a benefit, if you can work, you should work. We uphold those principles and those values because they are actually what’s inside this Act.

We cannot in all conscience support these bills. There are many parts that we do, but, in principle—to the intent in regard to this bill of the Minister and this current Government of the day—we cannot support this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’m trying to figure out why the National Party isn’t actually supporting these bills. There is no real reason at all why the National Party is not supporting these bills. I was just having a think, and I made a note that I was going to say at the end, but I think I’ll say it at the start. All they’re doing is whingeing. They’re whingeing and having a cry because, for everybody that doesn’t know and is watching the progress of this legislation, it was first put into the House in the last term by the National Government. They stood up in this House multiple times and said that this was non-controversial legislation—policy-neutral—with no policies. And what did they do? They tried to put their policies into these bills.

💬 Hon Member: That’s right.

There were no comments from the National Party—no comments from the National Party because that is the truth. They tried to put their own spin and their own doctrine, their own mantra into this legislation. If it was truly policy-neutral, like these current bills are written now—and they will pass—then we likely would have supported it. The reason why we didn’t was because it was anything but policy-neutral.

Now, I just wanted to catch Mr Ngaro, because he said that these bills here are not policy-neutral. What he doesn’t get is that when the National Party brought this legislation into this House, they specifically wrote up policy to put into the bill. The policy that is in these bills as they currently stand, arising from the rewrite bill, was already passed. This is to ensure that the policies that have already been passed through this House can be—and it’s reflected in the foundation document that is looking after and ensuring that the social services of this country are well looked after and go to the people that need them.

The one major issue that has been spoken on by both sides of the House, which it is quite clear we have opposing views on, is the social investment approach. One of the main reasons why New Zealand First didn’t support this legislation in its original form, when it first came through from the National Party, was because they tried to have that tied into the purpose and the principles of the entire Act. And we have got a huge, fundamental issue with the definition—and not only the definition but the outcomes; the evidential outcomes that social investment has had on this country, and on other countries within the social services sector.

I’d also like to mention what Louise Upston was saying, and she used the word “farce”—that these bills were a farce. The question that Louise Upston needs to answer is: how on earth can a policy-neutral rewrite that is trying to make it easier to read, and more accessible for people to understand and for people to access their entitlements and what they’re entitled to—how could that be a farce? The only farce is that the clear message that we got from the National Party today is that “It’s either my way or the highway.” “It’s either what we want”—as in what the National Party wants in regards to policy and social investment and the way they want to run social services—“or it’s going to be nothing at all.” There is absolutely no loss whatsoever if the National Party votes these bills through as they are, because the legislation is a non-controversial, policy-neutral rewrite. Those are the facts.

Here is what the National Party is not supporting when they’re not voting for these bills today. Here is what the National Party is not supporting. Here are the main reasons why it needs to happen. The 1964 Act rewrite is long overdue. There are now well over 500 sections, and only four remain unchanged. Only four of the 500 sections remain unchanged while the other sections have been repealed or amended, sometimes hundreds of times. The National Party doesn’t want to see that changed.

Obviously, the Social Security Act 1964 is one of the most important pieces of New Zealand legislation. It is, as mentioned, the basis and the foundation of our safety net. It sets out the financial supports available to people who are not able to fully support themselves. The National Party does not want to see this legislation go through which will make it better for them. It makes it easier for people to navigate. It makes it easier for people to use and to understand. The National Party doesn’t want to support legislation to allow that to occur. And one of the most important things, or one of the good things that I’ve noted, is the fact that it actually brings the Act into modern drafting styles. That’s how old and outdated this Act is. And it sets provisions out in a more logical structure. With the National Party staying out and not wanting to support this legislation, those are all the facts that the National Party is denying that they want for the people of this country. It is an absolute shame.

New Zealand First will be supporting this, obviously, through this final stage. I congratulate the Minister for bringing it to the House and for the select committee for doing a good job on it. I think that the fundamental aspect of this, and the best part of this—which is quite a shame, the reason why the National Party isn’t supporting it—is what the Minister mentioned the analogy was: the sweeping of the floor before you put the furniture down. I think that’s quite apt. New Zealand First will be supporting this piece of legislation through the House.

One of the funny things in life that—well, it’s the case of the lady doth protest too much. I know it’s gender specific, and we’ve had a speaker just sit down not of that gender, but if someone stands in the House and is constantly saying “policy-neutral, policy-neutral, policy-neutral”, the funny thing is that it doesn’t make it so. In fact, having followed this legislation through the House, and particularly through the committee stage, where I was particularly happy to spend many, many an hour discussing this Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill, the constant claims that it was policy-neutral, despite evidence to the contrary, remains here in the third reading. We’re going to draw a little of that out.

