Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: I present a legislative statement on the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill.

The Government has committed to overhaul the welfare system following years of neglect by the previous National Government. Our vision is for a welfare system that ensures that people have an adequate income and standard of living, are treated with and can live with dignity, and are able to participate meaningfully in their communities. In November 2019, Cabinet endorsed a long-term welfare overhaul work programme to build towards that vision. As part of this work programme, we continue to explore the removal of ineffective obligations and sanctions, as recommended by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group. The short-term focus of that work is on the sanctions that impact children, their families, and whānau.

Initial progress on this review of obligations and sanctions included the repeal in April 2020 of section 192 of the Social Security Act 2018, which previously sanctioned sole parent beneficiaries who did not identify the other parent of their child. The Government has also made progress in other areas of the welfare overhaul, such as the introduction of the Families Package in 2018; a permanent $25 increase to main benefits in April 2020; the indexation of main benefits to increases in average wages from April 2020; an increase to abatement thresholds for main benefits in line with minimum wage increases in April 2020, with further increases announced in February 2021; and a range of other initiatives, including those implemented as part of the Government’s response to COVID19.

We’re taking further steps to put children first by removing the subsequent child policy from the Social Security Act 2018. The subsequent child policy was introduced in 2012. It currently impacts eligibility for sole parent support, as opposed to jobseeker support, and places obligations on parents to return to work earlier if they have an additional dependent child while receiving a main benefit. If a person has a subsequent child while receiving a main benefit, that child is only considered when setting work obligations until they reach the age of one. Work obligations are then based on the age of the person’s youngest non-subsequent dependent child. In effect, after the subsequent child turns one, that child is ignored for the purposes of setting work obligations and eligibility for sole parent support.

The policy’s primary focus was on requiring parents to return to work as early as possible after having a subsequent child. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the policy has reduced time on benefit or improved financial or social outcomes. In fact, it disproportionately impacts Māori and women, has contributed to increasing complexity in the welfare system, and has reduced flexibility for parents to spend time with their child or children. The Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommended the removal of the subsequent child policy. It noted the policy is an aspect of the system that does not support women’s roles as carers. In our manifesto, the Government committed to removing the subsequent child policy in 2021. In July 2020, Cabinet agreed to the policy’s removal and the Government publicly announced this decision.

Approximately 9,000 people and their families will be impacted by the policy’s removal. For these people, the removal of the policy means increased flexibility to spend time with their children in the first thousand days of their lives, which is a critical time period for a child’s long-term development. It also means increased equity and simplicity in the welfare system, a reduction in stress and a positive impact on mental health and wellbeing, and eligibility for additional financial assistance for some clients. For those parents who do want to work earlier, they will still have access to employment support and be supported to transition into the workforce.

The Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill contains two parts. Part 1 will amend the Social Security Act and Social Security Regulations to remove provisions relating to the policy and to make related consequential amendments. It comes into force on 8 November 2021. Part 2 sets out transitional provisions related to the removal of the policy, and it comes into force on 11 October 2021. This will allow for a 28-day transition period prior to the policy’s removal, and the transition period will also extend 28 days after the policy’s removal to ensure equitable access and equitable treatment across a range of timings. These transitional provisions allow the Ministry of Social Development to treat new applications or clients with a change in circumstances consistently with the removal of the policy to avoid multiple changes to their entitlements over a short period of time. This will improve the client’s experience for those affected by reducing complexity for affected clients and will ensure that the treatment of specified client scenarios in the transition period aligns with the policy intent of the initiative.

The changes in this bill reflect the Government’s commitment to supporting the wellbeing of New Zealanders and enabling everyone who is able to to be earning, learning, caring, or volunteering. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a bit of a pity to be standing in this House with the Government unwinding what was an important part of the changes that were made to the welfare system in the fifth National Government. I want to just explain a little bit about why that change occurred, because you wouldn’t have heard it from the Minister who’s just resumed her seat.

The subsequent child policy in 2012 was about reducing long-term welfare dependency, and the important part was to align the expectations of those on main benefits and those in paid employment. Currently, if you are in employment and have a child, then you’ll get paid parental leave for 26 weeks and you’ll get parental leave for a total of 12 months, so the removal of the subsequent child policy was about actually aligning it to someone who was on benefit and in work. I’m somewhat puzzled as to why the Government thinks there should be a playing field that’s not level—so, basically, putting more emphasis on a person receiving benefits, and they have different choices available to them than the person who’s in paid employment.

