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 second time.

This bill gives effect to the Budget 2019 income support changes, which will make a real difference to the lives of New Zealanders. The Budget 2019 income support changes will improve the lives of 339,000 individuals and families. The income support changes build on the 2018 Families Package, which took an important step towards addressing income adequacy. Together, these changes will lift up to 74,000 children out of poverty in the next two years.

This bill repeals section 192 of the Social Security Act 2018. This will remove a sanction that reduces the benefits of sole parents if they do not name the other parent of their child and apply for child support. Repealing section 192 will make a real difference to around 12,000 sole parent beneficiaries, who will see an average gain of $34 a week. More than this, it is another step towards a system that is not based on punitive measures and stigmatisation of some of the most vulnerable members of New Zealand society.

Surely common sense has to prevail. If we continue to put the boot into people who are already struggling and down, then how can we expect them to be able to get back up? The evidence that I have received with regards to this sanction is the same evidence that was given to the former Minister for Social Development Minister Tolley back in 2016. That evidence said very clearly that there was no proof that the sanction was actually encouraging the other parent to pay child support. In fact, there was no evidence that it was achieving the intention that had been set out when it was first implemented.

With regards to that evidence—which I received and the former Government received as well—it also stated very carefully that it had the adverse effect of throwing women and their children, who were already living in hardship, into further poverty. So can I just say that when National, on that side of the House, says that that sanction did work, they are being disingenuous, because they received the same advice that I received.

When we get told from that side of the House that our objective with the welfare system of catching up with the times has no merit, I need to remind that side of the House that it is 2019. I need to remind that side of the House that, actually, on this side of the House we do know the evidence behind what happens when people are experiencing hardship and how incredibly difficult it is for them to be able to take up opportunities like employment when they’re struggling to put food on the table or they don’t have a roof over their head.

We want the welfare system to work for those who come into it, and that is in the best interests of all New Zealand, actually. Can I just state that the objective on this side of the House is not to see people in welfare if they don’t need it; it is to support people into employment where they are able. But we don’t think that we need to do that by treating people badly.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Put a full stop after “don’t think”.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! That’s not very nice.

The Budget 2019 income support changes do put more money in the pockets of some of the most vulnerable members of our society, and it also improves some fundamental benefit settings. The Budget 2019 income support changes will mean that increases in main benefits are indexed to average weekly wages rather than the Consumers Price Index. The value of main benefits will keep up with wages and salaries over time. New Zealanders who need to access the welfare system will no longer see the value of their income eroded when compared to the average wage.

Let’s keep in mind that we know, on this side of the House—but the other side seem to not know—that, actually, most people who access the support of the welfare system will come in and then go out. It is not about supporting people to maintain a lifestyle, unless, of course, they have no other choice but to rely on the welfare system.

With that in mind, it is important to state—and this follows on from something that Marama Davidson said earlier—that something like 53 percent of those who are in our welfare system actually have a health condition or disability, and we want to support them where they are able to get into employment. But we understand the challenges that they face, as well, and that perhaps they might need a little bit more assistance from the State than some others—[Interruption]—particularly those others that are sitting on that side of the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! This is starting to become heckling again. Can we just settle down a little bit, members.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Absolutely. We’re being—it’s provocative.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I will take that as compliance. Thank you, Mr Brownlee.

The Budget 2019 income support changes also mean that beneficiaries can work the same number of hours before their benefits reduce as the minimum wage rises. These changes mean that New Zealanders who are on benefits won’t see themselves left further behind as other New Zealanders prosper.

What we’ve seen in the House today is very typical of what we’ve seen over decades in New Zealand, but I’m very proud of the fact that, actually, currently, the public discourse does not align with that side of the House. We are not seeing the discriminatory comments about beneficiaries coming from the public that continue to get thrown at us by that side of the House. It seems that New Zealand has moved ahead, but they are still left behind.

This Government is committed to 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 Budget 2019 income support changes build on the 2018 Families Package towards that vision. To realise this vision, though, we need much more. For that reason, the Government is developing the three- to five-year plan to overhaul the welfare system that we will be talking about more as a Government before the end of this year.

I am privileged to be part of changes to the welfare system that will make a meaningful difference to the lives of New Zealanders; that will lift New Zealand children out of poverty and allow New Zealand families to live in dignity. That is why I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. There have been a lot of mistruths spoken in this House, so it’s, I think, important to put a few things on record. National absolutely believes in supporting people in times of need and working with them to improve their lives. We do believe that those who can work should work. We do believe that people should keep more of what they earn and we do believe that supporting people is to give them a hand up so that they can lead independent lives where they have more choices and more opportunities for them and their children.

What we don’t believe is that this is a welfare system that is broken. We don’t believe this is a welfare system that needs an overhaul. Actually, I don’t think the other side believe that it’s an overhaul that is urgent, because, otherwise, why are they planning a five-year plan to overhaul if it’s urgent? If it’s urgent, why is it that in four years’ time, in 2023, the indexing will result in a mere $11 a week, while earlier this morning the same Government that was willing to increase tax on petrol, has passed legislation that’s affected rents by $50 a week, and we see that the cost of living continues to increase? So we don’t believe it’s urgent and we don’t believe that taxpayers should pay when others avoid their own responsibilities, and that is constrained when we refer to the removal of obligations, consequences, and sanctions when a father isn’t named and, therefore, is not responsible for his own children.