I acknowledge the member who’s just taken his seat, Darroch Ball, for continuing to push that particular line, but the very accusations which the Labour-led Government and members opposite have spoken to, particularly as they critique what they saw as the problems in the National bill, indicates the fact that now that they’re happy that, of course, it’s not policy-neutral. The fact that flexibility has been taken away from parents; the fact that children are not the centre of elements of this legislation; the fact of the winter energy payment, or bribing people with their own money—these are not policy-neutral elements, nor is removing social investment. But I think that’s a good illustration, which I will get to, of the difference between the mentality of the left and the right.

I am pleased to take a call on the social security legislation rewrite bills. It’s cognate legislation: obviously, it’s the Social Security Bill, the Residential Care and Disability Support Services Bill, and the Artificial Limb Service Bill. Fundamentally and importantly, this was a rewrite bill put forward by a National Government, and I think, probably, listening to some of the earlier speeches, all parties agreed many years ago—and, obviously, led by a very competent Minister at the time in the previous Government—that a full rewrite was needed. Now, obviously, as you get into some of the nitty-gritty, tensions develop. But, fundamentally, there is agreement that we need to modernise this legislation. In contrast to what the previous member was saying, I think, regardless of the debate around this, those seeking benefits will not be reading the rewrite bills themselves. What is and isn’t agreed upon by the National Party does not affect any entitlements whatsoever. What this legislation does do is provide, in effect—or was seeking to—better mechanisms in order to serve people. But I think it’s important to say that no entitlements, effectively, have changed.

National introduced the bill. It went to select committee, and I think that’s where problems began to develop. Fundamentally, having chaired a number of them now, committees across the House work very hard—or members, rather, from across the House work very hard—to try and improve a bill. The select committee reported back the bill with its suggestions, but just before we moved into the committee of the whole House stage, the Minister, now a Labour Minister, dropped the infamous, I would suggest, Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25—600-plus pages.

💬 Hon Member: How many?

600-plus pages of changes. I’d better be clear: not every page had changes on it, but it was a substantial rewrite of the rewrite. That never went through the select committee. That never went in front of the people of New Zealand to discuss. And, even more of an affront to the dynamics of this House, although I would suggest that it’s becoming sort of the norm from this Labour-led Government, is that there was no transparency, there was no openness. I remember taking call after call in this House putting very good questions—I would suggest some of the best questions from this side—to the Minister, and not once do I recall the Minister standing to take a call or to answer those substantial questions. There were sometimes deflections, but hour after hour of debate raising important questions around an SOP that was never discussed with the public was ignored. In fact, the last few hours of that committee stage was, effectively, a wall of silence from the Government while, at the same time, in press releases—those of course that the Government wants to put on the Beehive site, and one of the things I’ve discovered today is that we can’t even get a full list of press releases from this Government on our Beehive website—protesting open transparency, yet no engagement with the debate of this House.

So here we are, at the third reading, and I think, importantly and symbolically, we’re getting a sign of that continued frustrating attitude of the Government towards social security in general, in the process of this bill, of members opposite, members on the Government benches, taking short calls. They don’t appear to want to discuss this bill—

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: Oh, how they forget so fast.

—and, more importantly, they do not wish to discuss SOP 25. I am pleased that there is some heckling coming from the other side. The important thing to note, of course, because it won’t be picked up on the microphones, is that it’s got nothing actually to do with the legislation.

So this is the fundamental problem. We have no issue overall with a rewrite of the Social Security Act. It’s been many a year, and it’s needed to be updated. However, what was dumped on this Parliament at the last moment, without debate, without discussion, and without public engagement, was not and would never be policy-neutral. The first element is the introduction of the winter energy payment. That is a left-wing promise, and one that they’ve attempted to deliver through this rewrite legislation. As I said at the start, the winter energy payment, like many things of the left, is simply a bribe using other people’s money, or, in this case, people’s money already.

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: So what does that make a tax cut?

Those who are receiving a winter energy payment are fundamentally just getting that back through a bureaucratic process. Someone yells out, “What about a tax cut?” That member opposite forgets that taxes are taken off people in the first place. We’re not returning anything to them that they didn’t already have. But this is an occasion, like Working for Families and other things, where they take the money off the public, put it through a bureaucratic system, and then spit it back out so you can say, “Oh, thanks very much, everyone.” There’s nothing to be thankful for here, and it is certainly not policy-neutral.

We’ve heard a lot about trying to put children first and at the forefront, and, in another illustration of why this is not policy-neutral, there is a situation now where two parents who are looking after multiple children—

💬 Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Urgh!

