Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Mr Chair. I was waiting to see if the Minister was going to stand—which is what normally happens when a piece of legislation is being debated under urgency—to explain some of the detail around it and, in particular, why the bill is being debated and pushed through all stages under urgency. I’m sure I will feel like a bit of a stuck record when I say that I’m always against legislation that is debated without public scrutiny. One of the members opposite chipped in to say this was urgent, but, actually, nothing comes in effect until next year, and, actually, one of the provisions, which I will get to in detail, will result in $11 a week by 2023. So that’s not urgent—clearly not urgent. In fact, when this first came to the House’s attention, it was meant to be, I thought, in the Families Package, but for some reason the Minister decided it wasn’t urgent then either.

What we are talking about in Part 1 of the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill is one of the provisions that will come at a cost of $115 million of taxpayer money. So it does require a good amount of debate and questioning in this House in the committee stage.

Some of the questions I’ve got for the Minister are around the advice she’s received in terms of the number of sole parents currently that have exemptions, the number of sole parents full stop, and the number of which the obligation isn’t being met and therefore a sanction is applied, and, actually, how those three areas will change as a result of this legislation.

I have noted and put on the record earlier that there is an expectation that sole parents will rise by 1,600. I’d like information from the Minister on how that figure is derived, because, obviously, this is a change to the obligations that occur on sole parents, so if there’s an increase in 1,600 over the period of time, you know, we’d want reassurance about how the $115 million will increase and how that’s being factored, and what other mechanisms the Minister is putting in place to ensure that that burden doesn’t increase and that, actually, the burden decreases so that taxpayers aren’t picking up that tab.

As we’ve said in the earlier stages, the $115 million pretty much comes from dads that won’t be paying their child support that they would have otherwise, and with an increase predicted by the Government in the Vote Social Development document—and, if the Minister needs to know what page that was on, because she tended to look a bit puzzled before, I’m happy to assist her in finding where those forecasts are—that’s also $195 million increased spending, which, of course, any time the Government spends anything, hard-working New Zealanders have to earn it in the first place.

So I’ve got several questions around numbers, which I’m hoping the Minister will answer, around how many are currently affected, how many will be affected after this, and what steps the Minister will take to reduce that liability on taxpayers. We’ve got a number of Supplementary Order Papers—I don’t think my one is on the Table yet—but we are just looking, in the first instance, around questions around Part 1, so I’ve got specific questions that I want the Minister to address in terms of the repeal of section 192, which we used to refer to as section 70A in the old social assistance legislation.

Some of the other questions are around indexing, for example, and why, if it is so critical to reducing the number of children in poverty, the indexing hasn’t been structured in a way that would mean that beneficiaries actually have more money in their pockets sooner. As I said before, the indexing isn’t new, so it’s not transformational to have indexing. All that is proposed is that the indexing will change in terms of the method, from being adjusted to the Consumer Price Index to being—[Time expired]

Given the discussion points that were raised during the first and second reading and the fact that the member Louise Upston has also continued on that same theme, I thought I’d take an early call just to respond to the concerns that have been raised about the repeal of section 192.

The question that was put to me specifically was with regards to the evidence that I have been presented with and the numbers. Fortunately, what I have in front of me is a briefing from the Ministry of Social Development that was done in collaboration with Oranga Tamariki in February 2019 that, in the executive summary of, refers to the advice that was actually given to the previous Minister for Social Development in mid-2017—who would have, at that time, been the Minister Anne Tolley—referring to section 70A, which is now section 192, that says the information was requested by that Minister for Social Development then and that the policy advice that was given to the Minister of the time—which reflects the same policy advice that I have been given—is that there was insufficient evidence to assess the policy’s effectiveness in achieving its intent or how it affects clients and their children and whether it was in the best interests of children.

So that is the advice, in summary, with regards to why we are repealing section 192 here today. As I’ve said on at least two occasions today in the House, this is an evidenced-based decision—evidence that not only I received but the former Minister under the National Government received in writing, that we have a copy of. I’m more than happy to share it with the National Opposition if they don’t have a copy of that information. It does also go on to say that it throws children into further poverty and hardship—children who are more likely than any other child in this country to be experiencing the poverty and hardship.

I know there’s been lots of debate in the House and concerns raised by the National Government that by doing this we won’t be able to hold the absent father to account and force his hand with regards to paying child support, but, clearly, there’s no evidence to suggest that this punitive sanction—

💬 Hon Louise Upston: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Minister’s referring to an official document, and, given that it’s being debated in the committee, it would be good if she could table it.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The member could have waited until the Minister had finished her call. Every member has a right to be heard, but that could have been done at the end.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m more than happy to table this document. I’m actually really concerned that the National Party have come to the House so ill-equipped, without the information that they need to be debating what is a very important issue. So if they don’t have this information, then I’m more than happy to give that information to them, because it is available online.

Document laid on the Table of the House.

Can I also state on the record that the member Louise Upston asked about figures, and this report, which was fairly recent—because it was February 2019—said that at the end of June 2018, 25,500 children—

💬 Hon Louise Upston: So not the previous Government.

—were in families affected by section—I will state this one more time, just for the record for Louise Upston, who doesn’t seem to be listening. This report is a February 2019 report. In the executive summary, it refers to the policy advice that the Minister for Social Development was given previously, which is what I said in the House earlier. I really wish that member would listen.

Now, going on to what she asked, with regards to the numbers of children, at the end of June 2018, 25,500 children were in families affected by section 70A reductions—so that’s section 192 now. Of these children, 9,500—one-third—were not themselves the subject of a deduction, but, of course, they’re living in a household where that deduction is made, and so they are impacted by that deduction. The 25,500 children who were in families affected at this date made up an estimated 2.3 percent of all children in New Zealand. The proportion of New Zealand children who were ever in families affected is much larger. Among children born in 2010 to 2011, an estimated 11 percent of all children ever present in New Zealand by age six were in a family affected by section 70A benefit reductions at some time.

I think it’s really important to take this seriously because, as a Government, we have committed to child poverty reduction targets. Now, where there is a measure in place, through our legislation, that disproportionately impacts children and actually throws them into further poverty, then we actually should have consensus, given that we had consensus—bar ACT—on the fact that we will reduce child poverty in this country. This is only one measure. It’s not the answer to all, but it does take us a step further to being able to respond to that commitment that we have made in this House.

I know—well, I anticipate—that the Opposition is going to continue to traverse this issue, but I wanted to put out there right from the beginning that I have the evidence in front of me now to support why the sanction doesn’t work—the same evidence that was presented to the previous Government. So I really don’t want to spend hours on end debating the moral assertions that are being made by the other side of the House on these women or the absent parent or the decision not to name the other parent. At the end of the day, our concern is for the children that live in those homes, and we are not going to continue with policies that have no evidence base, that are punitive, and that only serve to punish children and throw them further into poverty. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I was quite specific in the questions that I asked about the numbers, and I do expect an answer from the Minister on the questions about the numbers that I specifically asked. I asked about the number on the sole parent benefits. I asked—

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: That’s not relevant to this.

Oh, well, does she want to take another call because, actually, you accused me before of not listening to you, so, actually, this is the one opportunity for the scrutiny of your legislation. You want it under urgency, we’re going to debate it—we’re going to debate it at length—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order!

I hope you’re going to call her to account.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m going to make a ruling. The Minister in the chair does not interject from the chair, OK? So please do not do that again.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Now, I know debates in this House do get a bit emotive at times, and I accept that comes from both sides, but the reality is that this is a piece of legislation—again, the majority of which we have had from this Minister that’s debated with either no public scrutiny or a very reduced public scrutiny. So we will be taking our time. We do expect this House to allow the courtesy and the dignity and the accountability of scrutiny, which is why I’ve asked some very straight questions around the numbers of sole parents on benefit currently that have exemptions in place. The exemptions are important, they’re for very valid reasons, and it is important—I put those five exemptions on the record of the House in the first reading.

Then I also want to know the reason behind the increase of 1,600 sole parents that is forecast in the Budget documents—and this is a Budget debate on the welfare package. How has that figure been derived? What will be the fiscal impact of this policy? The current prediction is $115 million. My question was: how much more will that increase? Another question was: what steps will the Minister be taking to ensure that parents who are liable will pay their fair share? So the Minister said she doesn’t want to apply a sanction—this is detailed in this piece of legislation in Part 1. My question is—on behalf of taxpayers up and down New Zealand—how will she ensure fathers pay for the children they are financially responsible for?