But I wanted to put some more facts and figures on the table, because I think when hard-working New Zealanders are either watching this debate live or listening on the radio or who might tune in to some of what’s being discussed here under urgency for Budget 2019, there’s an element of wellbeing that they won’t be aware of yet that is very pertinent to the debate on this legislation—which, for those who have just tuned in, is the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill. There are two areas of statistics that I think are worth introducing to this debate. The first I’m going to start with is around job seekers, and this is because of two of the elements of the package: one is indexing and one is abatement rates. What we’ve seen in March 2014, the number of job seekers, and I’m referring to the March 2019 quarter in the benefit fact sheets—rounding it up, there are 122,000 New Zealanders on the jobseeker benefit; in March 2019, 132,000 New Zealanders. So, as a percentage of the working-age population, it is increasing year to year that this Government has been in office.

Not just that—not just has the number of job seekers increased; what the Budget document Vote Social Development states is that the Government is anticipating an additional 15,600 people to come on to the jobseeker benefit—

💬 Hon Member: How many?

15,600. So I’m kind of puzzled in this welfare assistance package, because I think the Government see it’s a measure of success if there are more people on benefit. If there are more people on benefit, that’s seen to be “Oh, that’s kind.” Well, can I say, it is not kind. It is not kind. At the same time, this Government is cutting funding for compulsory programmes about getting people into work. It is kind to have 15,600 more people on jobseeker benefit, and do you know what that costs? The cost is borne by taxpayers, and I’m talking about the additional amount; I’m not talking about those that are on benefit today, just for job seekers: $122 million—$122 million. I wonder how many new cancer drugs Pharmac could fund with $122 million. When we’re talking about stats, how many new jobs were promised to be created in Budget 2019? How many new jobs? I looked in the documents—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! We are straying a little bit from the bill.

Ah, this is about benefits. This is about welfare assistance. I referred to statistics in Budget documents: 15,600 new people on jobseeker benefits.

We’ve also had quite a lot of discussion about sole parents. The majority of them absolutely fulfil their responsibilities, and we’ve heard some personal examples on this side of the House. I must say, I was quite appalled at the Government members scorning members on this side who chose to talk about their personal examples. So when you talk about stigma, look in the mirror. Look in the mirror at how rude and obnoxious that side of the House is—the Government members that are supposedly so kind, all of a sudden. When members on this side talked from personal experience about their times on the DPB—

💬 Hon Andrew Little: Pull up the ladder—pull it up behind you. They don’t care about people in hardship.

So the Minister in the front seat of the Government is saying that this side of the House don’t care. Well, if we didn’t care, why did we increase benefits by $25 a week in 2015, when that Government has the opportunity right now, and you wait for four years? If you’re on a benefit, four years’ wait for $11; in 2015, $25 a week, because this side knows money talks, and that helps.

I want to go back to the area of sole parents, because, again, sole parent statistics have been declining significantly for many years, from 75,000 to 76,000 in March 2014 to 58,000 to 59,000 in March 2018. Guess what? It’s no longer declining; it’s now static. So, again, this Government, whose responsibility and whose vision is about wellbeing, is overseeing numbers on benefit increase. How is that kind? How is that kind when, actually, opportunities come from work and independence?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s cutting the ladder off from the bottom.

That’s right. They want them to go on benefit and stay there, which is an absolute disgrace. Not only is the number not declining, what Vote Social Development in this year’s Budget also says is that there’s a prediction of an extra 1,600 people on sole—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the lunch break.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

💬 SPEAKER: Before the lunch break, the House was considering the second reading of the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill. The Hon Louise Upston was speaking, and she has two minutes and 23 seconds left.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to continue my contribution on the second reading of this Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill. What I was highlighting before the lunch break, for those who have just tuned in, was what we’ve seen in terms of increasing numbers on jobseeker benefits—a significant increase—plus a prediction of 15,600 more on jobseeker benefit, which is $122 million, and a 1,600 increase on the sole parent support benefit, which is a cost of $195 million.

On this side of the House we do believe that it’s important for people to be able to keep more of what they earn, so we do support the abatement rates and we do think that’s an important element for people being able to work with the Government to assist themselves in stepping off benefits. But we don’t support a blatant increase in benefit numbers, including jobseeker benefit numbers, when supposedly we have an economy that’s in good shape and growing.

We do support indexing—the National Government introduced it. What we don’t support is fake kindness and this ridiculous suggestion that benefits will increase tomorrow, when in fact it will be $11 a week in four years’ time. We do support the financial incentives—I use those words “financial incentives”, and I’m quoting the Hon Steve Maharey in using those. We do support obligations, we do support reciprocal obligations and the social contract, and we do support sanctions when obligations aren’t fulfilled. What we don’t support is deadbeat dads getting off their financial responsibility and, instead, that responsibility landing at the feet of hard-working taxpayers.

Admittedly, this is a small number. We’re not saying it’s a large number. But we believe that dads should support their children and for someone who is claiming a benefit to name the father, when there are clear exemptions for all reasons that we accept. We don’t accept that deadbeat dads should get off paying their fair share.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for this opportunity. Outside of the Wellington bubble, there are thousands and thousands of families out there who are applauding this Government for this particular bill. I want to commend it to the House.

I’m taken by surprise—that was a short speech from the honourable member, Peeni Henare, who actually is a very good orator. I’m very surprised. I was actually looking forward to his waxing lyrical about all the things that are good and great about this bill, and then he caught me by surprise.

I stand to take a call in the second reading of this bill. In particular, I want to just address a couple of points that were made in the first reading. The first point is one that was made by Marama Davidson. She was talking about ensuring that this welfare system, which is broken, is fixed, and so forth. I just want to remind the member that, actually, last year she voted in support of the Social Security Act, when there was the rewrite of the Act. If she was to look into the Act it says this in section 3(e): “to impose, on the following specified people or young people, the following specified requirements or obligations:” and it begins to list these obligations. The member talked a lot about how we don’t need sanctions and we don’t need obligations and that it is hard-headed, but it was that very member and her party that voted for those. Why? It’s because obligations are necessary—in the right place, at the right time, for the right cause, they are necessary. So I just wanted to remind the member of that as well.