I hear a sigh from the other side, because they cannot confront the reality of their decisions: that only one parent, despite both looking after the children, will get their money. And, look, that doesn’t surprise me from those who buy into all of this sort of gender stuff at the moment that goes on around gender stuff. Actually, I should expand that. Those who are into all this politics of identity and so forth will only ever allow one side to win. I just love that we just riled them up there. It always shows you that you’re hitting a raw nerve. I’ve said in this House many a time that those who buy into identity politics, and it touches on gender and inclusivity, are always about winners and losers, and what this legislation shows is they do not care about the children. They do not care about the parents.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: This’ll be a good speech to put up on YouTube.

They only want to give the funding to one parent. That’s actually, and I’ve said it always in the House, not about diversity or inclusion; that’s about winners and losers, and that’s classic left-wing behaviour.

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: I’ll put this on Facebook myself.

The other one that we get—oh, yeah, definitely put it on Facebook; that’ll actually help me immensely. Ultimately, when you look at this legislation, and it’s playing down those lines, it’s always about winners and losers. This is, ultimately, not about both parents winning; it’s not even about the children winning. The changes they’re making are just to make one side, one parent, the winner, and I think that’s actually quite shameful.

The final one is, ultimately, around social investment. That concept’s been thrown out. Social investment is actually just a really simple concept—complex, in some ways, to implement, but a simple concept—that if you put moneys up front to support the needs of people, to target and measure, you can bring about fundamental change. It’s a real pity to drop it, but it doesn’t surprise me, because this is another divide in the left and the right. On the right, we’re prepared to put that money up front, to say to someone, “You’ve got dignity. We’re going to stand behind you, respect you, and bring you fully into participation in society.” The left, unfortunately, can’t handle that. The left always wants to be, effectively—and this is the other funny contradiction you get—that hierarchical person, always handing out the lollies, always being the person to provide help. They just want those needing help to always be grateful. See, the problem they’ve got with the fundamentals of the social investment approach is that after using it, those people will no longer need the support of the Crown and the State and other people. They’ll be able to stand up on their own two legs, and the left never likes that. The left, fundamentally, always wants a whole lot of people to be grateful to them, to always come back and always want more help, because it makes them feel good about themselves.

My goodness, Mr O’Connor. Can the member believe that he was actually proud to put those words on the floor of this House? In suffrage week—125 years’ celebration of suffrage week—Mr O’Connor stands up and says, “I don’t know about people who buy into all this gender stuff.”, and then purports to uphold that “buying into gender stuff” pits genders against each other. This is the understanding that Mr O’Connor put on to the floor in this debate about uplifting peoples together.

We will not, here on this side of the House, buy into the false trade-offs where we cannot uplift people together. That is what that side of the House does, and it has become very clear that they will not support a simple legislative clean-up of connected pieces of law to allow us to ensure that this is simple, easy to understand, and accessible for practitioners and clients and people alike. It’s because of the massive ideology block that that side of the House has, epitomised by the words—I actually wrote them down, because they’re fascinating—of Mr O’Connor. The winter energy payment is going to some of our most vulnerable families, children, and people who are living alone, including elderly, who are struggling to pay power prices that are not just—that are unjust and are keeping people in hardship—and Mr O’Connor called that “a bribe with other people’s money”. It is that side of the House that simply does not get the concept of allowing us to bring people up together. No, that side of the House believes that there is always going to be a group of people who need to stay at the bottom, who need to keep struggling. That’s what Mr Simon O’Connor put on the floor just before I got up to stand and speak. So now I’ve almost had to put all my notes to the side to be able to respond to those words.

The Green Party is happy to support these bills now, because it is not hiding behind the previous National Government’s pretence of being a mere legislative clean-up when, in fact, they were pushing policy and ideology in it. Well, fine, but be really clear that that’s what you were trying to do and then stand up for that. So I’m very pleased that the Minister for Social Development has now made sure that this is a legislative clean-up, which was sorely needed—sorely needed. We heard the concerns around this legislation, noting that since the Social Security Act had been introduced in 1964 it had been amended 131 times. There had been 54 new sections added, and the Act as it existed included over 50 points of discretion. So, yes, it needed a simplification and a clean-up, because this is one of the most important pieces of law. It can either uphold or deny people’s basic right to live with dignity, and for far too long we have upheld a narrative that pits groups of people against each other.

And that side of the House—we just saw them keep doing that. We will not put up with that any longer. We reject that narrative that maintains that some people don’t deserve help. That’s exactly what that side of the House believes in: that some people will never, no matter how much—two jobs, 60 hours a week—they work, deserve a decent level of living. So we reject that, and this legislation is purely the legislative clean-up that is needed. It has fixed up the first rewrite proposed by the National Government, which was hiding policy—which was trying to hide policy—so I’m very pleased that we were able to stand and support this much better rewrite from the Minister.