In terms of reducing child poverty—and, under National’s time, we lifted 85,000 children out of poverty. So we absolutely support the work of this Government in continuing to reduce the number of children in poverty. Very closely related to that, though, is the number of children in benefit-dependent homes, which is why this question around obligations and consequences and sanctions for those on the sole parent benefit is important. I do expect the Minister to take it seriously. I do expect the Minister to answer straight questions that are asked in this committee. The Minister herself has said that this piece of legislation is about reducing child poverty. Well, I would then expect—if she takes that seriously—that she will answer every question that the Opposition raises in this committee to ensure that this piece of legislation is thoroughly debated and thoroughly scrutinised, in order to deliver the intended policy outcomes that the Government has stated.

We will have other questions. I am looking forward to that. In terms of the sole parent obligation, I’m interested to know if there are other obligations that the Minister is expecting to lift—they’re not in this particular piece of legislation. This is specifically around section 192—as I said before—which was formerly section 70A. When there is an obligation, most New Zealanders would view that there is an obligation for dads to pay for their children. One of those obligations is to provide their details so that the mother and the support for those children through—in this instance, the benefit system—can be fully delivered. The Government talks about entitlements. I agree that those children should be supported, and it is a dad’s responsibility and a mum’s responsibility to ensure that those children get the support that they need and are entitled to. So I am asking the Minister to provide detailed answers to my very straight questions.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. Thank you very much. I’ll just take a short call on the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill, just to support the intent of what the Minister for Social Development is doing here. It shouldn’t be a surprise to anybody that I have the job of being the Minister for Children. I want to acknowledge Louise Upston, the previous speaker, and the articulation of both sides of the House that we want to make sure that children are given the best opportunity that they can, that they are well-supported by us as a country, and that parents are held to account, I suppose, on the welfare of their children.

However, I believe it’s been articulated across this House on numerous occasions that when we create policy, we must create policy based on a level of fact: is the policy that we are creating, or a policy that somebody else has created—can it be proven that it is the solution to the problem? I think what we’ve identified, and, again, the previous speaker talked about it, is that one of the problems that we’ve got—and it’s not a new problem—is that fathers have abandoned children for centuries and mothers have had to step up and do it on their own for centuries. So it’s not a new problem; it’s about finding the solution to that problem. What the evidence shows is that if this was the solution, it hasn’t worked. What it has done, however, is it has made it harder for those women. It has made it more difficult for the lives of those children.

So, certainly, I know that the member who has just resumed her seat, Louise Upston, asked what the solution would be, and, then, how we make men who abandon their children take responsibility, and I would love to sit down and work through a solution that actually works with that member. I think that would be a great thing to do. Let’s find one that doesn’t penalise children. Let’s find one that doesn’t take money out of the hands of single parents so that they have less money to put food on the table and less money to actually provide school supplies for their children and less money for shoes and socks and clothes and all those other sorts of things that that money is needed for. So let’s do that—let’s not penalise children.

What we know from the evidence is that there are children living inside these houses, and we know who their dads are. We know who their dads are. For whatever reason, there’s been a difference between who the dad is of one set of children and then, possibly, there’s another child. Now, that’s not new, either. This is not a modern development—that one woman might have children to a couple of different dads. You might be widowed after a war, for example, and go and marry again, or have a child to somebody else. This has not been created just in the last decade, so we need a solution to the issue where men abandon their children. That’s the solution we need, but part of that answer should not be to penalise children merely because they don’t know who their father is, or it should not penalise children who happen to live inside the house of a child for whom we don’t know who the father is—and we have evidence about that.

The Opposition have said—quite rightly so, and I have listened to them—that when you create policy, it must be based upon evidence. This did not work. This hurt children. We believe it is time to acknowledge that the evidence says it doesn’t work. We believe it is time to find another way, and I absolutely welcome the opportunity to sit down and talk with the Opposition about “How else can we can make men accountable?”, or “How can we make them want to be accountable, rather than actually take off?”, because that would be better for the children as well—to have reasonable, responsible males in their lives, in a constructive way. That’s what I believe we are all trying to achieve.

We support the intent. We support the bill. For too long, these children have been penalised for situations that adults have created.

I thank the Minister for Children, the Hon Tracey Martin, for her comments. We agree that it should be evidence-based and we should be looking for proactive solutions to this.

Here’s the question that I would like to pose to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni. For all those that it hasn’t worked for, what about those for whom it has worked? What are the numbers there? Here’s the thing: if we’re talking about it being evidence-based, what has been the costing on those who have disclosed and who’ve actually contributed?

So what you’re doing now is this: you are setting a precedent. In actual fact, those who have done the right thing—we’ve heard stories about that—and who have actually disclosed who the other parent is, which has made them accountable, have now contributed. You’ve only costed from where, as we understand—and I’m happy to be proved wrong. You might have the evidence there of the costing of what it would be, then, for the whole amount of those on a sole parent benefit—right—in regards to those who have disclosed where there’s been payment. Now, the State is going to have to bear the cost of that whole costing for those children. That’s what we’re talking about. So to the Minister in the chair, if she could provide that information, that would be helpful as well.

The Minister also talked about the issues around solutions, and, in fact, the Hon Tracey Martin talked about that. There are discretions already here. So when we’ve gone down to discretions, it’s not a safety issue, and it’s not an issue of if you can’t find out, if you’re not sure, or if you don’t know. It could have been an indiscriminate sort of relationship for a period of time, and they’ve gone. There is nothing there, when you go through the discretions, that would bar somebody on an issue of safety or on an issue of not being able to find out who the lawful parent is—nothing. So what are we left with? We’re left with an adult who has the opportunity to disclose the person—to disclose the person. That’s what we are talking about.

So if you’re talking about making adults responsible, then you’ve just removed that. You’ve just removed the ability to make those adults responsible.

You’ve made a good point, and I would say to the Minister in the chair, then, what other alternatives did she seek? They were talking about opportunities for it being evidence-based. Well, the Minister talked about reducing the number of children in poverty, but what we know from the trends from 2014 through to 2018 is that the reduction in the number of those on sole parent support was, on average, 3,400—on average, 3,400. But from March 2018 to March 2019, the only decrease was six—six.

So is this Government is now saying that, in actual fact, they want to reduce child poverty? Are they now counting—the fact is that a parent with children in a benefit-dependent home is classed as reducing children in poverty, because according to the stats, according to the figures, it’s clearly showing that under this Government, what we’re actually doing is increasing the number of people on benefits. They’re not decreasing it; they are increasing it. That’s what they’re doing. You’re increasing the number who are on benefits. So to the Minister in the chair, I would like to put a couple of those questions to her.

The other question that I would like to put to the Minister as well is in regard to discretions. When she talked about it being evidence-based, what other evidence did she show for other opportunities? If we talk about evidence, I want to refer to this report. This is called the Heckman report for 2010, and it says this: “The key to a successful welfare state lies in devising proper incentives to encourage actors at all levels of the economic system to respond to the new opportunities. In principle, a welfare state can provide the proper incentives for productivity and at the same time accord a measure of security and dignity for all citizens.” I would like the Minister to respond to that. What evidence did she supply?

It’s one thing to have a report, but did she delve into the evidence around the decisions that were made? The recommendations that were presented to her—I’d like the Minister to present that evidence and the reports that she refers to around these recommendations, because we haven’t seen that. As my good friend and colleague the Hon Louise Upston has been saying here, she made an Official Information Act (OIA) request for those reports and did not receive them. So much for a transparent and open Government! Here we are in urgency, in this committee stage—and, by the way, the indexing will take another four years, with only $11—and yet still we are just now being presented with the potential of the answer to that OIA request.

I have these questions. I have other questions I’d like to pose to the Minister. I look forward to her response as soon as possible.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I want to support my colleagues Louise Upston and Alfred Ngaro in raising real concerns about the repeal of the responsibilities of parents. I think, when I’ve listened to the Minister and the Minister of Children, there’s a real naivety about the real world in New Zealand, because before this law existed, there was a real racket that went on in New Zealand, and it went like this: if the mother doesn’t name the father, they don’t have to pay their child support. So what the father does is he says to the mother “Don’t name me and I’ll give you a hundred bucks a week, cash under the table.”