We are talking about this bill in particular, the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill. There was reference by the Minister in regards to Whakamana Tāngata, which was the report by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group—here’s the full report here. I’ve read through the report. There are 42 recommendations. There are a number there that we would support. I commend the committee that put this together.

What is a concern is that it actually talked about the importance of indexing and about the abatement rates, but only two of the 42 recommendations are being put forward here. So when this current Government is talking about actually taking a hold and taking the recommendations seriously—which, by the way, it cost us around about $5.4 million to put this together; a good report—you would have thought, “If that was the case, why wasn’t there more put to it?”

When we think about this issue here, the most critical issue is around the removal of sanctions in sections 192 to 194 in the Social Security Act. I know the member across the House, Darroch Ball, was talking about whether this actually worked—is this right? Is the imposition that this has, especially on children and on families, the right thing to do? So I take it that the member may not have read the full part of the whole Act.

I’d like to refer him to section 70A of the Social Security Act 1964, so that he can actually see that there is a discretionary clause so that where there is just cause, this sanction or this obligation is not imposed. By the way, this sanction, or obligation, is written in the Act, and, by the way, again, New Zealand First and the members across there voted for this rewrite. It says in here section 70A(3) that the sanction “shall not apply if the chief executive is satisfied that—(a) there is insufficient evidence available to establish who is in law the other parent; or (b) the beneficiary is taking active steps to identify who is in law the other parent; or (ba) the beneficiary or any of the beneficiary’s children would be at risk of violence if the beneficiary carried out or took steps to carry out any of the actions referred to in subparagraphs (i) to (iii) of subsection (1)(c); or (bb) there is a compelling circumstance, other than a circumstance mentioned elsewhere in this subsection, for the beneficiary’s failure or refusal to carry out any of the actions set out in subparagraphs (i) to (iii)”. I’d like to say that these, again, were voted for. They are discretions that are available to the chief executive, and, actually, these clauses give just cause why there shouldn’t be a sanction applied. So I’d like to remind the member that these are the reasons why that’s critically important.

What we are talking about here is not unjust. What we’re talking about is not unfair. What we’re talking about is, actually, in this case, the importance of having a sanction where there is need to put obligation and responsibility on to the father, and in a moment, I will refer to some of the demographics of who is actually receiving sole parent support. It may surprise some of the members across the House. In fact, I’ll refer to them now.

I’ve actually looked up the stats and so forth and had a look at who’s receiving sole parent support, and we’ve tracked this back as far as March 2014, where there were 78,844 receiving that amount. But if we look at the numbers, and if we go by gender, there are actually 5,048 males that are receiving the sole parent benefit. There are 53,776 females. If we look at the ethnic groups, there are approximately 1,745 New Zealand European, there are 27,966 of Māori descent, Pacific peoples make up 6,339, and for all other ethnicities the figure is 6,015. So that makes, by the time we get down to the figure of 19 March of this year, around about 58,824. So that’s the demographic profile. It’s predominantly female, but there are some males. It is predominately Māori in terms of ethnic demographic, and those are predominantly between the ages of 25 and 39 as well, and the majority have been on a continuous duration of more than one year as well.

But what was surprising to me as I was looking through the statistics was looking at how, over that period of time, the trends have changed. In fact, in March 2014, it was 78,844. Currently, in March 2019, it’s 58,000. So we can see that, on average, over that period of time from 2014, there’s been a reduction of 3,400. But what interested me are the statistics between March 2018 to March 2019—this year. So it’s 58,830 as of March 2018, and as of March 2019 it’s 58,824. In one year of a coalition Labour - New Zealand First Government, there’s only been a decrease of six.

💬 Maureen Pugh: How many?

Of six. So in the period of time of a National-led Government, with the work that it was undertaking, there was, on average, 3,402 that we were reducing on the sole parent support. In just one year of the Labour - New Zealand First Government the only reduction, decrease, has been six. So that has to show something: that the amount of work that was put through under a National-led Government was quite significant.

In the time that I have, I want to point out a couple of things that are particularly important about this bill, and that is the issue around sanctions. We’ve talked in the first reading about thresholds, the abatement rates, and the indexing, which we on this side of the House have some support for, but in the sanctioning there was quite an opposition from the other side. Here are the reasons why we have the sanctions: obligations are critically important; they are in the Act, which was voted for and supported by the other side.

There’s been a report released that talked about the obligations, and it states this: “Obligations are a reality in the workplace, in schools and in our relationships. Why wouldn’t they be part of the benefit system? Far from being unfair to beneficiaries they ensure integrity and a level playing field for all who have dealings with Work and Income. Beneficiary advocates should support, rather than oppose, obligations because they build public confidence in the benefit system, [they] lift empathy and regard for those who rely on it”. It’s very clear that the sanctions that are appropriate and imposed in the right way are actually important to this welfare system as well.

So in my last moments here, I note that the real concern for us on this side is this: the speeches from the other side have been talking about how wonderful this system is, how groundbreaking this system is, and how they are truly making a difference, but why is it under urgency that we are here today for all stages of this bill when the implications of it, and the application of the indexing, will not happen till 2023? That is four years—four years—and yet we have those from the Child Poverty Action Group and the Children’s Commissioner saying that the indexing should happen now. Why? Because the benefits would happen now. When it does happen, what will they receive? A measly $11. So on the other side they are telling us, “This is a good thing, this is a great thing.”, but guess what? You’re going to have to wait till 2023, and when it does come it’s going to be great because it’s going to be $11! Yet, we on this side, in 2015, increased the benefit level immediately by $25. That’s right—that’s the difference.

