Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

This bill gives effect to the income support policy changes, “Incomes for people receiving benefits—indexing main benefits, removing deductions, and changing abatement thresholds.”, announced through Budget 2019. This Government believes in a welfare system that ensures people have an adequate income and standard of living, are treated with respect and can live in dignity, and can participate meaningfully in and contribute to their communities. The Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill is part of this Government’s continued commitment to that vision.

Today, we will pass a bill to help implement Budget 2019 income support changes. These changes will increase abatement thresholds for main benefits to keep up with increases in the minimum wage, repeal section 192 of the Social Security Act 2018, and ensure that the rates of main benefits are indexed to wage growth. Increasing abatement thresholds will benefit around 73,000 low-income individuals and families who might otherwise see the value of their hard work diminished as the minimum wage increases. Repealing section 192 will help around 12,000 sole parent beneficiaries, who will see an average gain of $34 a week from April 2020. It is estimated that indexing benefits by wage growth will lift the incomes of around 329,000 individuals and families. Most main benefit rates will increase by between an estimated $26 and $46 per week by 1 April 2023. As a package, these changes mean 339,000 individuals and families will be better off. This year’s changes build on the progress made through the Families Package implemented in 2018. With these packages combined, it is projected we will lift between 50,000 and 74,000 children out of poverty on the after-cost measure and are on track to meet our target of halving child poverty in the country by 2028.

This bill is an important part of our ongoing overhaul of the welfare system to help those New Zealanders who access the welfare system for support to live in dignity. The changes that are proposed through this bill are enduring and effective changes that signal the transformation that this Government is committed to in our welfare system. This Government wants to support people in the welfare system to have adequate incomes, and part of this is having a welfare system that encourages people to work when they are able to. The Government’s abatement threshold changes will match expected increases to the minimum wage over the next four years. This means that, as the minimum wage increases, the number of hours people can work at the minimum wage before their benefit reduces will stay the same.

While most of the abatement changes will happen through Order in Council, this bill makes sure veterans pension abatement thresholds can be increased along with increasing the abatement thresholds for other benefits. I acknowledge the collaboration with my colleague the Minister for Veterans, Minister Ron Mark, in making these changes to the Veterans’ Support Act 2014.

The repealing of section 192 of the Social Security Act 2018 will ensure the removal of a discriminatory sanction that has been allowed to exist in legislation for far too long. Section 192 of the Social Security Act 2018—formerly section 70A—reduces the benefits of sole parents if they do not name the other parent of their child and apply for child support. This sanction does not apply to any other parents receiving other benefits who might choose not to apply for child support, such as those receiving benefits who have found new partners. In 2016, the National Government was advised that there was insufficient evidence to support that the then section 70A sanction was fulfilling its purpose of collecting child support from unnamed parents. That briefing also said that section 70A sanctions were associated with poverty and long-term benefit dependence. The sanction is discriminatory and creates undue hardship for children. This Government wants to ensure New Zealand is the best place to be a child and the best place to raise a child. This means reducing child poverty, and it also means improving the wellbeing of New Zealand families. By repealing section 192 of the Social Security Act 2018, we are also removing the stigma and judgment on the women and children who have had this sanction imposed on them.

The indexation of main benefits to wages is an historic move for New Zealand. It makes sure the rates of main benefits do not continue to go backwards against wage and salary earners. As I’ve mentioned on numerous occasions, the changes we make as part of our welfare overhaul must be enduring and effective. The indexation of main benefits to wages enshrined in legislation reflects that principle. In 1991, the National Government significantly cut benefits, including scrapping the universal family benefit, and, since then, main benefit levels have largely been adjusted using the Consumers Price Index instead of wages, but New Zealand’s average weekly wage increases faster than inflation. This is one reason the gap between the living standards of New Zealanders on benefits and other New Zealanders has grown significantly over time.

In each of the last 10 years, increases to the net average wage have been larger than the Consumers Price Index rate used to adjust benefit rates, bar one. The slow erosion of the value of main benefits relative to average wages has contributed to increased poverty in New Zealand society. This legislation makes sure that the main benefits will increase in line with average weekly wages so that New Zealanders who rely on the welfare system can keep up relative to wage and salary earners. This is an important step toward making sure people in our communities aren’t simply left to fall further and further behind.

As previously mentioned, this bill supports us in our ongoing overhaul of the welfare system. It makes significant improvements to some fundamental benefit settings and will improve the lives of many thousands of New Zealanders who need support from the Government. After years of under-investment, we are left with a system that is inadequate and burdened with complexity, a system that has sometimes seemed set up to punish people in need rather than help them realise their potential. Our Government does have a vision for a fairer and more accessible welfare system that treats New Zealanders with respect and dignity. The change in this bill represents some fundamental steps toward that vision, but I acknowledge that there is more work to do.

The bill plays a necessary role in complementing the Ministry of Social Development’s ongoing work to develop a stronger culture that improves the experiences of people that come to the welfare system for support. Notably, it also delivers on some of the recommendations outlined in the recently released Welfare Expert Advisory Group report, Whakamana Tāngata—Restoring Dignity to Social Security in New Zealand. The report will be pivotal to informing the development of our three- to five-year work programme to overhaul the welfare system in a planned and systematic way.

I want to take the opportunity now to acknowledge Professor Cindy Kiro and her leadership in chairing the Welfare Expert Advisory Group. This is a group of 11 members, representing a diverse range of backgrounds, expertise, and views. I want to commend their commitment to delivering a report of high quality and building consensus across their final 42 recommendations. As previously mentioned, this bill also builds on the gains achieved through the Families Package and will assist us with continuing to lift children out of poverty.

This bill changes income support policy in ways that will matter for people’s lives. It is part of the Government’s promise to overhaul the welfare system in a meaningful way so that people have an adequate income and standard of living, are treated with respect, can live in dignity, and can participate meaningfully and contribute to their communities.

This bill today signals an historic turning point for the welfare system here in New Zealand. It is with great pleasure that I introduce the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill. I now commend the bill to the House.

I’m going to start where the Minister for Social Development ended, with the Welfare Expert Advisory Group, and say: is that it? Is that it? There were 42 recommendations—three recommendations accepted—to a welfare system that Labour have said for years was broken. All of their comments in Opposition were that it was urgent and that changes needed to happen desperately. Guess what—is that it?

Of the three changes today that we are sitting here considering in urgency, post-Budget, in the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill in this first reading, two of the three urgent things that the Government has introduced were their campaign promises, but they’ve waited this long to do it. The other one, actually, quite frankly makes sense. But of the months and months and months of work with the Welfare Expert Advisory Group, the Government accepted three of the recommendations—only three. So I say, Minister, again: is that it?

If this is a silver bullet to solving child poverty, guess what: it ain’t going to happen any time soon. And I’ll say this—

💬 Hon Andrew Little: You can’t do it with a google search. What’s the plan?