I’m also pleased because we in this Government have managed to stop the increasingly punitive direction of the last Government—which, also, does not work. The evidence is very, very clear that that punitive approach does not even work for what it is trying to do. It does not provide a good incentive for good outcomes. So, fair enough, you want to keep going on with that ideology that doesn’t even work to do the things that you say it wants to—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t bring me into it.

The members on that side of the House—thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. So I acknowledge the efforts of Work and Income, who are helping us to turn around the culture and ensure that people are properly supported. I acknowledge the oversight to stop what has become known as the Tinder sanctions, the change to office design, and the refusal to play political games with people’s lives. People live in a reality that in this House we know nothing about. We do not live that reality—us, here in this House—and we will stop playing political games with those lives. It’s not all fixed yet, and I’m very, very pleased and proud to be working with the Minister and various Ministers on this work. There is still increasing demand for food banks, there is still ongoing homelessness, and our community sector are still struggling to support people.

That was one of the oppositions we had also towards the social investment approach. While you can do social investment well, that is not what the previous Government were proposing, and, in fact, it became a way for the Government to protect themselves from the discriminative policies that they were putting up, and it became a way for the previous Government to justify cuts to public sector core services and Government. Yes, I’m very, very clear that that is one of the core roles of Government: to provide strong, robust public core services. So I am pleased that we are taking a whole different approach.

So these bills in themselves don’t represent that change, but we are being clear about that. We are not trying to hide policy in this legislation. I am, of course, impatient and want all the other changes to happen now, and we were disappointed that this Budget didn’t remove section 70A sanctions, but we recognise that tidying up the legislation first, which is what these bills do, gives the Government the best chance—the best chance—of achieving a comprehensive and coherent overhaul that the Greens will continue to keep supporting and pushing for.

I again want to put on record my support, as did Mr Darroch Ball, about—I think it was—the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who said, “This legislation in its current form is like sweeping the floor before bringing in the new furniture.” We in the Greens also have that understanding—that we are tidying up the hut a bit and laying that foundation down so we can truly become a proud nation that supports all of its people, especially at the hardest of times. So, again, I’m pleased that we’re able to work with the Government to ensure that this is a truly policy-neutral move and that we didn’t move policies into regulation that actually need parliamentary scrutiny.

I want to be very clear. We’re also pleased with the work of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group, and our confidence and supply agreement with Labour offers the best opportunity that I’ve ever seen in my lifetime to put heart back into our social security system. That is not what this legislation in and of itself is trying to do. We’re very clear that it needs a clean-up, and we will keep pushing for further work. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise today too to speak to legislation arising from the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. There’s never any shortage of material when you’re one of the tail-end speakers, and I have to take note of the co-leader of the Green Party Marama Davidson, who deciphered what my colleague Simon O’Connor said earlier and proceeded to tell us what we on this side of the House actually believe. But then they went and used the word “ideology”—“ideology” from the most virtue-signalling Government that we have ever experienced.

I’d just like to note for the House that some of the comments made by Marama Davidson, talking about those people at the bottom who, they believe, the National Party would like to see there—absolutely false. That is the difference in the philosophies between both sides of the House. We actually support people to become independent in their own lives and not dependent on the State. We also recognise that the problem that we do have with socialism is that we do, eventually, run out of other people’s money to fund it.

So there’s this legislation. There is no question that this is a large piece of work—a huge piece of work. And, in fact, the original Act—the Social Security Act 1964—was long overdue for an overhaul, and it was an enormous task, and it had languished without much attention to the overall overhaul, because the tweaks that had been made over the 50 or 60 years had, simply, made it very cumbersome. So it was filed away in the too-hard basket.

So who was it that took the initiative to make the legislation clearer and to make it more user-friendly and appropriate for the 21st century? The former National-led Government, of course. We did the hard work—and it was a massive piece of work—and we progressed it past the first reading and on to the select committee, prior to the Government changing, and the change did happen: by metamorphosis, into this Labour-led Government that we have today, the three-pronged coalition, now self-referred to as “dysfunction junction”. It’s a Government that’s had the handbrake put on it, because it is now completely incapable of making policy announcements, in case one of the partners has a bad hair day and withdraws his support, while at the same time he contemplates his next big bargaining chip. Now, to be clear, this bill is not about reforming the welfare system.

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: Personal attacks. It’s beneath you—beneath you.

It’s simply about making the law—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Don’t refer to the Speaker.

Sorry?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Sorry, carry on.

It’s simply about making the law clear, updating the language, and bringing it so that it is fit for purpose for modern implementation.

And we have heard this from both sides of the House today. There is no argument that this Act was in dire need of this rewrite. These bills will repeal the Social Security Act 1964 and the Social Welfare (Reciprocity Agreements, and New Zealand Artificial Limb Service) Act 1990, and they will provide a lot more consistency and clarity across all of those Acts.