So I’d like to hear from the other side the speeches that will justify why we are in urgency, why it’s in four years, and why it’s only $11. That will truly make a difference! Why is it that when you talk about the sanctions, there is already a discretion here in the Act that allows for that to happen, so there is no just cause why a father cannot be named?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think that Alfred Ngaro has made it quite clear that he’s very confused about what he’s talking about in regards to the removal of the sanction under section 192 of the Social Security Act 2018. I think, most importantly, if people go and have a look back at a few of the speeches in the first reading debate—and, I assume, the future speeches from the National Party in the further readings of this bill—they will see that, actually, National’s arguments against the removal of that sanction are quite inconsistent within themselves. I’ll point out why I say that.

I’ll start with something that Alfred Ngaro said, and I’ll end with it as well. He said that sanctions are good in so far as the right time, the right place, and the right cause. But there is a lack of logic in the National Party’s argument. So we’ve got some members who stand up and say, and Alfred Ngaro—their main message is that they want to hold deadbeat dads to account. They want to hold deadbeat dads to account.

Now, what they’re saying is that there are irresponsible fathers out there who aren’t paying for their children—the responsibility for their children—and, therefore, it comes back on the taxpayer. That’s what their argument is—they want to hold those fathers to account. But then you’ve got the likes of Maureen Pugh who stand up and say that these mothers take money under the table from the fathers and are committing fraud. That’s what she said: they’re committing fraud. So which one is it? Do you have fathers that aren’t paying anything, that aren’t taking responsibility for their children, or are the fathers paying under the table and the mothers are committing fraud? Which one is it? Which one is it? There is inconsistency in their arguments. You see, like I said in my first speech, they’re taking a very one-dimensional view on what the problem is and what the statistics show, and they’re basing all of their ideological arguments on that. What falls out of that are the inconsistencies in their arguments.

I also asked a question in the first reading and no one has yet answered it—no one has yet answered it. I’m going to ask it again, and I’m going to ask them to answer this question in the few speeches they’ve got left in this second reading. If the sanction that currently exists is, from what they’re saying, to hold the deadbeat father to account, then why does that sanction punish the mother—

💬 Hon Member: And the children.

—and, in turn, the children? How can one hold the father to account with a sanction when there is no result or consequence for the father? The consequence is directed solely at the mother and, therefore, the children. This is where I’m going to go back to what Alfred Ngaro said right at the start: sanctions are good at the right time, the right place, the right cause, and this is not one of them.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand this afternoon to speak to the second reading of the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill. As we’ve heard this morning, there have been some very passionate contributions to this bill, and to one part of it in particular. But I’ll take us back to the beginning and explain that this is an omnibus bill, so it is including other aspects to it, and it is going to be making changes to the Social Security Act 2018 and the Veterans’ Support Act 2014. We’ve heard that it does repeal sections 192 to 194 in the Social Security Act 2018 and will be removing sanctions that, I suppose, we will hear a lot more about as this debate progresses. But it will also be allowing for the manual adjustments of the rates of a main benefit. It will be adjusting them in line with the average wage in New Zealand, as opposed to the current situation where they are linked to the Consumers Price Index (CPI).

The changes to the Veterans’ Support Act are also to bring it in line with other benefits for the purpose of making abatement rates, or abatement thresholds, for those pensions. National’s not opposing those proposed changes to the abatement rates for veterans, and we actually honour the part that they have played in New Zealand and the role that they have undertaken on our behalf as a country. If they so wish and want to earn extra money while they are on their veterans’ pension, then we support their right to keep more of their own money. Although a few I know in my own backyard are probably busier now that they’ve retired and most of that time is taken up in voluntary roles, for those that do find themselves employed, we certainly support them in keeping that.

However, we do have some concerns with the changes to the Social Security Act 2018 and I’ll explain those as I work my way through. I thought it might also be helpful to explain to those people who may be watching—and I know it’s a particularly unusually wet day on the West Coast; so there may be some people tuned into Parliament TV—what those abatement rates and the indexing actually does mean. The abatement rates refer to the amount of money that someone on a benefit can earn while they are employed before it affects their main benefit. So, for instance, earning between $100 and $200 will make a 30c reduction in the dollar to their main benefit. If they earn over $200, that increases to 70c in the dollar. The indexing is about tying benefits to the percentage increase in the net average wage rather than the CPI, as it currently is.

The other aspect to this omnibus bill is what I would consider a retrograde step, where the sanctions are to be removed in situations where, in most cases, mothers refuse to name the father of their baby, meaning that that father is now no longer liable for contributions towards their own child’s financial support. I call that “Spray and Walk Away”. This is, unfortunately, also a reversal of Labour’s own policy.

💬 SPEAKER: I think the member should watch her taste, really.

It was brought in by the Clark Government, so it’s a bit ironic that we find ourselves actually supporting the Labour Party’s own original policy.

What I have heard this week was a very heartfelt contribution from our newest MP, Paulo Garcia. I thought he summed it up extremely well in his maiden speech on Wednesday, and I’d like to quote the part that really resonated with me and, I believe, relates to this debate we’re having today: “We live in a day when we have put our own interests ahead of our children, and this modern society will continue to do so to its own detriment. Men are particularly to blame. Women are often left abandoned, uncertain, and pressured to get rid of unexpected children or to raise them on their own. I salute in absolute praise all single mothers. I can honestly say that if either my wife or I had had to raise our daughters alone, we would have struggled severely as well. Despite the due importance we all attach to this task in our hands—that of governing this country—parenting is the most important job we really have. As mothers and fathers and, collectively, as a Parliament and as a nation, we need to support our parents, we need to support our families, and we need to support our children, but I highlight that the men of this country need to do more. We as men need to stand strong in our relationships. We must be reliable providers and protectors. We must show tamariki the way to respect and honour women.” I think that is really relevant to today’s contribution to this bill.