Oh, a bit sensitive—a bit sensitive. Yeah, great question, Minister Little—what is the plan? What is the plan for the Government’s promise to lift 80,000 children out of poverty in 10 years? This side did it—85,000 in five years. So if you want to have a conversation about results, if you want to have a conversation about lifting children out of child poverty, actually, this side of the House have done it. But this—three changes. I want to talk about the three changes, and I want to focus my time in this debate on one of the issues.

The first is indexing. Indexing isn’t new. Indexing main benefits has been around since the 1990s, so it’s not new. The change that’s proposed by this piece of legislation—and this is where the rubber hits the road in terms of reality. This change in the indexing by 2023, on average, will increase what a beneficiary household gets by $11—$11 in four years’ time. I say to the Minister: is this it? If that is your answer to child poverty—because we know that the large number of children who live in benefit-dependent homes live in some of the most challenged circumstances. In four years’ time, $11 a week—is this it?

In terms of abatement rates, National agrees with the ability of every household to keep more of what they earn. It’s no different for those on benefits. So, as a principle, we do support lifting abatement rates, but we’ll have more of a discussion on that. What I do want to spend most of my time on, though, is the lifting of obligations and consequences on the naming of parents, because at the end of the day—and New Zealand First will be very interested in this—this, in reality, is a tax cut for deadbeat dads. This is a tax cut for deadbeat dads, who aren’t going to be held financially responsible for their children. That’s, at the end of the day, $115 million. That’s the price tag: $115 million. The deadbeat dads are let off the hook. They are let off the hook.

A lot of those listening to this debate won’t understand the history of this particular obligation, so I did want to go back through it and explain the kind of size of what the problem has been in the past. I actually want to refer not to one of my own colleagues but to a former Labour Minister who, in Budget 2004, also made changes around this particular obligation, but what he did at the time was increase the sanction. So the obligation was there, but the Labour Government were very concerned about—guess what—parents not being held financially and emotionally responsible for their kids and not contributing child support.

So I’m fascinated that the Government actually now believes that dads shouldn’t be responsible for their kids—they shouldn’t be financially responsible for their own children. Just because somebody is on a benefit, why is it that the Government thinks that the children in that household don’t have a right for their parents—and it is usually the dad—to be responsible for them? I ask the Government, why is it that you think, just because somebody is on a benefit, that the father of those children shouldn’t be responsible—shouldn’t be responsible? Because, you know, for the sparky in west Auckland who pays child support for his three kids, he’s responsible. He’s accountable. So if their marriage breaks up, if the mother of his children then goes on the sole parent benefit, why all of a sudden shouldn’t he be responsible for his children? It’s a very simple question. It’s a very simple question. Obligations and consequences: if you don’t fulfil the obligations—guess what—there’s a consequence.

As I say, in Budget 2004 Steve Maharey was very concerned. He said, “I think parents should contribute emotionally and financially to their children throughout their lives.” He called it a financial incentive—a financial incentive.

💬 Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Live in the past.

Oh, it suits the Government when they want to talk about things in the past. So let’s never talk about the nine years that National was in office, if you don’t want to talk about the past. That’s fine.

So let’s have a look at some of the numbers, because here’s what’s happened. Here’s what happens when there’s not a consequence, when there’s not a sanction, or, in Steve Maharey’s words, “a financial incentive”: the number of parents that were not named or who applied for child support increased by over 40 percent in seven years. So I asked the Government: how many more parents are you expecting not to be responsible for their children? A 40 percent increase—40 percent increase in seven years, and this was referring to those on benefits.

Now, I was a solo mum. I was on the DPB. It was some of the hardest times of my life. So this is not about beneficiary bashing; this is about saying our side believes, fundamentally, that dads and parents should be responsible financially and emotionally for their children.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: So do we. This doesn’t do it.

Great, New Zealand First agrees—excellent. Because this is a tax cut for a deadbeat dad who gets to not pay for his own children. This side of the House thinks that’s outrageous—outrageous. So this is major opposition from this side of the House because of the obligation that exists currently and should exist.

What I do want to do, because I know it’s been raised in this House before, is just talk about the fact that there are clear exemptions. In the current law, we used to refer to it as section 70A; it is now section 192. I just want to put on record the exemptions that are already in place for not naming the liable parent: if there’s insufficient evidence to establish who the parent is, if the person receiving the benefit is taking active steps to identify them, if the parent would be at risk of violence, if the child was conceived as a result of incest or sexual violation, and if there is other evidence that says there’s no real likelihood of child support being collected. You know, those are very practical, sensible exemptions that are applied on a regular basis for those receiving the benefit who aren’t able to, for a variety of reasons, including their own safety, name the parent.

But guess what: this is about a tax cut for deadbeat dads who the Government don’t believe should be responsible for their own children. This side, the National Party, will oppose this bill because it is an absolute outrage not to hold or to have obligations on parents supporting their own children.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I want to begin by challenging some of the comments that the previous speaker who resumed her seat, Louise Upston, made, because they completely missed the point. Firstly, in terms of repealing section 192, the member claims that members on this side of the House don’t want to hold “deadbeat dads”—she says—accountable for their children. That is absolutely untrue. Why? The reason we’re repealing section 192 is, firstly, because we choose not to penalise women who choose not to name the fathers of their children.

Secondly, we don’t see the point in continuing a policy that does not work. Move to the future, the Hon Louise Upston. Thirdly, the member asks, “Is this it?” It is not. Although this is a significant bill, this is not it, because there are at least 20 recommendations from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report where work is under way. So I say, the Hon Louise Upston, this bill is significant because it contributes to improving child wellbeing, to reducing child poverty, and to ensuring that everyone, regardless of their circumstance, can live with dignity and participate in their communities in a meaningful way. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Oh, that was a briefer contribution than I thought we would have. I stand to speak on the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill.

I want do something a little bit different, because, in actual fact, it was Minister Carmel Sepuloni who set the tone here. The Minister decided to go on the attack and actually began to talk about the things of the past, rather than talk about celebrating the things of the present and what they’re doing. In fact, I noted there were about four points. So, in actual fact, she stirred the pot to make the pointers at this point.

But I’m going to do something a bit different. I’m actually going to start off by being a bit more positive. So I do want to commend her, because when we on the other side look at the factors and the things that this bill will contain, what do we support? Well, the abatement thresholds—we would support that. We think that’s important. What we would say, though, is a caution, because when you think about it, the fact is that the amount of the abatement threshold that we are talking about is going from $80 to $150, I think, so that’s an increase of $70. Most people have talked about that. The Welfare Expert Advisory Group actually wanted it to be $100. They felt that that was what the threshold should have been.

So it’s $30 less, but it is an improvement. On this side, we’d say that that’s actually a good thing, so I want to commend the Minister and the Government for doing that because I think that’s really important as well.

Let’s talk about the indexing of benefits, each year, to the average wage growth. That’s a good thing, and we should commend them and say that that’s something that we think is important. We can talk about Consumers Price Index indexing, which we actually did when we were in Government, but this is indexing—right? OK, that’s a good thing. You’ve made the effort to do that.