But the process these bills have gone through has been a farce of a process by this Government, who have picked up a piece of legislation with all of the heavy lifting done—and all done by the National-led Government. It’s a farce because, without any prior notice, the Minister dumped this 500-page Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 25 on the Table a couple of hours before the second reading. Essentially, it was a “dewrite” of the original rewrite bill, with no consultation and no explanation.

In the interests of good government and good governance and the process, this SOP really should have gone back to the select committee, but instead it stepped outside of the well-established process that we have in this Parliament, that would have given the community and the public an opportunity to scrutinise the changes that had gone on in the “dewrite” of the rewrite. It would have given officials an opportunity to write the departmental disclosure statement and a regulatory impact statement.

Now, the National Party members, as we’ll all be aware, invested a huge amount of effort and time in trying to improve this legislation. At the committee stage in this House, we saw literally dozens of further SOPs submitted in an attempt to make these bills better. However, none of them were accepted by the Minister. And then, during the final stages of the committee stage of this House, there was a flat-out refusal by the Minister in the chair to answer any questions about SOPs that no member of the public had sighted or had the opportunity to debate, which also denied this House of Representatives an explanation on that SOP. So this is, in my opinion, an outrageous abuse of the process in this House.

It might have been argued that there was a time constraint—that, actually, we needed to move this legislation quickly through the House. But what happened after we had been through the committee stage? Nothing. These bills have languished for a further 2½ months on the Order Paper waiting for their third reading. The final hours of the committee stage—it was a sad day in this committee when the Labour-led Government wouldn’t allow the scrutiny. I don’t believe this Government actually believes in allowing the public to have their chance to make changes on some of the most significant area of spend that any Government has. We’re not talking about milk money—we’re not talking about loose change here—we’re talking about $25 billion of taxpayer money a year.

Members of the public should be absolutely outraged, and the reason they should be outraged is because taxpayers—now, taxpayers are workers, they’re small businesses, they’re medium businesses, they’re big businesses who employ people. They all pay their taxes and they work hard every day to fund a fair welfare system that supports people in need, and yet they had zero opportunity to have their say on this SOP. Now, we have heard on many occasions—and I quote—“the most open, the most transparent Government that New Zealand has ever had.” Well, we are still waiting for that to materialise, because this is far from an open and far from a transparent Government.

This Labour-led Government has preached about placing the well-being of children at the forefront of everything that it does. I acknowledge the contribution made earlier by the Hon Louise Upston when she used the example of parents—and so too did my colleague Simon O’Connor—who separate who have children between them and want to share custody. One parent is going to miss out on support under this new system. They will not now be eligible for sole parent support despite both of them potentially needing financial assistance.

At the moment, the Social Services and Community Committee is currently working its way through the Child Poverty Reduction Bill, and that bill is all around child-centred policies. But these child-centred policies are not reflected back in this SOP in this piece of legislation. This is a Government that wanted cross-party support for the Child Poverty Reduction Bill, so alongside this legislation it will have direct effects on the same children—the ones we are all trying to lift out of poverty—

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: Is National not going to support the child poverty bill?

—yet they have dumped this document with very little time for scrutiny and for the Opposition to inspect it ahead of the committee stage of this House. So there are issues where cross-party agreement should be reached. I do acknowledge the Hon Tracey Martin on supporting and continuing with the work in the social investment area. So this legislation and the adjoining SOP should have been sent back to the select committee.

I support my colleague the Hon Alfred Ngaro in his recent contribution where he said that those who can work should work. We owe it to those hard-working Kiwis, those workers and businesses who pay their taxes, and we on this side do not support these bills.

I understand this is a split call. Greg O’Connor—you have five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Serendipitous—that that last speaker had the call before me, Maureen Pugh, sitting next to Dan Bidois, because so often when we discuss legislation in this House it can be a little bit focused: we’re talking about legislation, we’re talking about words on a bit of paper. But our select committee was lucky enough last week to go to the Work and Income office in Willis Street with those two members opposite and several others, and what we saw was a personification of the change that has taken place with this rewrite. The change has taken place because—as every member here who does electorate work, who does casework, will know—many of the issues we have are people, desperate people, coming to our offices who simply cannot navigate the system. They would go to offices and see a fortress-like mentality. They would go to an office and see, in the past, dispirited staff who, as a result of directions from above, were really there to bat away.

Well, what we saw last week—and I invite those two members to reflect on that—was a change. What we saw was an office where actually the whole rationale, the whole ethos, has changed, where if we treat these people properly they will get jobs, and they’ll feel like they are part of a system. And when I look at this legislation arising from the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill that’s actually the reality of where we come to.