Look, for any parent, juggling parenthood and work is incredibly difficult. Transitioning from being a sole parent on a benefit into work is bloody difficult, and I know I’m not the only member of this House who’s been through that. But the core of this issue is about the wellbeing of children over the long term. So when you introduce a policy, the question always has to be: what problem is this policy attempting to solve but also what problem will this policy create?

I think that it’s a sad day in this House, because the impacts of long-term welfare dependency, particularly on children, are harsh. Of the children, and there are thousands of them in New Zealand who live in material hardship, 60 percent of them are in benefit-dependent homes, so to put measures in place that keep their parents, keep their families, dependent on benefits is just plain wrong. It is totally and absolutely wrong to remove the expectation, to remove the aspiration, of that family being a working family, and keeping them as a benefit-dependent family is plainly and simply wrong.

If you look at any of the evidence about the impact of welfare dependency—and I’m pleased that the members opposite are hanging their heads in shame, because they know what this does. I want to give you some quotes about long-term benefit dependency, because that’s exactly what this does. The general expectation to be looking for work in the benefit system makes an important difference to how long someone stays on a benefit. We already know the evidence says if you go on to benefit under the age of 20, your lifetime on benefit is likely to be 14 years. Unfortunately, what we’ve seen in the last 12 months, with an increase in nearly 80,000 people going on to the job seeker benefit, is that many of them have been there for 12 months already.

This is a quote from the work that was done in 2011 by the Welfare Working Group, Reducing Long-Term Benefit Dependency: “There is a growing consensus that joblessness is particularly harmful to mental and physical health. There is increasing evidence that long-term benefit receipt has harmful effects on confidence, skills and future employability.” But this is the one I would like the Government members to listen to: “For parents with dependent children, long-term benefit receipt is strongly associated with poor results for children. Children raised in long-term benefit dependent families are likely to suffer adverse health effects, poorer educational achievement and reduced aspirations.”

That’s what the Government is doing with this bill. They are destining the next generation of children, instead of them being with an expectation or an aspiration of being in work with higher incomes and greater opportunities, with three times as much income coming into a household if you’re in work—three times as much. But, no, the Government would rather keep those families down and the children of those families locked into long-term poverty and reducing their opportunities. I think that’s just entirely wrong.

But what I also suspect it is signalling is a significant change in how Labour sees the welfare system, because the current principles of the Social Security Act—and I want to just put them on record for the House, because I think it’s very relevant to this bill. The Social Security Act principles currently are that “work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being:”. This Government wants to talk about being the Government of wellbeing. Well, that says it right there: work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic wellbeing.

The priority for people of working age should be to find and retain work. So I fully accept for a household where there are already children—this bill is about the subsequent child and obligations that should be in place when that child turns one, which is no different from any other working family up and down this country when their parent gets 12 months’ parental leave. But, no, the Government wants to tip the balance the other way and potentially trap that family in long-term benefit dependency, which is a lousy future for that child.

These are the principles of the Social Security Act. I think what we are seeing is the signal with this removal that just seems to be very arbitrary.

Here’s another one that talks about the outcomes for children: “One in five children spend at least seven years of their childhood up to the age of 14 in households that rely on benefit income.” As I said, if someone is in work, they’ll be earning three times—it might be more than that now—what they’d be getting in a benefit. So how is that better for children? How is that better? No, no answer. No answer from the other side.

At the end of the day, a family will be worse off on a benefit than they are in a household that is working for that child’s benefit, for the family’s benefit, and for their future prospects, and if there is anyone watching this debate who says “Oh, this is an opportunity to bash beneficiaries.”, it is not—it is not. I’ve been there. Don’t grin at me from the other side. It is bloody hard to pick yourself up with a young baby and get back into work. It is incredibly difficult, but the opportunities afforded from the families who work through that, the opportunities for them and their children are far greater.

That is what the National Party holds dear to—the aspirations and future for every child in this country—and the Labour Party, by repealing this provision for subsequent children, is destining more Kiwi kids to a life of poverty, a life of hardship, fewer educational achievements, and poorer health and social outcomes. How is that the big Labour Party dream of child wellbeing? It is totally and absolutely not, and that’s why it’s just devastating to stand and speak in this House for a massive step backwards for some of the most vulnerable children in New Zealand for whom, for a period of time, their parent or parents aren’t able to create an income. Instead, they chop it off at the knees, provide fewer opportunities for that family to be in work, fewer obligations, fewer expectations, and, unfortunately, lower aspirations—welcome to the Labour Party.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is actually a real pleasure to stand and speak on this bill. I want to acknowledge and congratulate Carmel Sepuloni for bringing this bill to the House. It is one of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report recommendations, and it’s something that my party has very, very clearly said in our manifesto that we will do. I am very proud that we are doing this tonight. We have heard from the Hon Louise Upston, the previous speaker, that the removal of the subsequent child policy will force children into poverty and take away the aspirations of families. Well, hang on a minute, what does this bill actually do, as opposed to the dramatics that we heard across the floor?