However, it is maybe not as good as what the Minister and the Government may have thought. Let’s think about the amounts that we are talking about here, because, in actual fact, though the Minister gave an amount which actually was for 2023, we are talking about 2019, and when this comes into force, what are the actual amounts that beneficiaries will receive? It is actually $11—that’s what it is. It’s actually $11.

So there was the talk about “This is amazing. This is the first time—this is history.”, and, on the other side, the Hon Andrew Little said, “Well, what are you guys going to do? What will you do?” Well, in actual fact, he may have forgotten Budget 2015—in fact, he won’t have forgotten it, because he was there. In Budget 2015, under a National-led Government, core welfare rates were increased for the first time—since 1972, by the way.

💬 Hon Andrew Little: Seven years into the Government—seven years into your Government.

But hang on, hang on. Since 1972, right—42 years. By the way, in the previous Labour Government of nine years: nothing. In the previous Labour Government: nothing. So talk is cheap, but in actual fact, when you had the chance, you never did it.

💬 Hon Andrew Little: National cut it in 1991.

Hang on, let’s talk about this bill right here. You’ve introduced an indexing that will give $11, so let’s think about what we did in 2015. What we did was we increased the base benefit rate so that after tax it was $25—$25. Let’s think about that: $11 versus $25.

Well, we had an independent report by Radio New Zealand. They went out and asked “What could we buy with $25?”, and I’ve got a list of things that they could buy with $25: 2 litres of milk, a bag of chicken drumsticks, cornflakes, bananas, Wattie’s tomato sauce, two tins of baked beans, two tins of spaghetti, two tins of peaches—

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: Don’t read your shopping list in the House.

—12 eggs, pasta, margarine, a loaf of bread, and for those who are out there who may be gluten-free, like Mr Fletcher Tabuteau, you could get gluten-free biscuits—that’s right—for $25. They’re only getting $11. That’s right—the indexing will only give them $11. So I’m not so sure if you want to crow so loud to say that this is amazing and this is wonderful, because, in actual fact, when we did it, it was $25 and that’s what you got. Here’s the shopping list, which was independent, and that’s what you got for that.

Let’s talk about the area of concern that actually we have: sections 192 and 194. Now, what I’d like to say, hand on heart, is that I’m pretty sure that I would be the only one on this side that has actually worked with the Hon Steve Maharey. When I worked with him—like with the Welfare Expert Advisory Group—because of the work that I was actually committed to in the community around community development, I was asked to come on to form what they called the Blueprint committee. This was after the baseline review, where Judge Mick Brown was commissioned by Mr Maharey to look at the whole of the welfare sector. With that, we spent three to four years putting together a framework to look at how we could get greater connectivity, less duplication, and greater efficiency into the whole of the welfare sector.

So I can talk about when the Hon Steve Maharey was here. When he talked about these sanctions, I heard him say directly—and this is what he said—“It is a rort, and I have said time and time again in this Parliament that fathers must front up to their obligations, and we will make sure they do. It is not unreasonable to expect that single parents bringing up children on their own identify who in law is the other parent, or to expect that they seek financial support for the child from the other parent. It is not unreasonable to penalise financially those who do not.” Now, the others have talked about it, and we know that the numbers have been slightly dwindling, but the fact is that there are those out there that need to be held to account.

The speeches on the other side have talked about National members being the ones who have been using the stick. Well, isn’t it interesting? The stick actually came from the Labour Government of the day. They made the stick a bigger stick. They increased the penalties—from a Labour-led Government of the day. So it’s a bit interesting for them to turn around and say that it was a National Government that put this in place when, in actual fact, what you are reversing here, from sections 192 and 194 of the Social Security Act, was actually implemented and increased by a Labour-led Government with its ideology. That’s interesting—

💬 Darroch Ball: What year was that?

—2004—but we would agree. We on this side would actually—

💬 Darroch Ball: Didn’t you have any common sense in there?

Yeah—well, you were probably still at school. You were probably in primary school, over there. But we would agree with this. Why? Because it’s only fair.

In my maiden speech, I talked about fathers taking up their responsibility. I’ve worked in communities to ensure that where it’s possible, a father should take up his responsibility, not just in the financial contribution but in being a father, where he needs to be. We know that in this country there are women that are having to struggle, day in and day out. It is not unfair to put on them a burden of responsibility—whether it be financial or even emotional—that fathers should be held to account on. So we do not resile from the fact that we uphold what was actually put in place by a Labour-led Government, reinforced by a Labour Minister for Social Development and Employment. We would say that this is appropriate and this is right. You cannot turn around and say that this is a wonderful thing and that this is freeing for all of those people, because it’s not about the women we are talking about that we want to put the burden on—that the burden is actually on. The burden of responsibility is purely on the fathers who do not take up their responsibilities, and we think that’s critically important.

The Minister then talked about the importance that the contribution of all of these things—there’s actually only a few of them—was really important because, in the end, it was about contributing to child poverty. So what I did—as we all did—was pull out the report that was submitted. In the report, this talks about the Wellbeing Budget. I studiously looked through this report to look at what was actually in here. We’ve got the before-housing costs and the after-housing costs and all the things that you would measure, though some of them we do challenge.

But as I went along, I found a little disclaimer. I found a little disclaimer in here, in the words of the Prime Minister herself—right? So while they’re saying they’re doing all these wonderful things and they’re increasing benefit rates, indexing, removing the sanctions, and so forth, here’s the little disclaimer. It’s on page 6—and I quote—“Are we on track to reach our targets? While it’s too early to say with certainty if all the changes we’ve made will enable us to reach our targets,”—that’s actually here, in print, from them. Right? It’s the little disclaimer, because what you’re trying to say is “We’re going to try, but we may not get there.” It’s a bit like KiwiBuild, and a bit like all these things. I don’t want to go out of scope, but, you see, it’s the little disclaimer that says, “Look, but we did say that if we don’t quite get there, we may not make it.”

We would say on this side that there are things that we would support in this bill. There are two things that we would support in this bill, so we want to be positive. We’re not a negative group over here, but we do have to say that we take exception to the areas around sanctioning, but not because of the burden upon the mothers that are out there, who are the single mothers up and down our country and in our communities in whom we have great pride for the effort that they put in to raise those children. But what we do want to challenge are the fathers who are out there who do not take up their responsibilities. On that principle, and that principle alone, we will oppose this bill. We will continue to oppose it. Why? Because that’s the right thing to do to make them responsible, so that their children will know who their fathers are—taking up their responsibilities for this. We cannot support this bill, because of that principle.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why does this member support this? Why do you support deadbeat dads?

—just listen up, Mr Smith, and you’ll find out—in support of the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill. First of all, I’d just like to congratulate the Minister and the current Government, the coalition Government with support from the Greens, on bringing this legislation to the House. As has already been mentioned by some of the speakers on this side, this is just the start of a well-overdue overhaul of the entire process.