That certainly suits the financial interests of the mum, it certainly suits the financial interests of the father, but it is grossly unfair to the honest, law-abiding mums and dads who meet their responsibilities in New Zealand. My great fear, in the naivety of this bill, is that that is what is going to occur again, and I want the Minister to say why that would not occur. What would be the incentive, out in the real New Zealand world, for people to be able to avoid their child support responsibilities? Or am I to take from the look on the Minister’s face that, actually, she doesn’t care? She doesn’t care about that fairness.

The second question I have is actually for the Minister of Children. Members on this side of the House actually believe it’s the right of the child to know who their dad is. I think that is a fundamental right if you believe in the wellbeing of children, and this is the Wellbeing Budget. So why do we want to remove the incentive for children to know who their mum and dad are? I’ll have a bet with the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Social Development: if this bill is passed, the number of birth certificates, with the Department of Internal Affairs, of which there is no father will radically increase.

Why do I know that? It’s because before this became the law, the opposite was true. Actually, when this did become the law, we saw a substantive increase in the number of children who know who their fathers are. So I say to the members opposite: what’s good about a society in which kids don’t know who their dad is? There is a deafening silence. Why is it that members opposite do not understand the importance of the role that fathers play in children’s lives and why we want a legal framework where people do know who their dad is? There is nothing that is going to be positively achieved for the wellbeing of New Zealand society and children by providing this crude financial incentive for dads to no longer be named on the birth certificate.

The further point I would want to make is actually about how reasonable sections 192 to 194 in the current Act—the Social Security Act 2018—are. When I listened to the member and I listened to members opposite, you would think that this is a harsh provision with no discretion. As my colleagues have pointed out, there’s actually very good, practical law in what is being repealed. If there are issues of domestic violence, if there are issues of incest, if there are other reasonable reasons as to why the mother would not want to name the child, there is absolute provision in section 193 of the existing law that we are now proposing to repeal. Those provisions are being removed, which actually disproves the claims that are being made by the members opposite.

So I would just love a member opposite to show me the examples of where mums are being asked to name the father of the child in unreasonable circumstances, because I’ve not seen one, and I’ve dealt with hundreds of constituency cases in this area. The tragedy of this law is that it is going to disconnect children from their fathers, and fathers have an absolute pivotal—both financial and other—role to play in children’s lives. This is a provision that will actually make the wellbeing of New Zealand families and New Zealand children worse, and that’s why the Opposition opposes it so strongly.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to take a call on behalf of the Green Party, and I guess I will primarily stick with some of this conversation around ending the section 192 deductions. The previous member, Hon Nick Smith, was saying “Give us an example.” Well, actually, we had I’m not sure how many submissions, but submissions from a huge number of community organisations on the rewrite of the Social Security Act in 2016, exactly on that point of people telling us of the sanctions being applied on mothers for not naming the father, and they didn’t even know that that sanction was in place, let alone know what the conditions were for them being able to appeal it. We had a lawyer sitting in front of us, in tears—and the member Alfred Ngaro, I’m sure, remembers this—recounting her experience of having to hear those stories of women detailing the abuse they’ve experienced and the incest in their childhood that had resulted in their pregnancy and their child, and the humiliation that she felt personally participating in that system to enable those women to access the exemptions on this sanction.

This is what we’re here to change—to actually trust those women that the decisions that they make are in the best interests of them and their families. On this side of the House, we trust women to make the right decisions for themselves and their families. That is absolutely backed up by the evidence that we know from the conversation about how, actually, men have a role to play in their families, and we need to incentivise that. Really, I think the Minister Hon Tracey Martin put it really well about how, of course, we’re all interested in healthy, thriving families. We want policies that will work to support that.

I would call out—what word shall I use that’s parliamentary?—an inconsistency, though, from the National side of the House, when I remember, in this House, participating in changes to child support laws that reduced penalties for non-paying parents. So those non-custodial parents who were not contributing to their families—that previous Government actually reduced the incentives, as they would argue, for those parents to contribute.

Yet here they are: when it’s an incentive, supposedly, that punishes women and children, they’re opposed to removing it. So they’re not willing to punish the dads for not contributing, but they are insistent on punishing the women and children who may not want to name the father—because they just don’t trust women. It’s the only thing I can take from that.

I really want to reference a point that the Child Poverty Action Group made in their submission on this in the original legislation. They were saying that they believe non-custodial parents should make positive contributions to the lives of their children. However, they were concerned that the emphasis on monetary support simply reduces children to the status of financial obligations. That’s from their perspective on what this debate is about. They want us to look at what positive families look like and how we ensure that all of our families have enough to be able to nurture their children for their children to thrive. When there’s a sanction in place that removes vital money from families below the poverty line already, we know that we’re going in the wrong direction.

So the Green Party is very pleased—backed up by all of the research around how you support families to thrive—to fully support this particular aspect of the legislation.

We’ll see how many calls we’re able to get, but I would just like to indicate to Jan Logie, the member who’s just resumed her seat, who was talking about trust and particularly trust of women, and just remind her that she’s a member of Parliament, as I am. Why I mention that is this Parliament is based on making laws precisely because we don’t trust people. We make laws to protect the most vulnerable. We make laws to actually create structures around them.

Just to illustrate the point that she might be right—we might need to trust women around these sanctions—I ask that member why she does not trust women with driving speeds and why she does not trust women with seatbelts. She’s part of a process here in this Parliament where rules are made where we do not trust people. I just say that because the member was very quick to use the word “consistency”, and the funny thing is there was a terrible, terrible lack of it. So just a reminder to that member, next time she talks about trust, that she’s part of a parliamentary process where we actually—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order! Matt Doocey, you know the rules. You do not interject while walking around the Chamber, OK? You go back to your chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair. So I think that just puts paid to the trust argument, because if the member’s going to be consistent, then apply it to pretty much every law in this House, which applies to every man, woman, and children—and child; sorry, I’ll get my declensions right.

Part 1, clause 8, is talking about the rates of benefit to be set down by Order in Council. New section 452A(1)(a) talks about the “average ordinary time weekly” as expressed on a quarterly basis, which makes sense, and to be published in March each year. I would like the Minister, if she’s prepared to take a call, to explain to me and the committee why that was chosen. I suspect the average ordinary time of weekly earnings is the appropriate measure, but I am not an expert. I know that she has officials here. I would welcome it if she would do so to provide us an explanation of why that was chosen. With what has happened around Statistics New Zealand—I know it was to do with the census—I would just like the Minister in the chair to express confidence in Statistics New Zealand to be able to provide those details both accurately and on a timely basis.

The other question I’d ask in relation to what is going to be a change through new section 452A is why it’s “every year”. I think that, I don’t know, by tradition makes sense, but I’m also very aware that, from Statistics New Zealand and then through to other Government departments like the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and the like, we are getting this on a quarterly basis. In the spirit of generosity not only to the Minister but, of course, to the people who are going to be supported, why not enable a review to be done every quarter rather than every year? If I’m suggesting in this committee that every quarter is a step too far and far too generous for this centre-right politician, can I suggest we come to an amicable agreement to make it every six months? The great thing about Orders in Council is that you’re actually able to do those quite frequently, as the Minister knows, so I can’t see a process problem there.

So those are a couple of very basic questions that I think are fairly important to me and, I suspect, to this side of the committee to understand fundamentally why the average ordinary time of weekly earnings was chosen over, say, the Consumers Price Index, for example, or even linking it to changes in the minimum wage. I suspect I will know the answer to why it’s there, because that’s been the protocols, and perhaps it’s linked to the Budget, which is timely, of course, seeing as we are 25½ hours after the last one. But why not by quarters? I think, in some ways, that would enable—particularly if we are into the argument of supporting particularly vulnerable women and their children—why we are not able to, in a sense, keep up with the play. And, in a modern environment, as we are now, of big data, computers, and the like, we should be able to do this. Having used some of the welfare systems, I’m sure even the Social Welfare Information for Tomorrow Today system and UCV2—if the Minister and those people are still using those systems—might be able to keep up with it.

Look, I also have a couple of Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in my name, which I might address if I am allowed the time. The first is SOP 241. This is a suggestion to insert a new clause 6A. In effect, it’s seeking to create a review process. Obviously, after two sets of votes, which this side have lost, I have accepted, somewhat emotionally, that we probably won’t be able to stop the overall intent of this legislation; so, in the order of attempting to be constructive, I thought it would be important to review it. A member who’s recently taken the chair talked about wanting to be evidence-based. I’m looking forward to her support for this SOP, because this is about collecting evidence. This is about a review, effectively, around the number of non-declared parents. What it’s going to seek to do in new clause 6A is, in effect, ask the Ministry of Social Development to now explicitly record and track the number of people who are, first and foremost, applying for the sole parent benefit. That will be relatively easy because they are already doing that, but in the course of preparing for this discussion today, it’s not actually been readily available how many people have, up to now, been sanctioned, nor how many people have not declared the other parent. I was able to track down some information courtesy of written parliamentary questions, but it’s not a matter of course for the Ministry of Social Development to indicate the number.