This bill is not about taking the aspirations of families away. This bill is recognising that if a subsequent child is born, at year one, once that child hits the age of one, then mum—we’ll say “mum” in this instance because it generally is mum—is required to ignore the fact that they have had that child and to have full work-ready requirements. Irrespective of what happens in that household, irrespective of how many other children there are, irrespective of the circumstances of that particular family, the subsequent child policy says, very clearly, “You have to go out to work.”

Now, I have been a single mother, as has the Hon Louise Upston. Both of us, I believe, only had the one child, and we know how hard it is to be single mums. I was on the DPB and then a working mum. Now, my aspirations never disappeared, ever, and the aspirations of people never disappear just simply because there is a punitive process in place. It just doesn’t work.

The Opposition tell us that they care so much about the first 1,000 days of a child’s life. They tell us this constantly, and they constantly say to us that the first 1,000 days—which is the first 24 months—is so very important. Well, whose children are they talking about when they talk about the first thousand days? We want all our children to have the choices, and we want the parents to have the choices. If it is best to stay at home and look after your baby and you’re a single mum, then that is what you will be able to do under this piece of legislation.

Why is that important? It’s because our children deserve the best, and what’s best for our children is not the State saying, “Get off your butt and get out to work, regardless of whether you can afford child support, childcare, or any of those things.”; it’s actually about whether you as a parent can manage to work when you have another child. That is it, quite simply.

What we know is that the first thousand days are very important. This removal aligns that child policy really well so that we enable families. If they want and if they’re able, and if they’re able to manage it, they can go out to work. They do not have a punitive response at that point. They do not have difficulties with achieving and keeping a benefit.

Let’s just talk about what actually happens at the moment—how the law actually works. I’m just going to step through a scenario. Mum has one child and receives a sole parent benefit currently. Mum has the following work obligations, currently, at this point. She has the work preparation obligations of the first child if the child is under three, she is at home, is caring, but is doing work prep—OK? So that’s the first step. The second step: part-time work obligations if the child is aged three and above to 14 years, and then, after 14 years, full-time work obligations if the child is 14 years or over—OK? So that’s what’s in place at the moment.

Now, if mum has a second child—or a subsequent child, as we call it—once that child turns one, then they have to go to step three: full-time work obligations. That’s how it works, and that does not take into account anything to do with the family circumstances or what’s best for the children or for the children of that family, so you might as well say that the second child doesn’t count as a child for the purposes.

We’re not removing the aspirations of these women and these parents—we’re not doing that. We’re not taking anything away. We’re actually enabling people to make choices for themselves and to support their families. They have the option—the option—to go to work if that suits their family circumstances, and, believe you me, that will suit many women’s circumstances, but some it will not. Removing something that is standardised is the best way forward.

This bill has two parts to it, and they’re coming in on two different dates: 8 November and 11 October 2021. So we’ve got two parts. We’re going to be in a hurry to get this legislation managed and through the House to ensure that this is in place to support our families, and it’s really important we do this because the transition period—sorry, I’m getting a little bit ahead of myself; spitting a little bit I think, sorry. It’s really important we do this so that the transition period—sorry—

💬 Hon Member: Say it; don’t spray it.

I won’t spray it. The transition period very clearly enables our families to know where they sit. If we don’t run the transition processes through, what will happen is that people will get notice upon notice upon notice from Work and Income, and the difficulty with that really means that families won’t know where they stand exactly. So the transition period comes in on 11 October, and that will support our families to understand where their obligations are.

This is a rather small piece of legislation in terms of what it actually purports to do—or, rather, the bill is rather small. But the changes that it brings in place are really about supporting and valuing our families as parents, and it also supports us meeting some of the needs of our most vulnerable families.