I think what this bill does, in its essence—and I’ll get into a couple of details, and, obviously, one of the specific details has been topic de jure at the moment, and we’ll get into that—is it actually brings in a good balance between ensuring that we’ve got a robust and effective safety net for those in this country that need it but also ensuring that there is a focus on getting those who are on main benefits into work.

I’ll start with probably the most controversial issue that has been voiced so far, which is section 192 and the repealing of the sanctions. I think that there needs to be a little bit of common sense brought to this argument, and that’s why we’re here, but what it shows is that the National Party continue on their modus operandi, which is a cursory glance at any of the statistics, a one-dimensional view on the surface of the problem, and then basing their entire premise of their argument on flimsy evidence, if any, and very little logic, if any.

I’d just like to say first that there’s a couple of questions that came out of the Hon Louise Upston’s speech, which didn’t make sense, and I’ll be asking her a couple of questions. Then there’s a question that I want to ask every member of the National Party that wants to stand up. First of all, the Hon Louise Upston said that we shouldn’t be taking away the sanctions, because the sanctions work. But, if they worked, then how come there are around 24,000 children significantly being affected by the sanctions? She also said that it had increased by 40 percent in the time period she gave. If it was successful, how come there has been an increase of 40 percent? If the sanctions were working, to ensure that the father in this process was paying a fair share, then, if the father started paying, the sanctions wouldn’t be applied. So if that was the case, then it would be working and we wouldn’t have seen a 40 percent increase, would we? It makes no logical, common sense whatsoever.

I think there’s one important difference in wording that the Hon Alfred Ngaro hasn’t picked up on: there’s a difference between “consequence” and “responsibility”. So one of the last things that he said was that the National Party are proud of the work that the mothers do in raising their kids in poverty and on benefits, but the problem with section 192 is that the consequence is not worn by the father. So how can a sanction that is designed, in theory, to hold the father to account—which is what New Zealand First agrees with, and we were agreeing when the National Party speakers were standing up and saying, “We believe that all fathers should be held to account and pay their fair share.”

We agree 100 percent, absolutely. But in no way, shape, or form is this sanction actually achieving that, because where is the consequence when you fulfil the sanction? If you implement the sanction, who wears the consequence? Who wears the consequence? The solo mother on a benefit. You’re taking money away from the solo mother on a benefit, and who does that ultimately affect? The children. Riddle me in any way, shape, or form how the father is wearing any of those consequences and being held accountable. Where is it? How is it?

So, you see, we’ve got a situation—if you take a step back—where the father in the first place is not responsible, because they’re not paying the child support. They’re not paying the child support. So the father is irresponsible.

💬 Melissa Lee: Not responsible for the children that they create?

No, Melissa Lee—listen up. I’m saying that the father is being irresponsible—the father is being irresponsible in the first place. So now you’re going to take money away from—who? The father? No. Are you going to have some consequences for the father? No. You’re going to take money away from the families, and the children, and the mothers who need it the most in this country—the solo parents that are on a benefit. Riddle me that logic.

Now, New Zealand First, like I said, supports the concept that the fathers who aren’t paying child support need to pay child support, need to take responsibility, and there needs to be a way of doing that. This section is not the way. That’s as plain and simple as it is.

💬 Hon Alfred Ngaro: Name the way.

This section is not the way. Not only is it not the way, Mr Ngaro, it is affecting the wrong people. That is why New Zealand First is in support of the removal of this section.

I’d just, lastly, like to say that with the indexing of main benefits, I think there’s a short memory in this House for some of the people on the opposite side. Prior to 1991, one of the benefits that we’re talking about is the sole parent benefit, or the DPB as it was known back then. That was the equivalent of around 70 to 75 percent of the average wage—prior to 1991. In 1991 it dropped and kept dropping until, last year, it was under 50 percent of the average wage—it was 47 percent, or thereabouts. Now, consider the cost of living—one of the essential aspects of a robust safety net. Now, we can start talking about—we’re going to hear from the other side; and we’ve heard—how there need to be incentives to get off the benefit and sanctions to get off the benefit, and that’s a separate argument. What we’re talking about is the absolute, essential, genuine nature of needing that safety net. There’s no way that there could be any sort of argument from that side of the House for that lower benefit—it was once 75 percent—which is so low that a beneficiary who has children and needs it the most can’t survive. That’s as simple as it gets.

New Zealand First supports this bill because it goes a long way—like I stated right at the start—towards the balance between ensuring that we’ve got the robust safety net that this country needs and ensuring that we encourage people to get into work. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. I stand to oppose the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill this morning in its first reading. We’ve heard a lot of very impassioned pleas from the Government benches about why this is such a good idea, but, actually, none of them have been particularly convincing. In fact, when I think back over time to the 2000s, when these sanctions were actually introduced by the Helen Clark - led Government, they were introduced for very good reason. Unfortunately, we haven’t heard a very good reason for undoing that particular part of the legislation.

We know that this is an omnibus bill, and it does affect the Social Security Act. National has very supportive views about the impact on the Veterans’ Support Act 2014. It makes common sense to include that in some of the indexing that we’re going to be talking about further in this bill, I’m sure. But I would like to pick up on some of the things that have been mentioned by the Government—in particular, the Minister who introduced the bill, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, who said that people on benefits deserve to live with respect and dignity. I don’t think there’s a person in this House that would argue with that point of view, but I guess where our views differ is how we actually reach that as an outcome.

Living with respect and dignity, in my very humble opinion, also means living independently, but with a safety net provided by the State in situations where we do need that safety net. It is not intended to be a lifestyle choice, and that is the very real risk we run when we start playing with some of the indexing and we start playing with some of the sanctions that ensure that people comply with the intent of these benefits, which is to be that safety net, not a lifestyle choice.

Now, we are going to be talking in some detail in the committee of the whole House stage, and I’ve prepared a Supplementary Order Paper too to attend to some of the detail in this removal of the sanctions out of this bill. As my colleague the Hon Louise Upston shared with us before, having been on the DPB herself—I too have been in that situation with my two young children. I’m not sure if I was a freak of nature or whether I was just extremely frugal, but I never had a problem living on the DPB with my two children. It provided adequately for me and my family for a couple of years—

💬 Darroch Ball: When was that?

Mr Ball asks when that was. Mr Ball, I was 16 when my first baby was born, I was 17 when my second child was born, and I was 19 when I needed the State to support me to escape the situation I was in. I was able then to buy my own place—a very humble place, but it set me up in my independence, where I also went on to do extra study. So Mr Ball, there are ways that people reach their independence with respect and dignity.

But I’d also like to pick up on something that that member mentioned about National relying on flimsy evidence. Well, this piece of flimsy evidence will tell you that during National’s watch, teenage pregnancies actually fell by 60 percent. That means that we have less people reliant on the State. But the purpose of my comment around the sanctions is that when a parent—in particular, the mother—refuses to name the father for the purpose of supporting her while she is receiving the safety net from the State, it is because we have failed to think about the people who are providing that safety net. We hide behind the fact that it may be the Government, but, in actual fact, it’s the taxpayers of New Zealand that provide that safety net.