This is a very short call and I don’t think it needs much. All I’d ask is that anyone here who has any doubts about the change speak to people who have come out of those offices and see how positive they will be. What we want them to do—and I agree with Alfred Ngaro; it’d be nice to have everyone working to their capability and earning towards what they need. But there are those who will not be able to do that, so it’s treating those people—and understanding that this is incredibly important, and this legislation is the start of that. So to those members and those others, I invite you to go and have a look at your local Work and Income office and just see the change, because that is where the words in these bills come to a manifestation of what we need to be as a country. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. I stand to take a call on this important legislation. It should be very important legislation for this country, but, unfortunately, I find it very difficult to actually support the third reading of the legislation.

Before I get into my speech, I just want to acknowledge the Hon Anne Tolley for the work that she did in getting the bill through to its first reading—the hard work around the rewrite. It was the 1964 Social Security Act and it needed some changes. The previous Governments did not do anything with it, and as our National Party and everybody knows—the hard-working MPs in the National Party—the Hon Anne Tolley rolled her sleeves up and got going with it.

I also want to acknowledge another key figure in our party that has left, and that is the Hon Bill English. Why I mention the Hon Bill English is because it was Bill’s dream around social investment.

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

The Government can sit there and they can chuckle away about this, but he saw the need, he got the information, he researched the information, and he put together what would best be a good approach to the identification of some of the issues that he found, and hereto bore the social investment policy and the Social Investment Agency. It was the first time in the history of Governments throughout the ages that social investment was brought to the fore, in a way, to be ahead of the issues, to support the people that need it, and this is what the Hon Sir Bill English did. So I just want to make a call out, a shout out, to the Hon Bill English.

Now, everyone thinks that the Labour Government is a Government for the people. Well, it’s not, and I will say why it is not. Number one, the biggest thing people tend to forget is that when National was in Government, it was the National-led Government that actually gave the beneficiaries of this country their first pay increase—the first time in over 30 years. They say that National is not a party for the people. Well, it is; Labour is not. Labour cannot get there. It cannot get there without their other two coalition partners, whereas National didn’t need to do that.

We gave also, under the National-led Government, tax breaks—not just for business but for all workers. Every single worker that earned money, that was taxed, got a break. They got a break so that they could be part and parcel of the growing economy.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I just encourage the member to stay closer to the legislation at hand rather than to other policy. Thank you.

I’m just getting there. Yes, yes, thank you. Thank you for that. The hard work that parents put into raising their children, especially sole parents—I was a sole parent—and to eliminate one of those parents out of the raising of their children, that’s not working for the people. That is not working for the people. That’s why this side of the House argued for that particular area of Supplementary Order Paper 25: that both parents would be acknowledged equally with payments from a benefit over the sole parent support benefit. And they did not. They are not acknowledged in this legislation.

Foster parents were also penalised in this particular legislation. We’ve heard it through the Hon Alfred Ngaro, the Hon Louise Upston, and my colleagues that have spoken. The Government decided to put the orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit together—i.e., penalising foster parents and making it harder for foster parents. We need foster parents. They’re part and parcel of our society, they make up our society, but when we go and penalise them, then who wants to do that?

The name change from the emergency benefit to the exceptional circumstances benefit—that just opens up a whole area that people will be eliminated from, or it will be against them actually getting that emergency benefit.

It wasn’t policy-neutral legislation. The winter energy payment is a policy. It is a Government policy. It should never have been in the sections, and it is not policy-neutral. My mother said to me, “Hey girl, guess what? I’ve got some money for winter payment.” I said, “That’s right, dear. And you’ll only get it for a certain time and then it goes.” She said, “Well, I didn’t know that.” She said, “I didn’t know that, so how did I get it, and when does it end, and will I know?” All of these questions over these winter payment issues were never told to her.

So these are some of the things that have actually come out, the explanations. It is supposed to be policy-neutral legislation and it is not. Open and transparent Government—it was a bad start for the Government, wasn’t it? It was a very bad start.

I apologise to the member. Your time has expired.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill that has been divided of course into the Social Security Bill, the Residential Care and Disability Support Services Bill, and the Artificial Limb Service Bill.

Now, we’ve heard some real gems from members opposite during this debate. The one that took the cake though—that has to be mentioned given that we stand here today to celebrate 80 years of when the Social Security Act was initiated in 1938, and the day before we celebrate 125 years of suffrage—was the gem from Simon O’Connor, which was absolutely derogatory and dismissive of over 50 percent of the population when he termed it “gender stuff”, and then anything that goes to advancing the status of women was “identity politics”, apparently.

Then of course, the de-writes of the rewrite of the Act, which Maureen Pugh referred to—yes. What was supposed to have been policy-neutral under the previous Government was actually a piece of legislation that snuck in a whole bunch of policies, so a de-write of that is actually policy-neutral. So thank you for actually making the point that we on this side of the House have been making.