I guess, if you could imagine the situation where you are on a sole parent benefit, you’re not necessarily having the support of a wider family or whānau, you’re not necessarily having a good social structure around you, and then you have a second child—and don’t even get me started on contraception in this country and the rights of our mums to carry children or not—and somehow you are punished for that. You’re not supposed to be able to have another child while you are a beneficiary, apparently, and you’re required to go out to work after one year. That, to me, smacks of beneficiary bashing, and I will say that—I will say that. It does not enable anyone to do better by forcing a person to go out and do that work, particularly if you are a single parent, you are on a sole benefit, and you are lacking in resources.

One of the things that I’m delighted about is that we are removing the subsequent child proportion, but the other part that we are doing is putting in place the training incentive allowance again to support mammas into work. Thank you.

Thank you Madam Speaker. It’s a real tragedy that we are even standing here tonight talking to the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill in its first reading. We’ve heard a lot of commentary from the Government side of the House tonight about how kind this is to people on benefits because it takes away the subsequent child policy that’s been in place for quite a few years, but I think it’s worth noting the reason that that was in place.

The subsequent child policy was around employment support that was provided by the Ministry of Social Development earlier in a parent’s time, or lifetime, because we recognised the disadvantage in long-term benefit dependency. In fact, the member Angie Warren-Clark, who has just resumed her seat, mentioned training incentives, but that was the whole point of having this subsequent child policy introduced. It was because it incentivised people on a benefit on get retrained and to re-enter the workforce. It doesn’t matter what research you look at, families that are trapped in benefit dependency have much poorer outcomes in the long term, and my colleague Louise Upston mentioned a few of those earlier.

The research and the facts do not lie. In fact, I will quote from the OECD, actually. They wrote that paid work is the most effective way of reducing the risk of family poverty, enhancing child development, and generally giving children the best start in life. It sets an example. It sets a routine. It sets up an obligation on parents to get up in the morning, to get their kids up in the morning. It teaches them about the responsibilities you have in going to work and earning for your family. In fact, in 2010, the Welfare Working Group actually highlighted a few things that we should be turning our minds to.

There is powerful evidence out of that working group document to suggest that long periods spent on a benefit and hence a low income is associated with a range of adverse social and economic outcomes, especially for young adults and children. These adverse outcomes may be transmitted across generations and become entrenched in communities. The most effective thing that Governments can do is to break that cycle and give people back their independence. While they are dependent on the State for their income, for their livelihood, they have lost their independence. Empowering people to be independent is a far better investment than reducing some of these benefit support systems that we’re talking about tonight.

I was pleased to hear some of the members mention the first thousand days—lovely to see the Labour Party picking up some of the language from National Party policies. The first thousand days, of course, is the most important part of a child’s life from conception, the only time in a human’s life when we get the chance to build a brain. So supporting people through those first thousand days—mums and their babies and their dads and their siblings—is crucially important. It doesn’t mean that you do not have to go to work. It does mean that you get supported at home. But it’s lovely to see that policy spreading out across this House.

But what we don’t see with this subsequent child policy being removed is what is replacing it. What is the plan going forward that is going to give these families the key to escaping their long-term benefit dependency? There is nothing in this—all it does is take something away, and it gives nothing back. It has no alternatives for the people who are affected by it.

The Government would be far better off if they focused their attention on creating jobs and supporting businesses so they can grow and employ more people, and in that way, we’ve actually got somewhere for single parents to be able to go, or families that are dependent on the State. Give them work to go to. Give them back their pride and independence. We don’t need them to be totally reliant on the State for every dollar they are spending.

There is no way this country can afford to keep bashing business and supporting the social sector, because we are going down the gurgler quite quickly, and you will see that in the fiscal reports. But supporting the creation of jobs is probably the most effective way of empowering people and giving them back their independence. We heard that this is only a small piece of legislation, and it’s granted that, yes, it is only a small piece of legislation, but actually it’s a giant leap backwards for a lot of people that have no prospect of breaking out of that cycle, and there is no support indicated in any of this.

I take note of a comment that was also made about benefit bashing. Benefit bashing is something that that side of the House likes to talk about. We like to talk about empowering people. But I recall—and this is what brings it home to me—having a heartbreaking conversation with a group of teens who were still at school. They were part of a youth council. I was asking about one or two of them who were missing from previous meetings that we’d had. Their ambition was to go off and get on a benefit so that they didn’t have to go to school. Their solution to doing that was to get themselves pregnant. I couldn’t believe that this was a deliberate, conscious decision—that they would go out and do that. There is something gravely wrong with a system that does not have ambition for its young people. You take away their ambition and you’ve taken away their hope.