Now, if the mother refuses to name the father so that the father can then subsidise the taxpayer, so he can pay his fair share of what is required for him to support his child, then that is entirely reasonable. If the mother knows the father of that child and refuses to name him, then I would suggest, if he is then providing some casual support financially—under the table, we call it—then she is actually complicit in a fraud against the taxpayers, because this is the taxpayers’ money we are talking about.

I’d like to talk a little bit about the indexing, too. I know it’s been raised by my colleagues in their contributions. Indexing to the Consumers Price Index (CPI), as it was, has ensured that benefits have kept up with inflation. Now we are going to be—if this bill is successful—indexing to the average wage; we are not going to be indexing to minimum wage. Much has been made of this over the course of announcing this Budget, about how generous this Government is with taxpayers’ money. But, in actual fact, this does not come into effect, it doesn’t start, until next year, and then, over the next 3 years, the difference between the CPI indexing that we have now and indexing it to average wage by 2023, which is the goal of this particular bill, is $11—$11. How generous are they!

I think, perhaps, they have oversold this policy, because, as we all know, the very first point of attention that this Wellbeing Budget got yesterday was a new tax—a new tax on fuel. A wellbeing Budget tells me that that was more important: to penalise hard-working Kiwis who pay the taxes now. And here we are making such a song and dance about $11 by 2023, when already they have found a way of taking more than $11 off these same people by increasing fuel taxes—the same people who struggle to make ends meet as it is.

I thought it was ironic. We were talking last week about the appropriations bill. I had prepared a quote from the former Minister, a Labour Party Minister. I thought that was quite an irony then, but I find it even more of an irony now. I quote the Minister for Social Development and Employment at the time, the Hon Steve Maharey. He said, “Removing sanctions on women who don’t name the father of their child is a complete reversal of position for Labour. It is a rort, and I have said time and time again in this Parliament that fathers must front up to their obligations, and we will make sure they do.” That’s straight from the Hansard.

What we do, and we know this—I know that Darroch Ball talked about flimsy evidence and using flimsy stats, but I can tell you that the stats are very, very clear that children who grow up in safe, secure families have much better outcomes in their lives. That is what this side of the House is more concerned with, ensuring that where parents are involved in their children, where they do not abdicate from their responsibilities, they are doing more for their children and their outcomes. The purpose of having the safety net of a benefit is well understood, but in terms of letting—as they’ve been called—the deadbeat fathers off the hook and keeping them out of their children’s lives, we actually end up disadvantaging the children who the safety net is designed to protect. I think it’s a sad day when we make it easy for people to abdicate from their responsibilities. Let’s face it: a woman does not accidentally get pregnant. There is a father, and he should be named.

The Greens are very pleased and relieved to support this, the first step of overhauling the welfare system, and want to congratulate Minister Carmel Sepuloni on pulling together the expert advisory panel, with the diverse background and range of backgrounds that the experts on that panel came from. She pulled together an incredible blueprint for all of us in this House to be able to work on together, so that we might actually assist people to live their lives with dignity when they are requiring support. Thank you to the Minister for her leadership on this. It is a Greens confidence and supply agreement that we will make sure we see through.

I cannot go past acknowledging the Welfare Expert Advisory Group chair, Dr Cindy Kiro, and her incredible commitment, her wairua, to the cause of making sure she could pull together not just the voices of the panel but the voices of the country, bringing her incredible governance and leadership and insight experience as a human to this incredible blueprint that we have, and all of the panel.

I want to uphold the work of advocacy groups who, for probably at least three decades, have been on the front line of seeing firsthand what happens when we have a social security system that rather than helps people, punishes people and entrenches poverty and entrenches intergenerational struggle when we create a narrative that accepts that some people should be dehumanised so that we can afford to give them less.

I want to absolutely acknowledge the people themselves who have had to suffer under generations and decades of, I will say, successive Government policy which has not understood the importance of having a strong and robust social security support system, especially in the context of a housing market, even just the housing market alone, which has blown affordability through the roof for people trying to make ends meet.

This can only be a start to an overhaul. This can only be a start to transforming what our country has taken pride in, in setting up and understanding in a social contract that at all times there will be some people who need some help—that we understand that, mostly, people want to be in paid work if they are able to be, and that they want to be able to contribute. We can one day be proud again of what has been a foundation and a social contract understanding in this country.

I will start with welcoming the move to finally index benefit income growth to the growth of average wages. That is the least we could possibly do, especially considering that benefit income levels have been so below par of livable that it has been a shame on our nation that we have allowed people, for no good reason, to struggle with the basics of living.

We have heard in this room today that several of us in this House, several former MPs before us, and more to come, have experienced being single parents ourselves, and I certainly am one of those people. We know that for the most part people try and do their best. So the fact that we have not allowed benefit income growth to at least move at the same rate of average wages should be a stain on us. But here we are today. We’re going to fix that at the very least.

I also, in this, want to remind the House that only 21 percent of our people who receive a benefit are physically and mentally able to uphold paid work. So I want to call to account some of the rhetoric from the Opposition, which shouldn’t surprise anybody, which has continued to bash beneficiaries. I want to call that—

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Rubbish. We weren’t talking about them.

Absolutely has. We heard it from the start. We saw last night the Opposition leader put up a meme on the internet for the National Party’s narrative. They set up beneficiaries against workers. What is that if not bashing beneficiaries? They set that meme up in the House last night.

I want to remind people that we have people in paid employment who are struggling, and you want to set them up against people who receive the benefit. I want to remind people that today’s beneficiary is tomorrow’s low-paid, exploited worker—that today’s low-paid, exploited worker is also tomorrow’s beneficiary. That Opposition—the leader goes out with a meme to set them up against each other. That’s all they’ve got. That’s all the constituency they have left—is to continue setting up people decently trying to make their way in this daily life. They want to set them up.

One of the previous Opposition speakers tried to say that they agree with people living lives with dignity. You are not allowing people to live with dignity if you continue to stigmatise them. If you continue to shame people who receive an income by setting them up against workers, that is not allowing them to live with dignity. So I will call that out, and I have an absolute responsibility to call them out—not to mention that we have people who receive an income for paid work who have been exploited themselves, who are oppressed by the very same oxygen that keeps people living in entrenched poverty. They are struggling with the same issues. You want to divide people—that’s your constituency—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! [Points at self]

Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you.

They want to divide people. That’s their tactic. This Government is here to bring people together. This Government is here to understand that there is a common ground that we have to find so that all people do not feel shamed when trying to access support.

This Government understands that there are people with disabilities, with mental or physical illnesses, and people who cannot work because they are providing care who do make a contribution to the community, who absolutely are a core backbone of our communities. Just because they are not in paid employment, we cannot in this House—surely, surely there’s a social contract we can agree to in this House that means we stop devaluing their contribution to who we are as Aotearoa New Zealand.