The 500 to 600 pages referred to by members opposite as the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) was actually—if they had bothered to read that piece that was tabled, they would have known that that was actually the bill in its entirety with the changes, and not an SOP. So perhaps members opposite should actually read what they’re talking about before they stand up and speak in this House.

The final point that I will make is that what members opposite are doing when they’re not supporting these bills is not supporting a rewrite of an Act that has 500 parts, it’s inaccessible, it’s incoherent, and what we are doing here today is actually tidying that up and making it accessible and making it coherent. Members opposite, by throwing their toys out of the cot because we’ve taken out the policies that they held so dear and made this actually policy-neutral, are not supporting a tidy-up of an old Act that is out of date. What we’re doing is trying to make it accessible to those who need it most. With that, I commend these bills to the House.

💬 Dan Bidois: Madam Assistant Speaker, it’s a pleasure to take a call—

I call Dan Bidois.

Oh! Ha, ha! Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the legislation arising from the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. It’s been interesting hearing debate from both sides of the House today. I just want to start off, certainly, by wishing the Hon Peeni Henare a happy birthday. I wish, though, his contribution in the House today reflected the uniqueness of today for his birthday, but, unfortunately, it did not.

I want to make a few comments and observations on the speeches that I’ve heard. Firstly, from the Minister for Social Development, Carmel Sepuloni—you know, I’m very happy that the Minister has acknowledged that social investment is “not a bad thing.” Then she goes on to say that the whole purpose of Supplementary Order Paper 25 (SOP) is to make it easier to use and understand and navigate. My question to the Minister is: how is a 501-page SOP easier to navigate? The Minister goes on to say that everyone in our lifetime will in some way have an interaction with social services. So, if that’s the case, why not make the legislation a little bit easier to understand, and that is what our original proposed bill that went to select committee was all about.

I would like to certainly acknowledge the former Minister, the Hon Anne Tolley, for taking the courage to rewrite this legislation and put it through to select committee. It is a shame that we can’t go back to that bill. I’m sure our party would be supportive of that bill. But, unfortunately, this lengthy essay—501-page document—really doesn’t lend any weight to us supporting it.

I want to start off by certainly acknowledging my Social Services and Community Committee member Greg O’Connor, who I understand is still taking learnings from certain radio interviews that he’s given in the past. I want to offer him some learnings that I have taken from the visits to the Work and Income offices—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

—both in Willis Street and also in my electorate of Birkenhead. So I’ve visited the Work and Income office in Birkenhead, and the feedback that I’ve heard from the Work and Income office in Birkenhead is that the transition to work off the benefit is still an issue for many of our beneficiaries. It is still difficult for people to find and retain work, and that is what the social investment approach was all about.

This legislation really suffers from bad process. I’m still a newbie, as you might suspect, and I’m amazed that a 501-page document gets tabled literally hours before it is to be debated in the second reading. This SOP didn’t have any regulatory impact statement attached to it. The public were not able to have their say in this very important rewrite. I just think that it sets a very bad precedent for this House, but it doesn’t surprise me with this dysfunctional Government that we have at the moment.

Now we tabled a number of SOPs in the committee of the whole House, and even I did as a newbie, and, unfortunately, the Minister didn’t listen to a single bit of it. This SOP—the 501-page document—will have an impact on child poverty, which is, as I understand, a very key priority for the Government. But the most important reason that we oppose this legislation is that it removes the ability to target support for those that need it most. In particular, in Part 1, it removes the ability to help those that need it by giving the Ministry of Social Development the ability to target their responses to those people. That is what the social investment approach is all about.

My colleague the Hon Alfred Ngaro said before, around the principles of social investment—and for all of you at home, I know it’s a very abstract concept, but social investment is really about changing lives. It’s that simple. It’s about prioritising spending. You all at home want to make sure that your tax dollars are being used in the most effective way according to our ability. So, for every $100 million that goes in to social welfare, you want to make sure that it’s targeting the people that need it most—

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: There’s a Treasury wonk for you. That’s what it’s about: money. Money, money, money; not people!

—and that’s what social investment is all about. The priorities and the principles of social investment are about prioritising—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

Now, I hear some sort of chatter in the background. It’s too light for me to hear, but I believe it’s coming from the New Zealand First member right over there.

But look, I’ll go back to my speech, which is around the general principles of social investment. Now, you know, again I want to talk to the people at home, because that’s really what matters here. You want your tax dollars to be spent the best and most efficient way that we can. Social investment is all about taking the fixed money that we have for social welfare and making sure that it meets and targets those that need it most. If you don’t need it, we’re not going to give it to you. That is the whole idea behind social investment: using the data to better understand who needs it.