After 18 months of work by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group which cost this country around $112 million, this is one of the recommendations that is coming out of this. So my question is around the need to actually change policy, and I’d like to know what evidence the Government is using that shows that the sanctions were not working, that shows that their own policy was not working. I know that the former Minister for Social Development Anne Tolley has told us that, actually, to impose a sanction was particularly hard. It was not an easy task, and so if there was good reason that there should not be a sanction and that there should not be the naming of the other parent, particularly around safety for the other parent and child, those sanctions were not imposed. There was careful consideration of the situation that everyone was in, and so I simply have to ask: what is the hurry in having this particular part of the bill that we’re discussing today in this House? It could have been sent to a select committee so that we could have explored the evidence and we could have heard from the experts about what parts of this regime of sanctions were not working, and then we could have looked at the solution to that problem.

I know that the Hon Anne Tolley did a huge amount of work in this space around benefit dependency and encouraging people back into the workforce. I also know that one of the great indicators of a successful society is the number of people that are currently and actively employed not only in work but also in society. What we are seeing is a reversal of the trend, and we know that all of the indicators were heading in the right direction. In fact, it was even stated by the Children’s Commissioner and in the Salvation Army’s State of the Nation report that the indicators were heading all in the right direction—in fact, even the indicator around child poverty. It was stated that it appeared that the trend of increasing child poverty had ceased and that the trend was heading in a positive direction. So, again, the indicators were saying that the policies in place were actually working.

We do know that children that grow up in welfare-dependent homes do not just suffer because of a lack of financial support, but it is the other social impacts that also make a difference to their life. It was very well articulated by Bill English when he said, “We already have a whole lot of measurements of child poverty but it looks like they’re just going to focus just on incomes and of course that’s only half the story with any kind of poverty, including child poverty, because the other side of the story is social dysfunction”. We don’t fix social dysfunction by keeping people dependent on the State, and that’s where we’re heading with this Government because alongside removing these sanctions, they have also removed compulsory training and upskilling that will actively get people back into the workforce. Thank you.

I covered my main positions and visions in my first reading speech. I’ll take a short call on this, the second reading debate of the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill. I wanted to pick up in a little bit more detail—already, since my first reading speech, I’ve had some feedback from members of the public wanting to make sure that when we uphold that the majority of people want to be supported into paid employment, we are making sure that we value the contributions of people who, for different reasons, are unable to be in paid employment, and that simply wanting to be in paid employment should not be upheld as the most virtuous quality. We should understand that we also value the contribution of all types of voluntary work. Simply just being able to—say, for example, if you have a disability or a mental disability—live without a struggle is in itself a contribution to our communities. I did mention that, but I thought I would dig down, given some of the feedback from members of the public.

Other than that, I did want to pick up that this would normally be a second reading speech for a bill that had gone through a select committee. I want to use, again, the expert panel report, mentioning that the Greens are very clear that we also need to ensure not just indexing increases in benefits to increases in average wages but that the income levels for the core base levels have been so exceedingly low and difficult and inhumane. Those need to be increased—this is what we heard from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group. They outlined, for example, that an adequate income for a sole parent with one child would be $802. The shortfall is currently at $112. What on earth would you do if you had to look for an extra $112 every week? This is how poverty becomes incredibly expensive over the long term, making it very clear here, in the second reading debate, that we’d like to signal our support for that part of the expert advice. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to start my contribution to the second reading of the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill. First of all, I’d just like to acknowledge my colleagues on this side of the House who’ve already spoken around the parts of the bill that we are in support of. But in my contribution, I want to focus particularly on the repeal of sections 192 to 194 of the Social Security Act 2018. I’ve stated that I feel that the removal of the benefit deductions for sole parents who do not identify the other parent of the child is a change that I do not support. I’ve been listening to the very short contributions from the other side of the House, who can offer, what I feel, are very shallow arguments as to why this part should be repealed. To me, this is really about an ideological lens which is, essentially, against families. Why is this Government so anti-families, because this is what I see as the premise of this bill, and particularly this part. Words like “stigma” and “punitive” have been bandied around on constant rotation, and, actually, that’s not an argument to withhold the fathers from their children, to withhold the names, just for that child to know the name of their father. That is not an argument.

If I look back at the intent of this bill, which includes “to support a sustained reduction in child poverty.”—well, this bill won’t do that. It’s a shallow attempt to address child poverty. The best thing that we can do for these children is to support their parents into paid employment. The sad fact is that parents in our society are not supported in the fulfilment of their parental responsibilities. My concern is that this bill, specifically the removal of sanctions around naming fathers, devalues the importance of parents—of mothers, fathers—in their children’s lives, and parental involvement is critical to children’s wellbeing as well. In most cases we know that children benefit socially, economically, and emotionally from having access to both parents. So why is this Government putting up barriers to that access? Knowing both your parents is key to them knowing their identity.

So dads do matter. Studies have shown that children of involved fathers are less likely to drop out of school, engage in risky sexual behaviours, and break the law, and they are more likely to do well in school and pursue healthy relationships. This is a terrible bill, when I think of the children and how it will potentially affect them long term. There is a level of deceit here. This bill seeks to deceive the children, who will not know who their fathers are. Dads can get out of being responsible for their children.