I’d better be clear: we’re not asking for a “name and shame”, by any means—this is, obviously, anonymised data—but what we’d love to see, as per the suggested addition of new section 194A(1)(b), is to note those who “fail to identify who is in law…”. I am happy if members opposite want to amend that; I am conscious that the word “fail” is relatively negative. That perhaps reflects my general views here, but I think it would be incredibly helpful.

I’ve gone on, in this SOP, to also suggest a trigger warning to those of trigger points. The trigger point is 500 parents in a single quarter, or 1,500 parents in a calendar year. I’m the first to admit that’s incredibly low. I noted in my second reading speech that about 12,000 people—from what I was able to see—have not declared the other parent; so this is deliberately low, and I’m happy for that to be discussed and debated, but I’ve kept it deliberately low because, while I want this triggered, I think it’s important, again, to use the words, particularly from the Green Party, who want this to be “evidence-based”.

Then, the further clauses that carry through are just to make sure that the review is done in a timely and a speedy fashion. So, in this new clause 6A, which is making an amendment to the principal Act by inserting a new section 194A, the review must begin immediately when those trigger points in subsection (2) occur. That’s for two reasons. Firstly, it’s to make sure that MSD is recording the data and that the moment per quarter, effectively, that this happens, they get on to it. I’ve given them 60 days in this SOP—or I am suggesting it, of course; this is not an Act yet—but, again, I’m very much looking forward to the other side’s supporting it, because they are evidence-based. They’ve got 60 days—I’m always a little bit sceptical. Look, I used to work in a Government department, and I’m sceptical of myself then achieving things in a timely manner.

Importantly, as in subclause (3)—I’m afraid I don’t always get the legal nomenclature—the review must be tabled in Parliament within one month of the completion of the review. Now, obviously, my motive, if you will, is to make sure that the Minister—and it’s actually not a reflection on the particular Minister; this would apply if it was someone from my own side—ensures that this is in the House swiftly so that we, as a Parliament, can look into it. I would be very happy for the Minister in the chair, through her experience, I suppose, to explain to me if that’s too short. If it’s more prudent that it should be two months, for example, we’d be happy to look at that.

Probably the final point on this SOP, if I might—and I haven’t put it in yet, and I don’t know if I require another SOP—is to indicate which select committee the bill should go to. I suspect it’s best handled in the Social Services and Community Committee, but there is a small argument to be made that it could also be in the Finance and Expenditure Committee because, ultimately, this is having a financial impact. My instincts suggest it should be in the Social Services and Community Committee because, fundamentally, this is about the children, as has been said. So that Supplementary Order Paper, ultimately accepting somewhat—and I hope my colleagues don’t resile from me for it—that this legislation will be progressing, is an attempt to be constructive. It is an attempt to bring out the evidence so that we do have that information. MSD is, I would have to say, particularly good at bringing information forward, but the number of people who have not declared the father, in particular, is not readily accessible in its quarterly reporting, or not that I’ve been able to find. So I think that would be helpful.

I am more than happy for the Minister in the chair, or anyone else who wishes to take a call today, to push back, if required, on the numbers where this is triggered, the time it’s requiring MSD to process the review, and, in particular, the time for the Minister to report back. If that’s inappropriate, I would be the first to, and happy to, change that.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair.

💬 Hon Member: Oh, good choice.

Yes, it is a good choice, and thank you very much. I appreciate the time to speak here in the committee stage. TV ONE, on One News, said on the night of the Budget—which was, obviously, just this week; the days are quite long—that the Government is falling well short of the recommendations of its own Welfare Expert Advisory Group. That is a fact. They’ve picked it up, we’ve picked it up, and I’m going to link that fact in with a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), an amendment that I have in my name.

So the first question, which leads into the content that I have in my SOP 246, is, quite simply, why didn’t the Government take up more than three out of 42 of those recommendations? They’ve received quite wide scorn for focusing on just three. Something that they commissioned had 42 recommendations—just three. So here we are now, debating something that has come from—well, actually, it hasn’t come from that report, because, as I just said, only three of the 42 were picked up.

The fiscal cost estimated of improving adequacy and design of the income support out of that working group report was $5.2 billion a year. Perhaps that’s why we’re only left with three out of the 42 recommendations. There’s just no ambition in what the Government is presenting us with—a partial nod to beneficiaries, while Winston gets the planes, trains, and definitely not the automobiles.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The Rt Hon Winston Peters.

The Rt Hon Winston Peters—I guess I need to insert that. My Supplementary Order Paper inserts a new clause 6A. It inserts a new section 194A that inserts that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) must report on key outcomes for children in benefit-dependent households. So it reads that the Ministry of Social Development “must publish yearly as part of its Annual Report or Statement of Intent, or as a standalone report,”—so there are three options—“information on key outcomes for the number of children in benefit-dependent” households. Now, where did this come from? That report, the same report that only had three out of 42 recommendations picked up—well, this is one of them that wasn’t. So this is not something that we’ve come up with on this side of the House; it has been discussed, debated, and rejected by the Government. We’re asking them to take another look at it here this afternoon.

Now, why would you report? Why would you want to know what’s going on for children in benefit-dependent households—

💬 Simon O’Connor: Evidence.

It’s because we need to be evidence-based. Thank you, that’s exactly what I was going to say; thank you, member O’Connor. We need to be honest with ourselves, honest with the public, and honest with those who are receiving benefits. We need to be accountable. This is our message to the Government: if you back your idea, then back your ability to look at outcomes a year later—simple as that.

So this Supplementary Order Paper introduces recommendation 5 of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report. It’s there and it’s plain for all to see: recommendation 5. It provides for clear reporting on a number of outcomes related to Vote Social Development. This specific clause that I want to insert, a new clause 6A, requires MSD to report on the lives of children in benefit-dependent homes and how these changes in this bill affect them. We couldn’t ask for anything more basic and more intrinsic for impact on young New Zealanders’ lives.

So the purpose of the bill, as we understand it, and as we’re debating here this afternoon, is to improve and increase the incomes for low-income individuals and families. This amendment, my SOP, creates measures and yearly reporting on the improved outcomes for benefit recipients. I’ll just say one more time: why would we do that? It’s because we want evidence-based, we want honesty, and we want accountability. Our message to the Government is: if you back your idea, then back your ability to pick up one more recommendation—because you didn’t pick up many in the first place—from that Welfare Expert Advisory Group report.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to speak, for the first time, on this omnibus bill.

💬 Hon Member: First of many.

First of many, absolutely, I’m digging in for the long haul. This is a bill that gives a lot of scope for comment. The Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill—I thought I better give it its full title before I put the boot into it—is an omnibus bill that, I think, does highlight the fundamental philosophical differences that exist between the political parties in this House.

I heard Jan Logie from the Greens talking about trusting women to make the right choice. I think naivety and hoping is not quite enough when you are legislators. We need to make sure that there is fairness and protection for the vulnerable. We also need to make sure, as lawmakers, that we do what is for the greatest good for the greatest number. This bill doesn’t stack up on any account, in that regard.

In fact, the Hon Dr Nick Smith made a valuable point in relation to the philosophical difference, and it is this: where in this bill is there any incentive at all for men to really step up and take responsibility for parenting a child? While the other side of the House may be quite happy to let men get away with the kind of rorts that Dr Nick Smith described, that used to exist before we put in the requirement to name the parent, do we really, as a country, want to go back to the bad old days where there were backhand deals done, men got away without paying very much, and the State ended up paying for everything? I don’t believe that for—

💬 Brett Hudson: It’s not the State; it’s the taxpayer.

The taxpayer. Well, I tend to think that, as taxpayers, we need to, in terms of how the State protects taxpayers’ interests as well, ensure that we are having a fair spend of that hard-earned taxpayers’ dollar. This, I believe, will result in some epic squandering and the wrong signals—it’s just the wrong signals. If a man is to father a child, he needs to actually step up and support that child. We need to be there, as the State, with the taxpayers’ money, ensuring that the children are not badly affected.