So I’m just going to pull that up for a second. Ending sanctions—OK. So the international and local evidence has been very clear that those sanctions, those punitive sanctions, do not work. It has been very clear. The experts on the panel, who we should be listening to, were very clear that not only have those sanctions not worked, not encouraged other parents to pay, but they penalised the custodian parents and their children for no good reason and they further entrench poverty.

Now, the Opposition wanted to crow about the conservative, considerate benefit increases that they made of the odd, what, $20 a week? I don’t know. It was so minimal I barely remember. But in the meantime, they kept that sanction that took it off anyway. So how dare they—the shame of them trying to crow about that minimal, minimal benefit increase while they kept that punitive sanction on the books and took it off them anyway. So I’ll just call that out as well.

What we are here to do in our jobs as representatives of the people is set up a vision for a social security system that works and that treats people with respect and mana. The very name of the welfare report, Whakamana Tāngata, is the welfare system that will benefit our communities, our people, our children, our economy, and our environment. When people can live without having to struggle and stress about the basics of everyday lives, that is our work here.

I’m proud to support this starting step. The Greens want to make sure that the transformational recommendations in this report—that we have a plan to put it in place so that we can really say, with hands on our hearts, that we are overhauling welfare. Thank you.

Madam Assistant Speaker, talofa lava.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Talofa.

Thank you. I take this call on the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill. So the key parts of this bill are indexing of main benefits, removing deductions, and changing abatement thresholds, which require amendments to the Social Security Act 2018 and the Child Support Act 1991 and Veterans’ Support Act 2014.

Just touching on abatement rates, which some of my colleagues have already mentioned, in that generally we are supportive of abatement rates, ultimately, finding meaningful work is the main ambition of many New Zealanders who are currently on the jobseeker support. So there is a fine line between where we have those settings to ensure that there are still incentives to move into full-time paid work, which is, ultimately, better outcomes for those people for their families.

I’d just like to touch on a comment that the member Marama Davidson spoke to about divisiveness in terms of the repeal of section 192, which was the one to remove the benefit deductions on sole parents who do not identify the other parent of their child. Ultimately, I think this part of the bill—actually, this bill—is divisive to families. We on this side of the House have always been pro-families and supportive to families. The underlying ideology in this bill is actually to be divisive. It’s actually putting a barrier up between children and one of their parents.

💬 Marama Davidson: It’s not what the sanction does.

The sanctions actually did work. So let’s have a look at what this says. It’s a really shallow attempt, actually. This bill is a very shallow attempt to address child poverty. In terms of a stigma, this isn’t about removing stigma; this bill is actually about parental responsibility. It’s about personal responsibility. It’s about the fact that taxpayers are paying for this. This is not the Government; this is about other hard-working New Zealanders who are contributing to this, who are paying for this. They’ve got their own children to pay for, and at the moment, now, these other hard-working New Zealanders have also got increased costs of living under this Government. So this is another burden on taxpayers.

So I recall that Minister Sepuloni had been quoted as saying that this bill was about catching up with the times. So catching up with the times, let’s see—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! [Interruption] Order! All members—I think we need to all come to order. This is starting to get a little out of hand, as with the previous contribution. We shall not heckle each other in this Chamber. Is that clear? I can refer members to Standing Orders if you would prefer, but let’s just have a little decorum in this particular debate.

As I said, Minister Sepuloni had been quoted as saying that this is about catching up with the times. So what are the times that she is referring to? Is it the time to throw away personal responsibility? Is it the time to withhold kids from knowing who their dads are? Is it the time to disregard dads and their roles and their responsibilities?

True dignity actually comes from being independent of the State. Of course we are there to help and to support people who need it when those times come. It should be a safety net. We don’t want it to be a permanent state of existence. That is actually not wellbeing for those children. It is not wellbeing for those families.

This bill gives the message that we want to make it easier for you to remain on welfare.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Rubbish. What a load of rubbish.

This bill gives the message that we don’t value personal responsibility. No, it’s not rubbish. That is actually the message that comes through in this bill. This bill gives the message to the children that “Your dads don’t matter. In fact, your dads don’t exist.”

💬 Marja Lubeck: That’s terrible.

It is terrible—it is absolutely terrible. If you actually want to talk about children and then you want to give visibility to the children—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Do not bring the Speaker into the debate.

💬 Hon Member: Shameful.

This is not shameful; this is actually the message that this bill gives.

Where is the incentive to move off the benefit and on to a pathway to work and to better outcomes for your families? Where is that incentive? The best pathway out of poverty is through work, through jobs. Let’s not forget—it’s been mentioned, and I’m going to mention it again—the former Minister for Social Development and Employment Steve Maharey, who supported sole parents being required to name the other parent. As he stated in this House, “It is a rort, and I’ve said time and time again in the Parliament that fathers must front up to the obligations, and we will make sure they do.”—as much as we can.

💬 Hon Andrew Little: And if they don’t, you punish the kids—very clever. Very clever—punish the kids.

Well, no, this bill is actually about punishing the children. The National Party actually reduced the sanctions for sole parents who failed to meet the requirements of the Act but left it in place because it’s incumbent on absentee fathers to at least provide for their children. But this Labour coalition Government doesn’t care what it costs the taxpayers—hard-working low and middle income New Zealanders, who, right now, are finding it very challenging, since this Government came into force, with the increased cost of living, more taxes, rents on the rise, and job creation on the decline. Is there any consideration at all for these hard-working families?

So let’s have a look at the numbers in terms of does this work. The numbers who incur a section 70A penalty did actually fall. In 2004, there were 19,443, and, in 2016, that number had fallen to 13,616. That’s a decrease of 30 percent, so who was saying that it doesn’t work? It does actually work.

The other reason that has been cited for removing the sanction is that it was often family violence - related, but, actually, those exemptions were already in place. The exemptions include cases where there was insufficient evidence, where the child or sole parent could be at risk of violence, where the child was conceived as a result of incest or sexual violation, where the sole parent was actively trying to identify the other parent, or where there were other compelling circumstances. Right, there are exceptions to the rules for cases of violence, so that blows that argument out of the water. So here we have a classic case of the State putting a wedge between children and their fathers and of the State saying it knows best for families.

The repeal of this sanction weakens these children’s opportunity to know and have a relationship with both parents. I refer to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which says that it is a child’s right to be registered immediately after birth, to have a name and nationality, and, as far as possible, to be known and to be cared for by their parents. That is a convention which New Zealand has signed up to. It also protects a child’s right to preserve their identity, including their nationality, name, and family relations, without unlawful interference.

We should be supporting and encouraging dads to take responsibility for their children, not putting up barriers. It comes down to values. If we truly value families, if we want to support families to be strong and resilient, and if we want our children to know both their parents, who are a big part of knowing their identity, then we would not be supporting this bill. There are real, long-term effects for fathers being left out. This affects children.

The long-term wellbeing of children is not keeping them in benefit-dependent households. Welfare is not the same as wellbeing. We absolutely need to ensure that all New Zealanders, no matter where they come from or where they live, have a warm, dry home, food in their lunch boxes, a secure home, and equal access to opportunities, but not at the expense of having the State putting barriers up to children knowing who their dads are.