If the Government really wanted to lift children out of poverty, then how about tackling the rising costs of living? These families are currently facing rising costs in petrol, rent, and food. Where is the aspiration? Where is the ambition for these families?

The Minister for Social Development wants to repeal the sanction because it’s punitive to the sole parent mother. Well, how about the fact that this bill actually punishes children with regards to putting up those barriers—those barriers that we might not think will affect them today but will affect them long term as adults? Is this the message that we want to give to our younger generations—that dads aren’t important, that we don’t value them, that we don’t think their role is important, and that we don’t think they should be responsible for their children?

On this side of the House, we value strong families and personal responsibility, parental responsibility. This bill goes against those values. As I said before in my first reading speech, welfare is not wellbeing, and I’ll tell you why: when I grew up in a three-bedroom State house with 15—

💬 Kiritapu Allan: Pull up that ladder.

Oh, no, it’s not about pulling up a ladder. When I grew up in a State house with my family, who migrated to this country from Samoa, they didn’t come here all this way to be on welfare. No, they didn’t, because they knew that jobs were the pathway to opportunities. They did not travel across the ocean to stay on benefits. I don’t recall any of them being on benefits. Most of them, my uncles and aunties—they hadn’t even finished their secondary schooling, but they came here and they took those factory jobs and they pulled together because they knew that that was the pathway for opportunities for them. They wanted work because it gave them skills, and they pulled together to make ends meet. All of us children were well-fed, but, more importantly, we were nourished by the strength of family. That’s actually where wellbeing comes from. It’s not a handout; it’s supporting families. It’s supporting families, supporting mums, supporting dads to support their children, to take responsibility for their children, and you know it—you actually know it.

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

Wellbeing for children comes from supporting families in this country. It comes from taking responsibility. We’ve got to stop giving excuses for dads to abdicate their responsibilities to their children. As we said, it’s not a big group of dads, but it’s the underlying message that this bill gives. It’s the underlying message around values—values of family, strength of family, and resilience.

The sanctions are appropriate and they are just, because, ultimately, this is also about other people in this country, other hard-working people with their families, who are also having to pay out for these families. Is there any consideration at all, when this Government comes up with these bills, to think of the taxpayers who are paying for this as well? Clearly not—clearly not in this one. This is sending a wrong message, and I absolutely oppose the removal of that sanction. Finding meaningful work is absolutely the main ambition for New Zealanders in this country, and that’s what we should want for them as well, because, ultimately, that is what will be better for these children.

When I think about the figure that’s been tagged here, it’s also misrepresentative to say the headline figure of—what is it?—a $46 a week increase by 2023, and then to say afterwards, in small print, that it’s $11 a week by 2023. When you look at the extra increase that we’ve got at the moment in the rising living costs, that goes well beyond the extra $11 a week. It’s not really a gain. It’s not really a gain for a sanction that is so destructive to families, putting that barrier up to families. Actually, we should be supporting families, and removing that ability for these children to just know their father’s name—

💬 Darroch Ball: For goodness’ sake! Do you know how out of touch that is?

No, that’s not out of touch, actually. It’s not out of touch. It’s actually really important. It’s disgraceful that you want to remove it. That is actually what’s really disgraceful.

If it’s so important, why didn’t the Government take up the recommendations that were estimated on the fiscal cost of improving the adequacy and design of income support? What about the report? How many of those recommendations did this Government make? It is interesting that they’re preparing for an increase in sole parent support when it’s actually been declining over the last few years.

This is a step in the wrong direction, and it’s a step back for these children. I oppose this bill.

Talofa e Te Mana Whakawā. What we’ve heard from the other side about section 192, about removing sanctions, is worthy of a window being opened in this House—full of hot air. Research tells us that there is no proof that those sanctions actually encourage liable parents to pay the liable parent contribution. We have heard the Hon Louise Upston calling people deadbeat dads. Actually, they are called DNA fathers. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you. I’m pleased to take a call on the second reading of the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill. I’m really disappointed that we haven’t had a full select committee process so we could hear what the public would say about this bill. However, it is what it is. To me, it’s going to be a bit of a mistake, at the end of the day, when this Government, in a couple of years’ time, in 2023, looks back, and see they’ll have a whole lot of beneficiaries sitting there going “What on earth is $11 per week going to do in my benefit when we knew that back in 2019, rents went up, food went up, and, of course, the fuel prices were going through the roof?” They cannot afford to actually even live here now, and what is the indexation of this bill going to actually do for them? Nothing.

This is a bill that’s actually not going to make a difference. This Government is looking at adding another 1,600 sole parents on to the benefit. That is actually a travesty, if that’s what a Government is going to sit there and plan for—an additional 1,600 people as sole parents—when, at the end of the day, as a Parliament, we should be encouraging people to get a job and to go and do the training. But vocational training is now going to be out of the reach of many people, as we know, with the proposed changes that the Minister of Education is looking at on tertiary education. That’s going to make it even harder for those people who are on a sole benefit.

When we start to look at the indexing of benefits, this side of the House was always in favour of an indexation to the Consumers Price Index (CPI), because that’s the way that everyone else’s salaries and increases actually work—with CPI. But now what this Government is looking at is something a little bit more than that. To be honest, I don’t know—even when they go out and they say “It’s another $43 per week.”, when we start to look at it, it’s actually much less than that. The media have actually said that this is a very poor piece of legislation. They said—here’s what they actually said. As One News said on the night of the Budget, “This Government is falling well short of the recommendations from its own Welfare Expert Advisory Group.”—well short of it. This is all around the country—well short of it. What they went on to say is: why didn’t the Government take all of those recommendations? It was a total of $5.2 billion a year. Why didn’t they pick it up and start to put it in? Remember, the Welfare Expert Advisory Group was the group for the Government; that’s who it worked for—no other group but the group for this Government, the Welfare Expert Advisory Group.