Again, I come back to something that Jan Logie said: that there would somehow be this punitive measure on the child and that it was really not fair in any way that there would be hardship. For the member’s elucidation, the exemptions in the existing law do provide for parents who are in fear of their safety if they name the other parent or if the child is a result of a sexual assault. So there has always been compassionate and understanding flexibility around family situations which, really, are very sad. I think that as a Government, when we calibrated the existing law, we did it properly. This is a measure that’s going to send altogether the wrong signals.

So as it’s gone through so far—and I’m now looking at the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) factor—some Supplementary Order Papers, particularly around clause 6A, I think, are worth highlighting. My colleague Dr Alfred Ngaro has moved an amendment to ensure that there is a proper reporting basis to all of this. So he has suggested a report on what he calls “key outcomes” on the repeal of sections 192 to 194, which means that the Ministry of Social Development would be required to report on these outcomes. “(a) Full and correct entitlements from across the ministry; … (b) take-up rates of payments;”—which I think makes a great deal of sense and would give us an idea of the landscape, really, and who would be using this amendment. The “(c) employment outcomes for people receiving a benefit;”, that is very valid as well, because to create a safe environment for a child and to give mana to people, they need to be in work and they need to not be dependent on the State. So there needs to be encouragement and incentives for people to get off benefits; this bill sends altogether different and contradictory signals. The impact of employment supports and services on those receiving a benefit is also contained within that SOP 243.

I think it is very good to have clear reporting, because you cannot manage what you can’t measure, and we need to be able to measure, if this bill goes through—and unfortunately the numbers are stacked against a sensible outcome and it does appear that it will go through. If we look at repealing sections 192 to 194, I think putting in the measurement devices that were contained in the Simon O’Connor SOP 241—

💬 Simon O’Connor: A very good SOP.

—to put in clause 6A—yes, I can hear the member behind me talking up his SOP, and I agree with him. I think that in the same way that Alfred Ngaro’s amendment suggestion means that you can have measurable reporting, my colleague Simon O’Connor’s goes another step further. And when you have around 10,000—[Time expired]

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Again, this bill has generated quite a bit of passionate discussion this afternoon. I’d like to turn our attention to a part of the bill, Part 1 and clauses 8 and 9, which talks about adjustments of the rates of the main benefits and the inclusion of new sections 452A and 453. We’ve heard a bit of debate around those mandatory adjustments and the impact that that’s actually going to have on beneficiaries as the time comes closer to 2023.

I wonder if the Minister for Social Development could answer whether any other options were considered in terms of assisting people on main benefits. The reason I’m asking that is because there are other ways that, perhaps, we could assist people who are in the most desperate times—and I’m thinking about our superannuation beneficiaries and those on single-parent benefits. One of the options that I have for the Minister to consider is to increase the Rates Rebate Scheme, and I wonder whether that was ever contemplated as part of the assessment for beneficiaries. I do know that as local government rates increase—and for some of them, we’re now getting into double figures every year—that has a significant impact on them. If it’s not directly through their local government authority, it is actually via their rent, which their landlords, of course, are responsible for paying. So whatever way it is imposed, it is still those people that are covering the cost of that.

We know that the impact of this adjustment of their benefits is going to have a pretty insignificant impact by the time we get to 2023. I feel that there could have been something done in a lot more urgency, with a lot more immediate impact, which would have had quite a tangible effect. So I want to just really get some reassurance from the Minister that all options have been investigated in terms of this.

We know that those people that are on those single-parent incomes are responsible for a very precious part of our society, and that is the children. I do give credit to Minister Tracey Martin for continuing the very important work that was initiated around the social investment approach. We know, from all of the research that was done and that was used in making that decision, that children who are brought up in benefit-dependent households have certain indicators that do not bode well for them. If we can make life a little bit easier in some of the outgoings that those households are responsible for, such as rates and rent, then perhaps we will make better headway with their lives.

We know that children in benefit households are more likely to leave school without NCEA level 2. We know that they are more likely to have contact with Child, Youth and Family and with the Department of Corrections before they are 18. So anything that can be done to lighten the load on those families will be greatly appreciated, and especially for our superannuitants. By the time most of our superannuitants have reached retirement age, they are in their own home. I know what a huge relief it was when the Rates Rebate Scheme came in, and the relief it brought them in simply applying for a little bit of rebate on those rates, because they are starting to get away. So those are my contribution questions. Thank you.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Thank you. About an hour ago, I requested that the two official documents that the Minister was referring to, be tabled—and, according to Standing Order 377, documents tabled by leave must be done within a reasonable period. Madam Chair, given that we are in urgency, this is the only time for scrutiny of this legislation. I want to know if—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you. I have been advised that they have been tabled. They’re just being copied; they’re on their way into—

They’re just not available for members. This is urgency—

They will be here very shortly—they will be here shortly. I can’t make it happen any faster than that; they’re just about here.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: So—Madam Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I have ruled on that point of order. They are being copied—

💬 Hon Louise Upston: So the Opposition doesn’t have the chance to look at two documents the Minister has offered—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I have told the member that they have been tabled, they have been copied, and they are on their way into the Chamber. She will just wait for a few moments and they will be here for her scrutiny—

💬 Hon Louise Upston: So we will have a longer period of time to discuss this, under urgency?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): You’re answering me back; I’m making a ruling. I’m saying they’ll be here shortly. You’ve asked a question; I have answered it. I call the Hon Carmel Sepuloni.

I look forward to the other side of the House receiving the report that I tabled some while ago in this House. Can I just say that I tabled that report despite the fact that it is publicly available online, but out of courtesy to that member, and concern that she may not know how to use the internet, I thought it worthwhile tabling it. Anyway, thank you.

💬 Brett Hudson: Well, National knows how to use the internet, Minister.

Thank you very much. It’s been tabled.

I’m so glad that there’s such enthusiasm in the House today for welfare legislation that is going through, and, in fact, I have to say publicly to the New Zealand public who can watch this that we have nearly a full house of National Opposition MPs in here—unfortunately, not in support of this legislation, necessarily—because they always turn out in numbers when welfare is up for discussion. So it’s wonderful there’s enthusiasm, and I’m really enjoying going through the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that have been tabled in the House from the diligent members of the Opposition. I will go through some of the questions that have been asked, as well as respond to some of SOPs that have been tabled. I was asked earlier about the fiscal implications for repealing section 192. As stated in the Budget document, it is $113 million over four years. That’s also online now.

Can I say that with regards to whether or not repealing section 192 will have an impact on our forecasted benefit numbers, I have been told by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) that it has no impact on our forecasted benefit numbers. We had the Hon Nick Smith in the House making assertions that the analysis that has been done states that the repealing of section 192 does not have any impact on forecasted benefit numbers. So section 192 is not anticipated to result in increases in sole parent beneficiaries.

We had questions asked about the Child Support Act. The Child Support Act stands. The difference is, now, that MSD is no longer responsible for monitoring the Child Support Act. That actually is the responsibility of the Inland Revenue Department, and I think that that’s quite appropriate, actually.

With regards to incentivising the other parent to pay, there are recommendations in the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s report, and I think we should give those due consideration over time. As I’ve said, actually—and I think my colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan said this earlier—there are actually about 20 of the 42 recommendations that currently have work going on under them. I think the Opposition needs to read them very carefully, because the 42 recommendations are not really a tick-box kind of exercise, which I know members opposite would prefer. They’re actually much more complex, and a lot of them require ongoing work, and so some of that work has already started. I’m quite glad about the fact that there’s work under way now in about 20 of those areas.

There are other questions that have been raised in this House. Let me go through these amendments. We’ve got two SOPs here that are kind of a little bit contradictory, but I’ll speak to them anyway. One is actually asking that we push out the time of implementation, and that is with respect to the section 192 repeal. So it’s asking us that instead of doing it in 2020, we hold off implementing it until 2021—they’re wanting us to take our time with looking at the impact of that, and so pushing it out a year. But then there’s another SOP that we’ve been presented with that actually asks us to bring an element of this package forward, and that is the indexation. So it is asking us to bring that forward to July 2019. So I think it’s very interesting that the Opposition wants to divide up this package, and on the one hand asks us to bring something right forward, and then on the other hand asks us to push something right out. We would like to take a much more commonsensical approach to how we deliver legislation in this House, and so I think that the approach that we’ve taken actually makes sense and we won’t be doing what has been asked of us by the Opposition.