We need to look more comprehensively at how we can improve people’s financial wellbeing and at reducing the number of children who are living in benefit-dependent households. On that note, I oppose this bill.

I understand this is a split call. Kieran McAnulty, you have five minutes.

If there was ever a reason why the New Zealand public needed to know why I could never ever support the National Party, they only need to listen to their speeches today. They are trying their hardest to paint themselves as a compassionate party, talking about stories of people pulling themselves up—and good on them for doing it—and then, in the same breath, complaining that any increases in benefits and linking it to the average wage is a waste of taxpayers’ money.

They crow that they were the Government that increased benefits, and yet they’ve got an opportunity to support a mechanism which will help people out of poverty and they are choosing not to because they’d rather grandstand and talk about hard-working New Zealanders, while neglecting the fact that at any point “There but for the grace of God go I”. So I say shame on the National Party.

It is an absolute privilege, and I stand here with pride, to lend my support to this bill, which will go and help 339,000 families in this country. This is long overdue, and I’m proud to be a part of it.

Talofa lava, Madam Assistant Speaker. What a load of rubbish that member Kieran McAnulty just said then. Honestly, what would he know? What would he know? I can tell you that now.

Well, I’m pleased to stand up to actually vote against this bill—this bill that will actually support more people to stay on benefits—to support those that have had generations and generations of beneficiary families. It will say to them that “It’s OK. If you’re not ready to work right now, it’s OK, and you can stay where you are on the benefit.” This is not wellbeing—it is not wellbeing. Just as my colleague before me, Agnes Loheni, said, there is a big difference between welfare and wellbeing, and this is bill is not it. It is not a wellbeing bill, I can tell you that now.

I too have been a sole parent. There are a few of us in this House that have been sole parents and that have been on the domestic purposes benefit, and, yes, when it came to naming the father, I named the father, because the father of my child needed to take responsibility and needed to pay the State. That was his role, and he said that he would do that. I didn’t want him in our lives, but he said he would do that.

There is no reason why dads cannot pay something towards their children, unless there are those exemptions that my colleagues have already talked about. Why would somebody want to have a relationship with a woman that results in a child and then just walk away? Why would you want to do that? What about those young people that are in our jails today that are children of sole parents? These kids have ended up in the system because they have not had a father figure helping them, guiding them, through their lives.

Why on earth can’t the dad pay? If he wants to play, he’s got to pay. Every other parent—that is, couples in this country, married or not—that take that responsibility do that without a blink of an eyelid, and yet we have a small group that sit back and say, “No, you don’t have to pay. That’s OK, we understand.”—everyone except those that come in under those exemptions that my colleagues have already alluded to in this House.

When we start to look at the abatement rates, well, yes—as my colleagues before me have said—we do support abatement rates and the increase of abatement rates, but how by much? What about those hard-working Kiwis that are working out there? They’re paying their taxes, and then we see that those people that are on a benefit get a large abatement and get a little bit more than those who have been working all their lives on a lower income. What about them? Where’s the fairness there?

I know that we want to see more and more of those people on benefits going into work. We have to support them. Is this the way? I don’t think it’s the way. There are other ways to get people off benefits and into employment opportunities. Perhaps the money that is being spent in this particular area could have actually gone more on employment. There was a little bit there for employment, but it could have gone a lot more and much deeper. There are other ways, rather than allowing people to say, “It’s OK, you can stay on a benefit. You’re not really ready to work yet. That’s OK.”

No, all that does is just breed more and more beneficiaries, and we will see a lift in the rates of those young women—and it will be young women—that will end up being on that benefit, and for what reason? For what reason? Because the dad—the father of those kids—won’t cough up. He won’t cough up, and it is a shame. It is an indictment on our society that we let this happen. We are supposed to be a society that looks after everyone. We all look after each other. We actually help people to get into work. But, no, what this particular area in the bill is doing—repealing section 192 of the Social Security Act—is allowing women to not name those dads.

Well, for some women, yep, as my colleagues have said, there are reasons why, and I totally agree with that. Why put themselves at risk? But for the majority of them, they can name the dads. I could almost say, confidently, that there will be sole parents sitting out there that are actually cohabiting with the father of their children, and he will pay nothing. I can say that confidently because I know the areas where it happens. Some of those, I know them, and it’s wrong, and they should be naming that dad.

So, again, I stand here—I’m very, very upset that this Government thinks this is a great bill, because it is not, and that is why I’m not supporting this bill. That is why this side of the House is not supporting the bill. This Government needed to go away and do much more work, and they didn’t, and, if this is all they’ve come up with, well, shame on them—shame on them.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m going to resist the urge to respond, because 18 months ago, this Government—the coalition Government, led by Jacinda Ardern—promised New Zealand a new kind of leadership, a leadership as responsible stewards of the economy but advocating for a new kind of values that have been missing in this country: compassion, dignity, fairness, and kindness. We faced huge issues—huge issues—and we know we’ve had to ask people to be patient, and that’s been difficult for them. But we needed a new kind of leadership that demonstrated deep change, and wellbeing—the Wellbeing Budget—is at the very heart of that deep change, and this bill is a real indication of that. I want to commend the Minister Carmel Sepuloni for a real demonstration of deep change in the culture of change that’s happening in Work and Income.

What is contained in this bill—the indexing to the average wage, the raising of abatement, and the no-naming part of the bill—is a real indication of deep change in our country, where we treat people with dignity no matter what their circumstances. We are not a punitive Government; we are a responsible Government, and I commend this bill to the House.

I think that speech was rather symbolic—short and indicative of how much time they want fathers to spend with their children, which is, basically, very little.

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

I just thought I’d start with that little hand grenade. I’m really pleased to take a call to actually oppose this bill.

I thought I’d start, though, around the word “stigma”—that’s becoming en vogue now. What I thought was ironic a bit earlier was a speaker—I’m not sure if it was Greens or Labour; it’s blending in a little bit—who was talking about stigmatising as being a bad thing and then turning it on to this side of the House and, effectively, trying to make us feel ashamed for having a different opinion. I think that explains progressivism, which is, basically, if you don’t agree with them, then they’re going to come after you. You know, shame is good for some but not for others.

💬 Marama Davidson: Oh—pot, black!

I think I hear the shaming happening now, and it’s just hurting my feelings. All right.

Let’s start with a couple of things—the positive sides. A lot of the positive sides—well, actually, we can’t talk about the positive until we put this in the context of what has been the welfare reforms. A group was put together over 18 months ago to look into welfare reforms—and to acknowledge, on the positive side, the Minister for Social Development has come to the House with some changes through this bill. That welfare advisory group, or expert group, came up with 42 recommendations. This is manifest in only two of three which have been taken up. In other words, there are at least 39 other recommendations which are not part of this Budget 2019 welfare package. In fact, I think it’s rather generous to call three of 42, or two of 42, part of a package; it’s like going into a pick n’ mix store and walking out with only two lollies but, strangely enough, and symbolically, paying a lot of money for it.