So this Government has ignored—ignored—those recommendations and has taken this paltry amount and this paltry piece of legislation with three main areas and thinks it’s a great bill. Well, it’s not—it’s not. There’s no ambition in this bill at all. There is no incentive. It’s letting dads get away with not taking their responsibilities as dad, as I said in my first reading speech. Fathers need to step up. It might only be a small number, but I tell you what, you add another 1,600 sole parents on there and there are a few more dads that will be able to get away with not paying a thing. In other words, they will be able to play but won’t pay, and that is the crux of my argument—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I did indicate to Ms Pugh that I think we were losing—

💬 Hon Member: A bit of taste.

💬 SPEAKER: It was in bad taste, and I think we’ll just wind back, thank you.

Well, I mean, at the end of the day, it is what it is. It is an indictment on our society here in New Zealand, to do the things that this Government is trying to do through this bill. It is an indictment, and I think that they need to go back and do their work all over again, because at the end of the day, the dads—

💬 Kiritapu Allan: An indictment on the Opposition is pulling out the rug from underneath those that need it the most.

—that are going to get away with it will continue to get away with it, and it is wrong. In the East Coast, there are high numbers of fathers that do not pay, and that’s—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! There’s an opportunity to take a speech soon.

That’s right. Exactly—there is time to take a speech when you want to, Ms Kiritapu Allan. At the end of the day, we need to also look at the East Coast as well, as I said on the radio this morning. It is not all roses and chocolates on the East Coast. This isn’t roses, it isn’t chocolates, and, at the end of the day, if that member wants to take a speech and actually have something to say—which I don’t think she will—then she needs to get up and do it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, in contrast to the previous speaker, Jo Hayes, I actually think that this bill is historically significant because one of the most enduring things it’s going to do is it’s going to index benefits to the average wage.

In my previous role monitoring child health, we used to see thousands of kids coming into hospital for poverty-related conditions, and what surprised me the most, actually, when I look back, is just how many of our children were reliant on benefits in terms of the sole source of their family income. But the second thing that actually surprised me the most is just how far behind the incomes of those families on benefits have fallen over the last couple of decades compared to the average wage, so a little bit each year—gradual, gradual—but when you add that up over 25 years, it’s a massive, massive gap between the two, and it’s a massive gap in the living standards of those children.

So what this bill does is it stops people falling further and further behind, and what it will do when you take it across the other measures that are coming in under this Budget is it will start to reduce child poverty in a significant way. I, therefore, commit this bill to the House.

We’re obviously addressing the second reading of the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill. The other side have been talking at length—usually through heckling rather than taking a call—about being against sanctions, but one of the great paradoxes of the second reading is that they’ve sanctioned their own speeches to be at least 30 seconds when they had a full 10 minutes. They are sanctioning themselves, which is rather ironic.

Look, obviously, we’re at second reading. I’d love to thank all the public who came into the select committee to talk. I’d like to thank the officials. They did an amazing job advising us in the select committee—no, wait a minute; there wasn’t one. Now, obviously we’re in Budget urgency—and I seem to be getting a rough, Boris Johnson voice for a moment.

💬 SPEAKER: Is that a leadership bid?

Yes, I do apologise, but thank you. That’s the second time in almost as many days I’ve semi - put my foot in it, of a sort, around the leadership. Let’s not make it three.

It is understandable, being a piece of Budget legislation that is going through all stages, that by definition we don’t do a select committee stage, but I think it’s a pity that we haven’t had that opportunity, for two reasons. One, I don’t think there is the urgency, when one looks at the bill as currently proposed, around commencement dates and when the benefits as put forward by the Government manifest themselves. There isn’t the rush that’s needed. The other is that I feel a number of people would have liked to have spoken.

There’s been a lot of talk in the House, particularly from the other side—not through speeches, I might add—about the young people. I think it absolutely behoves us as a House to hear the voices of young people on this issue. Again, there’s a paradox of a sort that, you know, we’ve had a climate change protest or something recently, and it was lauded that the young people were having a voice, and yet here, on something relatively important—that of parental rights and the support of parents to their children—they haven’t had that chance. I suspect, too, that mums and dads would have liked to have had that opportunity. So I suppose in my second reading contribution, I just need to think through or try to articulate what I would imagine would have been some of the thoughts coming through.

Starting at the back of the bill, of course, is around veterans’ affairs. Look, it won’t surprise the House, I think—quite supportive of that. I think aligning the abatement system of the veterans pension to the wider scheme is prudent, and I acknowledge, actually, that that’s starting on some wider work that’s being done around veterans’ affairs in its entirety. Without belabouring it too far, because it’s not as significant a part of the bill, the work that our veterans have done in serving the Realm needs to always be recognised on par or beyond—or beyond—the rest of us. So I suppose as we get into the committee stage, we might draw that out a little bit further to make sure that the abatement rate for veterans is not only appropriate and aligned but, if you will, that it might even conform to an argument that they deserve more. I’m not completely convinced of that yet, but it’s something for us to explore in the committee of the whole House if this bill passes its second reading.

There’s obviously been a lot of discussion about the abatements themselves. As I mentioned in my first reading speech—and, again, I could imagine this would have taken up a lot of time in select committee from the public—it is something that National has supported in principle. I think the way it’s been expressed in this bill is good, linking it, as it’s doing, effectively, to the average ordinary-time weekly earnings. I think we’re going to have to tease it out a little bit in the committee stage as to exactly what that means. I see it is linked to Statistics New Zealand. We’re going to have some confidence in their data coming through, but I think linking the abatement to that is prudent. There are potentially other options. I don’t think they’ll be necessarily the right ones, but I think that’s prudent.