We’ve had requests by the Opposition to report annually on outcomes for children in benefit-dependent households. I actually think that that’s a valid recommendation, and it’s something that is in the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s report. It’s something that we will be considering as the Government, and I look forward to exploring further as part of phase two of the work that we are doing to implement the recommendations in the report. It’s parked for now, because it requires a lot of work with respect to how we would do that and how we would do that sensibly. I’m sure that when we do get around to doing that, the general public will want us to do that in a considered way.

I do want to reflect on the fact that now, because of this Government and with the support of the National Opposition, actually, we are at least reporting on child poverty targets annually, and, of course, given that 60 percent of children living in poverty are actually in beneficiary households, that is a consideration in that annual report as we report on our targets and make sure that we’re doing all that we can do to achieve some real progress in that space. I know that there are lots of other questions, and so I might take a seat now, and then I’ll take many more contributions, I am sure, from the Opposition and I look forward to responding.

I wanted to come down and take a call on the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill because it seems to me that this goes right to the very heart of some of the differences between this side of the House and the coalition Government that now occupies the Treasury benches. Just while we’re talking on Part 1, of course, about the removal of sanctions and starting to eat away at that obligation part of welfare, I think we need to talk about what’s really driving this.

We know that the Government is made up, within its ranks, and particularly out of the Green Party, of people who fundamentally believe you should get paid the same whether you work or not, and that there should be no incentive on people to actually go out and get ahead—no reward for effort, and everybody should get the same whether they work or not. They want to see the removal of sanctions, and it starts here in Part 1 of this bill. We know that, because that’s what Marama Davidson has said. We know that they seem to believe that money grows on trees in some mythical, magical pixie-land ATM at the bottom of the garden that prints out money and we can all just stay home and get paid regardless, and there should be no obligations on welfare. Well, this side of the House doesn’t accept that.

This side of the House believes in supporting those in need. We believe in supporting those in need, but we believe that that support comes with obligations to the taxpayers who go to work and pay for it. Those obligations are set out in the Social Security Act, which, by the way, Labour voted for just a year ago. Those obligations say that “Yes, of course, taxpayers are prepared to support you in your time of need but we do expect some things in return.” One of the things that taxpayers expect is that we are holding both parents accountable and responsible for the raising of their child and the costs of doing that.

We already have, of course—and it’s important to make this point, because there’s a lot of nonsense being spread—provisions that make it clear that if the mother is in a situation where she cannot, or it would be inappropriate to, name the father, that is manageable. But when the mother knows who the father is, it is not acceptable to simply choose not to have that father financially liable for paying for the cost of that child. And, by the way, if you want to talk about welfare of children and the wellbeing of children, children deserve to know who their father is. They shouldn’t be a transactional arrangement between the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and the mother.

Children have a right to know who their father is, and fathers have an obligation to step up and pay their share of the costs. That is why this side of the House says of course we want to support mothers and children. Of course we need to ensure children are properly supported. We do not, though, accept the Green Party view of the world that no one should be responsible, no one should have sanctions on them in welfare, and everyone should have the right to a universal basic income whether they work or not. That is not reality. That is fairyland, where money grows on trees. Get into the real world and understand there are obligations that come with entitlements. There is no free ride. The Green Party doesn’t know that; National absolutely does.

Just before I come to abatements, because I do want to spend a little bit of time on the issue of changing the abatement rate, I want to talk very briefly in support of a couple of my colleagues’ very good Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). Maureen Pugh has an excellent Supplementary Order Paper that says that, at the very least, where the mother is in an informal relationship with the child’s father, that should be disclosed to MSD. That makes perfect sense. If there is an informal relationship of support, that is something that MSD should know. This is not free money you’re entitled to over and above everything else. This is there to top up where family support is not provided. I think Maureen Pugh’s amendment is a very good one and certainly should be supported.

The other issue in Part 1 that I particularly wanted to touch on is the changing of the abatement rates. Now, again, over the last few days we’ve heard so much about wellbeing. We’ve heard the spin and we’ve heard the fluff, and we’ve heard the noise, and we’ve heard the virtues. But let’s look at the reality of this, right. The indexing of welfare benefits was the big panacea: “Look what we’re doing for people on benefits. We’re indexing their benefit rates to wage growth.” Well, here’s the reality. By 2023—what is it; $11 a week by 2023? Do you know what that works out to just compared to the extra housing costs those same families are facing over that time? I’ve worked it out. Over the period between now and 2023, that’s the equivalent of about 500 bucks received from this policy. Do you know the extra housing costs those families face because of this Government’s incompetence over that period? It is $2,500 minimum—$2,500.

So the Government here in their Wellbeing Budget is saying to benefit-dependent families, “Go backwards by $2,500 because of our policies, our over-regulation, our inability to understand the market, but here, have 500 bucks in four years’ time and go away and think you’re grateful.” That’s not wellbeing. It is a fallacy. It is a joke. It is an insult. If the Government cared at all about wellbeing, if they really wanted to support families in New Zealand, whether they’re on welfare, whether they’re low-paid workers, whether they’re families who are getting up and working very hard, they would do a couple of things. First of all, they would take serious action to control the cost of living. You don’t ramp up costs in the private rental market that see rents up $50 a week on average and say you care about wellbeing. You don’t put up petrol taxes every year for three years, and another tax in Auckland, and say you care about wellbeing and family incomes. You don’t make it harder and harder to get a job in a slowing economy and say you care about wellbeing, and you’re not going to kid anybody that by indexing welfare to wage changes—which don’t come anywhere near meeting the cost of that—you’re supporting those families.

If you really want to talk about indexation, how about indexing tax thresholds to the Consumers Price Index (CPI) changes? That would make a real change for New Zealanders across the country. But no, no, no—that makes no sense according to this Wellbeing Budget and this “wellbeing Government”. They want to ramp up costs of rent. They want to ramp up costs of fuel. Electricity costs are going up. Food costs are going up. But here they say, “Have a 500 buck a year pittance in 2023 and we’ll call that wellbeing.” Well, that is a joke. It is an insult. It is not wellbeing. This bill should not be calling itself a welfare package. It should be calling itself an insult, a fallacy, and a joke. If you want to help people get ahead, help them get into work; find a thriving job market. Create an economy that creates opportunities. What have we got? We’ve got 13,000 more people on benefits because of this Government’s incompetence. We’ve got $50 million more in hardship grants because of this Government’s incompetence. We’ve got rents up $50 a week across New Zealand because of this Government’s incompetence. And what is their answer? Eleven dollars a week in four years’ time—and call yourselves grateful. That is an insult, and that is why people around New Zealand in the Newshub poll this morning are saying this Budget does nothing for them. This is not wellbeing; it’s a joke.

I move, That the question be now put.

This is my first opportunity to speak on this particular bill. I have to say that I wasn’t part of a select committee on social development or social welfare in the past, and this is subject matter that I’m not very familiar with. But having actually sat in my office listening to the debate, it dawned on me that I had to come down and talk about this—talk about the issue that actually matters.

Thirteen thousand more people on welfare dependency is something that I baulk at—the very idea. When this Minister was introducing the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill, I’m just trying to find out—I’d like to put a question to the Minister first. How many men are not named by the women who are actually apparently disadvantaged by the previous Government by taking some of their benefits off them as a penalty for them not naming the men who are the fathers of these children, and how many more men will actually get away scot-free to be not responsible, not taking the responsibility for the children, after this bill is, in fact, passed?

I’d like to commend the speaker who just sat down. The Hon Amy Adams made very, very clear mention of the fact that the earlier speaker from the Green Party talked about how some women are disadvantaged, whether they cannot name the fathers or they don’t know who the father is, but those people are carved out, so they’re not part of this debate. We are specifically talking about women who choose not to name the father who can be named.

These are men who want to get off scot-free by not supporting their child. And I know a few of those. I’m a single mother. I’m not suggesting my child’s father is one of those, but I have many friends who have been single parents who have been in difficult times. I’m not one of those people who actually depended on the benefit, but I do know many. I also know somebody who was born in Korea, who never knew her parents, who actually ended up being adopted and now lives in Sweden. She actually became the first Korean-born member of Parliament to become an EU member of Parliament. And when she could not find out who her parents were, I saw how difficult it was for her.

For me, the right of the child who does not know their father, knowing that their father never actually paid towards their welfare, and the very fact that the Government cannot actually collect child support payments from the father, who should rightly pay towards their child, their responsibility—I think this Government is going down the wrong path, making sure that men who do not want to take responsibility and the women who actually aid those men in their irresponsibility should take responsibility, in my opinion.