So I do challenge the Minister—I’m sure we’ll come to it in later readings and in the committee of the whole House stage—to explain to us why this piece of legislation is not more comprehensive. The reason for that is, fundamentally, we were told this was urgent 18 months ago. In fact, during our time in Government we were told that reform was urgent, and yet, 18 months in, we only have, effectively, what are two aspects in this bill. So the first part that I think is, overall, good is the abatements. National’s been supportive of that in the past. I think there’s, in a sense, been a relative form of cooperative thought on that. I am a little concerned of where the balance point comes around abatements, where actually it’s supporting them—in this case, a beneficiary—to keep the money that they earn to rightfully help them support their families. I think we’re probably in the right space with this bill. I’ll be interested to tease that out at the committee stage.

But there is a tipping point in the complexity that is the ever-growing New Zealand welfare system, with its tax credits and Working for Families and abatements and how much work you can and can’t do. All of a sudden, you tip between encouraging people towards work, which I would argue is what leads people towards dignity—but, equally, if abatements are too generous, on top of generous benefits and tax credits and where Working for Families potentially kicks in, we may tip ourselves into a point where remaining on a benefit is seen as better than actually seeking work. To put it in very crude terms, why work 40 hours a week to earn, say, $50 more—and I’m making up the figures; it’s a crude analogy—where, in fact, staying on a benefit, with an overly generous abatement, means, actually, by not working those hours I can remain on a benefit? So it’s a debate point, but, as I say, I think we’ve landed this—oh, sorry, not “we”; that’s highly presumptuous. I think with the abatements, we’ve landed in a good area. We’ll tease it out in committee if this passes first reading, and second, of course. I think it’s around $150, which is, in effect, about eight hours a week. In fact, there’s possibly argument or discussion to be had as to whether that needs to be more generous.

Look, the other area which has certainly excited the passions of this House has been around the non-naming of a parent in order to receive the sole benefit—or, rather, to effect a sanction that’s been in place for the other sole parent. The example being—and it’s usually the mother, but not always exclusively, who has been asked to name the father so that he can take some financial responsibility for the child. I think that’s important to stress: we are only talking here about the financial responsibility; it would take many hours of discussion to draw out the wider obligations that, actually, a mum and dad have to their child, in fact, from the moment of conception right through to when they’re born and until they leave home at 18, and beyond.

What’s happening here today in this proposed legislation, in a sense—if I could be somewhat paradoxical—is not actually removing the obligations on fathers. It’s actually not removing the obligations on fathers; what it’s doing is increasing the obligations on all fathers, myself included, to pay up for the children of other people. All the other fathers in New Zealand, and mothers, now need to work just that little bit harder and contribute a little bit more money to, in a sense, make up for the gap of those fathers who aren’t prepared to take responsibility. I’m very fortunate—granted, only to be a stepfather—to be the stepfather of five amazing kids, and I try to work as hard as I can to be responsible to them and their mother. But I do take a bit of umbrage that I’m now, through this legislation, required just to work that little bit harder, a little bit further, to pay for someone else’s child, where, actually, that should be—

💬 Tamati Coffey: You’re quite well paid.

Actually, someone says I’m quite well paid. I absolutely am well paid, and I’m pleased that member puts that up, because, you know, I think of some of the people in my electorate who work on minimum wage jolly hard. I’m thinking of a particular family who have nine kids already—my God, they work hard—who are now being required not only to look after their nine children and work that little bit harder to look after another child of another family simply because the mother and the father in that relationship are not prepared to acknowledge that relationship.

We had it a bit earlier, the discussion of the social contract. I think, again, it came from the Greens. The Greens, I would suggest, have absolutely no conception—all puns intended—of what the social contract means. The social contract is not about one person doing whatever they want and everyone else paying for it—that’s the Green Party thinking. The social contract is actually based on the primacy of the family. It is based on the primacy of the family as a building block, and that the State should never interfere in that, and that the State should only step in when it is absolutely needed and there has been a breakdown.

The thing about today is we are not talking about the breakdown in the relationship between a mum and a dad. The law currently covers that very, very adequately. What we are talking about here is when that relationship between a mother and a father and their obligations to the Crown are ignored. Fundamentally—and my colleague Louise Upston started this point in her speech—we are, effectively, here talking about a tax cut for fathers—particularly fathers—who will not take responsibility and a small tax increase for everybody else.

Fundamentally, a child has a right not only to know their mother and father but to be supported by them. It is what we as a society expect, that particularly a dad—and I do feel a bit bad that I’m just leaning on dads, but I do acknowledge the statistics; it’s primarily the fathers—does have an obligation. Maybe I could put it this way, because one of the other words of late which is very big is choice. Well, fundamentally, there is no obligation in any social contract theory for me or anyone else to fund another person’s choices. There is no obligation whatsoever—whatsoever.

I return to something else which I think my colleagues touched on earlier, and that is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I’m pretty sure that those on the left are very big fans of the UN, but they are not so keen when they read through the UN Rights of the Child, which stresses the importance of whakapapa. I thought I could say “genealogy” but let’s use “whakapapa.” A child has that right, and I think it’s going to be really important as we move through these stages to understand how the left, how the Government, respects the rights of a child to have whakapapa, to have a knowledge of who they are. As Agnes Loheni pointed out, this bill not so subtly discourages that behaviour, arguably for some of our most vulnerable.

We don’t want to misuse children and shouldn’t—as I would suggest the other side is doing—politicise the children. What we want to do is make sure, first and foremost, that the child does have a mother and a father and that that father and mother support the child well beyond simply money. There’s a whole lot more to it than that, and, fundamentally, this is just one more undermining of that relationship. It’s one more undermining, actually, of the rights of every taxpayer to, first and foremost, look after their children and expect others to do the same. Fundamentally, too, it’s just another cost that’s being placed on hard-working Kiwis because we will not allow other people to take their rightful responsibilities.

It may reflect the sadness of my life, but I’ve read every Budget document for the last 21 years, and, with most of those Budget documents, you go to the profit and loss and you look at where the money’s being spent, where it’s going to go—where, shall we say, the paper clips are going to be bought. This year, I got it. As I sat in the lock-up and read the document, I saw that, actually, it went beyond that. It actually told us why we’re spending the money. It told us what we’re trying to achieve, and I actually got what a wellbeing Budget was about. It’s actually more than measuring the paper clips. It is about working out what we want to achieve.

I’ve sat here this morning and listened to speeches from across the House, as I have in the past. People have talked about solo motherhood. People have talked about growing up in State houses. Actually, do you know what I heard? I heard, “Pull up the ladder. We did all right. Now, to hell with everyone else.” I go back to the document—this is what I’m seeing: we now know what we want to achieve. We are not going to pull up the ladder. We’re going to make sure the ladder remains in place so that those who haven’t had the advantages—some of them have talked about that this morning—won’t suffer from the stigma of being solo mothers and won’t suffer from the stigma of living in State houses and will have the same opportunities that some have spoken about here. I commend this bill.