“What’s the alternative?”, I hear some people at home say. Well, the alternative is this Government’s approach, which is to spray and walk away: the universal approach to basically dish out money left, right, and centre; whoever needs it, come and get it, no matter whether you’re high-income, you’re in a job, then you can come and get it. And that, quite frankly, is not the best use of taxpayers’ money, and that is why we support the application of social investment, which is about helping children particularly at risk of poor outcomes as young adults, and targeting those families in particular.

Other aspects of this legislation—of course we’ve had a conversation about the winter energy payment and that it is not net neutral; it is part of Labour’s election manifesto, as my colleague the Hon Simon O’Connor mentioned.

Let me talk about other things. We’ve talked, of course, about the separated couples who split the responsibility of their parenting duties. Unfortunately, under this rewrite—this lengthy 501-page rewrite—only one of those parents will be able to access that benefit. That is just a shocking set of principles that this Government is, you know, working under.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Occupying.

Yeah, good—excellent.

So, look, I just wish we could go back to the original rewrite bill, which would have simplified this important legislation dramatically. It would have ensured a modern approach to social investment in terms of targeting, and it wasn’t about reform of the welfare State; it was just completely tidying up the legislation. Unfortunately, this legislation removes a suite of support for parents who have split responsibilities, and Labour wants to, essentially, remove the hard-line obligations for people who are on a benefit to get back to work. We support the transition back to work as quickly as possible.

There was a member here who said that the National Party doesn’t support the people at the bottom. Well, I flat out reject that assumption, and that is about the social investment. We believe in giving people a hand up, not a hand out. The member opposite, Greg O’Connor, will remember—if he’s taking learnings on this, as well—that in the select committee exchange to Australia, we did see a lot of that: a hand up, not a hand out.

We in the National Party will absolutely flat out not be supporting this legislation rewrite. We believe that, unfortunately, this is not a friendly document to read for the people that actually are going to need to read it. It is 501 pages and, let me assure you, it is not easy bedtime reading. Also, it removes the general principles of social investment, and for all of you at home, let me tell you what the principles of social investment are: it’s about prioritising paid employment as quickly as possible; it’s about prioritising the ability to find and retain work; and it’s about giving the Ministry of Social Development the ability and power to target assistance where we need it most, and that is our most vulnerable children and families throughout New Zealand. We will not be supporting this horrible legislation in the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. It is an absolute honour to take the short and last call on the third readings of the legislation arising from the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill: the Social Security Bill, the Artificial Limb Service Bill, and the Residential Care and Disability Support Services Bill.

It’s disrespectful if I don’t respond to what’s been said today, but, firstly, I would like to acknowledge the leadership of the Minister for Social Development, Carmel Sepuloni—the leadership of this House—where she acknowledged that it’s 80 years to date that the first Labour Government introduced the Social Security Act in 1938. The Minister further thanked those who are in the Public Service who supported the journey of this legislation through the House. What I particularly like about what the Minister said is when she echoed Nanaia Mahuta, when she talked about sweeping the floor before putting down new furniture to form a solid foundation.

I want to acknowledge the Hon Louise Upston. She spoke about lost opportunity. My reading of the submissions received is that it encapsulated, Supplementary Order Paper 25, the loud voices of the 121 submitters. They wanted a truly neutral policy rewrite, which is what this legislation is all about. The lost opportunity here wasn’t this rewrite; the lost opportunity was an opportunity for this House to truly be bipartisan—to truly be bipartisan—and support the rewrite. What the 121 submitters had said was that they wanted it policy-neutral.

The Hon Peeni Henare spoke about the importance of empathy and caring for people. The Hon Alfred Ngaro talked about—an almost comradely commendation of the Hon Peeni Henare’s birthday. It is sad that that wasn’t afforded to this legislation.

I want to acknowledge Darroch Ball, who said that this rewrite was policy-neutral, it was easier to navigate, and it brings the Act into the modern drafting era.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan, the gem wasn’t the gender stuff. The gem was from the Hon Simon O’Connor—let me get back to my notes. The gem was: “Me thinketh the lady protest too much.” I think that’s what he said. In this year, the day before the 125th anniversary of where the women fought and won the right to vote, it is shameful—shameful—that those words were uttered through his mouth.

What we heard today is that they complained about the 500 pages. Actually, I think the public who voted you into this House would expect you to have read those 500 pages. You owe it to New Zealand.

I want to thank the first Labour Government for their leadership 80 years ago. They cared for those who needed help, they cared for those who needed a home when they didn’t have a home, and they cared for New Zealand’s future—80 years ago. I want to say thank you for their leadership 80 years ago that did that, and echo the Hon Carmel Sepuloni. I commend this legislation to the House. Malo.