The other is the abatement total, which is, I think, now at $150, or that has been suggested. Is that prudent? As I mentioned in the first reading debate, I think it’s probably in about the right space, but there is always a balance when we are dealing with abatements to make sure that we are always encouraging people to seek work, first and foremost, and to seek any work that’s prudent. I’d better stress that by saying “any work”, I’m not saying that someone should take up something illegal or completely demeaning, but, you know, within the general notion of what it means to work—to take that up.

It wouldn’t surprise you that from this side of the House, we do believe that if you are doing a day’s work, you get to keep as much of that money as possible. So that’s a positive, and I acknowledge the intention that this bill is bringing in that regard, but we always want to make sure that the balance is right to encourage a person on to more hours of work. I personally don’t want to see a situation or a regime—and this bill might be playing into that. Again, we’ll have to tease it out further in the committee of the whole House to make sure that through the benefit itself, which is a generous abatement, we are not accidentally—and I hope it’s accidentally—allowing that person to say “You know what? It’s actually financially and socially beneficial for me to remain on a benefit.” We want that encouragement to remain to move into full-time work.

I think others with a smarter mind than me—particularly around taxes and tax relief—will want to understand how the abatement plays into the likes of Working for Families and tax work credits and so forth. Again, we don’t want to end up with a funny or a perverse situation where a generous abatement—for the right intentions, I’m sure—leads to a person actually remaining on a benefit. There is a real importance of dignity in work, and I would hope that all members of the House would acknowledge that. Fundamentally, from this side of the House, we do believe in the goodness of work. We believe that it actually is beneficial not only to the worker but to their family and to their children. It creates aspiration.

I was explaining to some Americans who were here recently on a State department trip that New Zealand is a genuinely socialistic country. We—all parties—believe in having a social State. It’s a place where we do want to provide support, but I suppose it becomes an argument of balance. That’s why in the last section around sole parents not declaring the father’s name, which a number of colleagues have traversed quite well, we think that line is crossed just a little bit too much—just a bit too much. We can understand there are situations where people don’t. I understand there were about 12,000 people last year who did not declare who the father was. There are rightful exemptions, and these remain, actually, in the current legislation, such as where someone feels threatened, where there are acts of violence, or where there is an incestuous nature of relationships and where the father is not, should not, and never should be declared.

But there is a feeling, I’d say, by a good portion of New Zealanders, who work very hard and support their own families, that there is a responsibility on behalf of the parent seeking that benefit—primarily women, but not exclusively. I think it’s easy—me included—to fall into the trap to make this just a single gender issue. It is not. But, ultimately, there is a responsibility. In fact, it’s probably more of a moral position, but, actually, one should rightfully and knowingly share the information that they have. So in the framing of a benefit dynamic, I would hope everyone in the House would feel that benefits are good, right, and proper. We want to help people and we want benefits to be as generous as they can be, but there is an expectation on those who are seeking—[Bell rung] Thank you, Mr Speaker—oh, sorry, we’re in the second reading, not committee stage, aren’t we?

💬 SPEAKER: The member is not obligated to use all the time.

Oh no, I feel I have to put my foot in it for a third time at some point today. There’s an element too, with the benefit system, that we expect a degree of honesty. So perhaps, if I could phrase where my opposition to removals of sanctions are coming from, even if I was to step it away from my earlier comment, which I stand by, which is that people should not be paying taxes for other people where they should be—in other words, where, particularly, a father is not paying their due money to support their child. But for someone to knowingly not share information is, for me, a problem.

I think it’s probably important to keep it in Hansard and for anyone watching that we’re not arguing here about a person who is unable to declare who the father particularly is; it’s knowingly holding back that information. In more legal, moral, and ethical terms, we’re talking about a wilful ignorance. That, for me, is a bit of a problem, because, effectively, a welfare system—[Speaker shifts in his seat]—you have put me on edge now, Mr Speaker—is based, fundamentally, on integrity. It’s the integrity of the wider taxpayers who say, “We are prepared to work hard to, obviously, generate money to pay our taxes to help those in need, but there’s a reciprocal contact”—a social contract that we talked about in the first reading—“that means we expect an honesty and an integrity in completeness from those seeking a benefit.”

Fundamentally, where I’ll end it is that we expect a parent who does know who the other parent is to be honest and open and provide that information. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare and talofa lava, Mr Speaker. The Opposition has stated several times, “Is this bill sending the wrong message?” They asked us, “Is this the message that we should be giving?” Of course, they would too, because the leader of their party has one message, which is going out in memes all over the place, and that is: “What’s in it for me?” That is so different to the values that this Government holds dear: manaakitanga, the greater good.

This is a bill that will support New Zealanders who have to access the welfare system—very different from the examples we’ve heard across the House. For example, Simon O’Connor, the member who just sat down, told us that he has a little bit of concern that he may have to work a little bit harder so that other families can feed their children—beyond me. In sharp contrast, this Government is committed to lifting children out of poverty and improving child wellbeing. I’d like to congratulate the Minister, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, for bringing such wonderful legislation to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Just before I put the House into committee, I want to remind especially the Government whip that when we’re having a vote and I’ve declared a result, she only calls out if she disagrees with the way that I’ve called it. It’s not a volume competition; it’s an indication from one side or the other that they have a difference of opinion from me. So while I generally appreciate her support, not in those circumstances.

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Social Security Act 2018