As far as I’m concerned, I would like to ask, as I said to the Minister, how many more men will actually get off scot-free? Have the calculations been done? Did she ask the officials to do the numbers as to how much this will cost the taxpayers? How many more men and women will actually abscond from their responsibility, as the Hon Amy Adams said? In order for us to make sure that children are not living in poverty—as the Minister actually tried to say that this bill tries to do that, get them out of poverty. If that is so, what does this actually do to that state of affairs, giving them—I don’t know—$6 extra a week? Does that actually lift them out of poverty? Does that actually lift them out of poverty by giving them $22 extra, when this Government is taking away so much more in other taxes that they are introducing in this urgency motion?

I believe that this bill goes so far away from what the Government suggests that they are trying to do: lift people out of poverty. I think this is the very difference between this Government and the potential Government that is waiting—the National Government—that we do not agree with this move, and I think this is very, very flawed and I do not support this bill.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I raised a point of order half an hour ago about the two documents that were to be tabled. Only one of them has been tabled, and I would like to know when the second one will be tabled.

Speaking to the point of order, there was only one report. I think that the member’s confused because I said that in the executive summary of the report I was speaking to, it refers to the advice that the former Minister received. So it’s one report, but advice to us as well as advice to the former Minister. Can I also state, given it was online, I actually didn’t have to table it but I did it to be polite.

I appreciate, you know, this is more important because it is urgency and no one else gets the scrutiny of it.

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

So the Minister was talking about and referring to quoting from two official documents, at length, in attempting to answer questions that we had asked about numbers and referred on multiple occasions to the briefing to Anne Tolley, and so that’s why she offered, actually, to table the two documents, and we are waiting still for one of them.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The Minister has said that it was just one document she was referring to and she’s just shown me the section that she was referring to in the executive summary.

I realise that, but there were two documents.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Does the member know what the two documents were? If the Minister is saying there is one, what is the other document that the member is seeking? What is the other document you’re seeking?

The advice to Minister Tolley in 2017.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Was that what the Minister said that she was tabling?

Yes.

Speaking to the point of order—

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Well, just table it.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): It’s a point of order; it will be taken in silence.

This is the document, and what I referred to was that within this document, in the executive summary, there is a statement—that I’ve actually highlighted in that member’s version I tabled, as well—that says in mid-2017 the then Minister for Social Development instructed the Ministry of Social Development to undertake research on the section. This request followed policy advice that she received, and it’s in there. Thank you very much.

That is the end of the matter; the document has been tabled. That is the end of the matter. I call the Hon—[Interruption]. Can we just stop it now, please. I don’t want the member to be walking around the Chamber back-chatting. That is not appropriate and it will lead the Chamber into disorder. The member knows better than to walk around the Chamber interjecting.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: It’d be good to answer the question, Carmel.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: What for?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Because you are back-chatting the Chair and behaving in a disorderly—[Interruption]—and you’re doing it right now. I’m standing on my feet. When I’m on my feet, you will be silent. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: I apologise to the Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): And withdraw?

💬 Hon Louise Upston: I withdraw and apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you. I call the Hon Carmel Sepuloni.

There were questions put to me by the last speaker—[Interruption]—and that was the honourable member—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! The Minister is attempting to answer questions. It would be courteous if members of the House listened. They have asked questions. I would suggest you would give the Minister a chance to answer those questions. I have made this ruling yesterday in another committee of the whole House. I’m being consistent in this matter. I call the Hon Carmel Sepuloni.

So the question that was put to me by the member Melissa Lee was with respect to the number of parents sanctioned, the children affected, and the amount of money to be gained, or, at least, that was mentioned. So the information that I have from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) is that the most recent statistics were 12,000 parents sanctioned, 24,000 children affected in total, and that the reduction was actually applied to 15,000 children; so 25,000 children, in total, living in those households. So not all of the children living in those households had a deduction applied to them, but they were living in a household where the deduction was made. Despite the fact that it said that we know that the deduction is, for one child, $22, actually, the average for those households, in terms of the deduction, is $34, which means that once we repeal this section, then those households will be better off by $34 per week.

It’s been raised on numerous occasions that this is not fair. With respect to the absent parent—the parent that doesn’t have the day-to-day care, that is not named to MSD—can I just state that we have said, over and over again, on this side of the House, it is our belief, it is based on evidence, that actually it should not be those women and the children in their households that are held to account for an absent parent.

Also, the information that I’ve been given, with regards to the exemption criteria that was in place, was that many women didn’t actually feel comfortable disclosing to their MSD case manager that the reason they were choosing not to name the other parent was because of family violence situations and fear for their safety, because of potential sexual assault or rape, or, in some cases, incest. So sometimes the exemption wasn’t applied, because it just was not the type of conversation they wanted to have in the middle of a Work and Income office. Also, we have heard horrendous stories over the years of where the sanction was inappropriately or wrongfully applied, including where women were told they actually had to go and get a lawyer to sign a letter backing up their claim with respect to either not knowing the father at all or the family violence, rape, or incest situation. That was unlawful, but the practice has actually resulted in situations that have not been conducive to supporting those women or their children. Hence why, again, we’re doing what we are doing.

But going back to the report that I tabled in the House, the evidence is not there to support that in the first place, it even incentivised the absent parent to pay the child support anyway. So as has been mentioned on numerous occasions, we are not going to support a policy that doesn’t have an evidence base. Some of the ideological rhetoric coming from the Opposition is very, very predictable, and I guess it’s to be expected in this debate.

Just to respond to a few more of the Supplementary Order Paper’s (SOPs), I’ve responded to a number of them, so a few more that are in front of me—one has been put forward with regards to our obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) and wanting us to review it, with the inference being that we are not responding appropriately to it as a country. Can I just say that it is consistent with the UNCROC obligation, and this is considered as part of the development of the legislation. That is the official advice that we were given, so we can clear that one up. I also got an SOP from the member Agnes Loheni with regards to wanting us to insert a new social obligation into the Act that would reintroduce the same obligation that is currently being repealed. We won’t be doing that because that will contradict absolutely everything that we’re standing here to talk about with regards to section 192.

Then there also is an SOP that’s a little bit left-field from Simon O’Connor with regards to an issue that isn’t being traversed in this package at all, but I will speak to it out of courtesy. He has asked that we insert a new clause 7A—insert new section 83A “Child disability allowance payable overseas to members of Defence Force”. That is actually not in line with any of the matters that we are discussing today. I would like to propose that if he sees a need in that area, perhaps he finds another avenue for actually pursuing that. I don’t believe something that is so far removed from what we’re discussing here in the House needs to be entertained in any way at all. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to speak primarily to the indexation aspect, in this speech, though I will address one other aspect in relation to section 192 and this idea that there is no incentive for mothers to name the father if we remove the sanction. It assumes that those women see themselves receiving income support for the entire lives of their children, that they never imagine anything more for themselves; that they might be employed and receiving that child support themselves in their future. I think that sums up a particular view that that side of the House has that is not shared on this side.

I would like to reference some of the comments that were made by the member the Hon Amy Adams in challenging this Government around poverty and the housing crisis, and saying how their solution had been tax cuts and it would have been much better. That was the fact that we have deeply entrenched child poverty after nine years of that Government and that we have, absolutely, a housing crisis that somehow is now acknowledged but wasn’t under their “leadership”—and I use that word lightly—and that this Government has had 18 months, and, with the Families Package from the last Budget, really, we’re only just starting to see that have an impact now. So I say: just give us a bit more time.

I would also just say that when they say that the answer was tax cuts—really, when we’re seeing the schools without enough classrooms, when we’re seeing hospitals with mould coming down the walls—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): We are straying a little bit from the—

This is to the point that was raised by the member, and about income adequacy and the solutions, and the importance of indexation.

We know cutting taxes gives us less money as a country to deal with building those classrooms and addressing the healthcare system. So tax cuts are not the answer to poverty; it actually is a removal of resource for us to be able to deal with our collective challenges. I do want to say, though, that the Greens are supportive of this bill because it really does move us forward, but we are a bit disappointed that there isn’t an increase to base benefits. We would have liked to have seen that.

The indexation—it is a point that it will be $10 to $17 a week over the Consumers Price Index adjustment by 2023. We do support the view of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group that the need is urgent and that poverty, its impact, is really profound. When I see members of the Opposition nodding to that, it just makes me deeply uncomfortable, because we had these conversations so many times in Opposition and all we got was just denial, and the message that I continue to hear: that work is the solution—completely ignoring the fact that there are people who are locked out of the employment market by virtue of disability, by virtue of the needs of their children who need them to be at home parenting, by virtue of health concerns like cancer. I know the Minister in the chair was a champion in Opposition for those changes, so it does not sit well to hear those arguments being made so lightly now where they have no ability to deliver on those changes.

The Greens are committed to getting that increase to base benefits because we know the cost of poverty is deeply profound; it impacts on people’s health, their wellbeing, their ability to participate, and their entire life opportunities. When we talk about addressing core wellbeing, for us, we know all of the evidence points to income adequacy being a central part of driving poor mental health and negative outcomes. We are working constructively to move that along and look forward to the next step in that work.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Excellent choice—I’ve been up and down countless times in the last hour and a half trying to get a call. I wanted to just pick up on a point made by Jan Logie, which is a very unusual thing for me to do, but she made the point that the Minister in the chair was a tireless champion on wanting to raise benefits in Opposition and, no doubt, she was a tireless champion for our $25 a week increase in benefits back in 2015. [Interruption] Oh, she didn’t vote for it? Well, that is a surprise. I would like the Minister—could she confirm that she didn’t vote for that $25? Firstly, that’s the question I’d like to have answered.

I note that in the departmental disclosure statement it says that the Cabinet legislation committee received advice and that those papers were going to be public within 30 days. I can’t find them on the website. And, as you know, we are quite good at that. Perhaps Gabriel Makhlouf might go and sort your website out so we can find it! That would be helpful. We’re in urgency here, we are judging a piece of legislation that’s not going through a select committee, we’re in the committee of the whole House, and I think it’s incumbent on the Minister to make those papers available. We should be able to understand what advice was given to the Cabinet legislation committee.

Further, I note, on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, that there was a report provided to the Attorney-General—a section 7 report—but I’ve checked on the justice website and I can’t find that. Clearly, there was something that was raised in that section 7 report, and it’s not available. Yet we are here in urgency putting a piece of legislation through. We know that we get problems with legislation anyway. Select committees are a great safety measure to ensure that those problems are identified early. Why can’t we read those pieces of advice that have gone to Cabinet and gone to the Attorney-General? I think this is pretty serious, quite frankly—it’s very serious. This is about good legislation. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is a fundamental plank to measure our legislation, and that’s why these section 7 reports are so important. Clearly, there is a right being trampled over that is supposed to be inalienable under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and yet we don’t have that advice to make a judgment on. I feel deeply uncomfortable with that. So the Minister in the chair, I’m calling on her to tell us what that advice is and to table it. She has the opportunity to do that. She was quite, I thought—well, she didn’t put it very well when she tabled the document that the Hon Louise Upston forced her into doing, and I think if she wants to be generous, she should get these documents out here so that the country can be comfortable that Cabinet made a decision based on sound advice, and that the Attorney-General’s advice hasn’t got something in there that we should all be deeply worried about.

Also, one other question that I think is quite relevant: the $11 that’s been mentioned with the indexing to the average wage. Has that been worked out? We see that as a difference between $11 and $25, which was under us. That nominal difference looks not too bad—it’s bad enough but certainly not as generous as the National Government was—but, actually, inflation has happened in those four years. So that wouldn’t be $25 in today’s dollars; it would be something like $26 or more. I haven’t done the numbers, but I would be certain that the Minister would have received advice on that and the comparison between the $25 uplift in the average baseline benefits versus the $11 by 2023 for indexing. I’d like to know what that number is. What is that number? And what would have been the fiscal cost of making that $25—giving it a bump up for those beneficiaries, if they really believe they need more money? And that’s what they said. What was the cost? You must have got advice on that. You don’t just come in here and make rash statements without advice.

I’m just trying to work through some of the comments that were made by the speaker who has just sat down, Stuart Smith, with regards to what he’s seeking. If he is seeking the Cabinet paper with regards to our response to the Welfare Expert Advisory Group, that is online. That has been online for quite some time. I’ve got the website here. I can even get him a copy of the paper if he’d like it.

With respect to Budget-related advice, that is released by Treasury, and so that is not a Ministry of Social Development (MSD) release of information. And we’ve only just announced the Budget.

Can I speak to an amendment that I have been given, and that is from the member Maureen Pugh. I’ll speak to this amendment. It is another one that we won’t want to support, because it actually duplicates an existing obligation. The member has asked us to require beneficiaries to disclose to MSD any arrangement where they are receiving financial support from the child’s relations. There’s actually an obligation already to declare if they are receiving financial support from another source, so we won’t be implementing that one.

I have to say, I’m struck by a sense of déjà vu as we debate Minister Sepuloni’s bill under urgency, because, of course, we’ve done this before. I remember the social security bill that the Minister chose to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to very late in the piece—only 24 hours before the second reading.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): We aren’t talking about that bill.

We are.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): We are not.

And what happened in that case, Madam Chair, and the reason it’s relevant to this, is that there were errors, and what had to happen was that another bill had to be brought through this House to repair—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Not this bill. Come back to this bill.

So my question for the Minister, in relation to this bill, is: why is it necessary for this bill to be passed under urgency? I ask that question because, to my read—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I think that question has been asked before and answered.

To my read, none of the measures within this bill need to start until 2020. So it does seem quite extraordinary to me, and I think it is worth asking whether the Minister can guarantee that there won’t be drafting errors in this legislation, given the rushed process that it is under.

I also want to talk about the substance of this bill because, of course, what it does is it repeals sections 192 to 194 the Social Security Act and makes changes to the Child Support Act. I wonder if the Minister would, for this House, respond to the comments made by a former Labour Party Minister for Social Development, one Steve Maharey, who said, “It is right, and I’ve said time and time again in this Parliament, that fathers must front up to their obligations, and we will make sure they do.” He said, “It is not unreasonable to expect that single parents bringing up children on their own identify who in the 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 don’t.” I want to know what it is that’s changed so much in the Labour Party that Minister Maharey was able to stand up and make those values statements about the way we see fathers, the obligations they have to their children, the obligations they have to financially support them, and what has changed that the Labour Party of today thinks that, actually, those obligations more rightly fall on the State rather than on fathers? That is my question to the Minister.

Of course, it is right—and National has argued throughout these committee stages—that taxpayers do assume some responsibility. Of course the State should step in to financially support families when they are unable to support themselves, but, in doing so, the Government should expect the other parent to contribute to the cost of raising their child. In fact, what is unreasonable is a parent not providing anything towards the cost of his or her child. That is what is unreasonable, and so my third question to the Minister is: what is her estimate of how many fewer fathers will pay child support for their children as a consequence of this bill?

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: We’ve done this.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: We didn’t get an answer.

And we have not had that question answered, because it is very important, and has the Minister analysed in any way how this will affect incentives for fathers to pay child support? What we have seen in the past is that when there aren’t penalties in this area, we can expect that fewer people will feel the obligation to pay child support for their children, and we on this side of the House believe that is wrong.

I also, in examining this bill, have had these examples talked about in the House, which, I think it’s worth pointing out, the law as it currently stands unamended already provides for. We’ve had the examples of people in situations of domestic violence, in situations where, for very good reason, they don’t want to name the father of their child, and what we have always had is exceptions and clauses in the law that allow for those people to not name the father due to their exceptional circumstances. So, again, I ask the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni: what is the increase that we can expect, and given that people were already able to have these exceptional circumstances clauses, who are the additional people that will be excluded under this bill?

Finally, I just want to raise the issue of vulnerability, because, of course, we can anticipate that some women are in relationships where they will be vulnerable and where they may choose not to name the father because they have an under-the-table arrangement where he says “I’ll pay you a hundred bucks each week”, and then one week he doesn’t, and the next week he doesn’t. What response would they have with these changes having been made? There are good reasons to name fathers in the law and to require them to pay child support. The National Party opposes this bill because we think it gets those responsibilities all wrong.

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that the Hon Alfred Ngaro’s amendment to insert new clause 6A to require MSD—

💬 Hon Alfred Ngaro: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I’m in the middle of taking the vote—I am in the middle of taking the vote.

💬 Hon Alfred Ngaro: It is relevant to this—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I am in the middle of—yeah, thank you.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 243 in the name of the Hon Alfred Ngaro be agreed to.