This is another giant leap backwards for this country. I feel for the people who are entrapped by it, and I feel that one day we will wake up and see that we have made some terrible decisions in this House. I am grateful that we will have on record our opposition to this stupid type of legislation that is going through. It’s a giant step backwards. We will not be supporting it.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill. I just have to say, as someone who has been in the community sector my whole adult life, who’s lived a life walking alongside people who are struggling, I’m here to rise and support this and also the Hon Carmel Sepuloni in the work that she is doing around welfare reform. Now, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni comes from a part of my electorate. She comes from Waitara, was raised there, and I know that she’s committed to our welfare system—not making it a handout, but ensuring that it is a hand up for people, which I haven’t heard much about from the other side of the House tonight.

But I really want to spend a little bit of time and bring up three points tonight around this piece of legislation. Firstly, yes, National, the first thousand days—I don’t think you invented them, but that’s OK. They’ve been around for a long time, but we appreciate that you’re at the table now. You’ve come to the party.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member will keep the Speaker out of the debate.

Apologies. Secondly, I want to talk about the possibilities, not the problems, and how the policy enables people, and, thirdly, I want to speak about my own experience and what I’ve seen in the communities where I have spent many of my years living, working, serving, and understanding what goes on.

So this first thousand days: being a mere male, it took me a little bit of time to discover that, actually, it was from conception, not birth, because, obviously, there’s so much involved in that process. I know speakers have already mentioned it from both sides of the House tonight, but these first thousand days are around loving relationships formed around healthy foods—kai, fluids, etc.—and safe and secure spaces for them. It’s also about playtime. A huge part of the first thousand days is playtime, and, of course, then there’s the healthy environment. All of these things are around individuals, around parents or a parent holding that space, holding that loving relationship, providing—even on a mere struggle of a Work and Income benefit—healthy, decent food, and safety and security that that parent is responsible for, which obviously is also around housing; and also that playtime and the environment that that child lives their first thousand days in.

Now, this needs to be done by someone who has time and availability for their child, and hence here is why I support—

💬 Simon Court: Where’s the father?

—this piece of work. Well, I didn’t say if it was the mother or the father, so we don’t know, and we don’t assume. For myself, I don’t, and hopefully you don’t assume, either, who is raising that child, as long as those thousand days are loving and they are cared for.

Now, we look at this piece of legislation, and the policy currently impacts eligibility for sole parent support and places obligations on parents to search for and move into work earlier if they have an additional child while receiving a main benefit. Now, I’ve heard tonight conversations around removing the aspiration for a parent to get off a benefit, around people being disempowered by this piece of legislation, and, for me—as I mentioned earlier, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni—it’s all about the hand up: how we encourage people to value the time spent.

I want to come to the value of volunteering, the value of unpaid work. This can be in charity work; this can be sports clubs. In earlier speeches this evening, many of us talked about incorporated societies and talked about the value of volunteering and being members of different societies and groups, and this is the same for a sole parent. Where he or where she is committed to those first thousand days, they are committed to the whole life of that child and committed to the unpaid work of caring for their loved one. Of course, this turns it into a possibility and not a problem.

The value of unpaid work has been so undervalued and underpaid for so long, and this is when I come to the space of a mother, who often has been undervalued because of her role, and the most important role in the life of a child—and for those single fathers out there as well. I really believe it is. So we need to look at the possibilities, not the deficit model of “this is going to ruin things”, but, actually, the inspiration and aspiration for a solo parent to give back, to support their child, to support their community, to be on a school board of trustees, to be on the local playgroup or kindergarten association body—these are all part of it.

Now, the third thing I want to talk about is in my own community and what I’ve seen. For me, working and living in a State housing part of New Plymouth for many, many years, it was a daily occurrence to walk alongside people, alongside solo parents. For anyone who says they give up or for anyone who says that that solo parent absolutely and utterly chose to be pregnant and wanted to be there, wanted to just be on the benefit for the sake of it so they didn’t have to work, I haven’t seen that. I’ve never been a solo parent, but I have been a foster parent, and now I am a foster grandparent, and I’ve done nights—many a night having a young under-three-year-old, under-two-year-old, stay under my roof. I struggled, and it was not easy. So for anyone who says this is an easy option or that someone is being a solo parent just for the sake of it, just to get a bit of cash, I am offended by that, because that’s not what I see in my community. I see the young people that I’ve walked alongside who, through whatever circumstances, have had a child and are doing what they can to give their child the best start in life. So I support this piece of legislation.

I know of a young mum who runs a free op shop out of her carport in her home. She is on the solo parent benefit and, off the top of my head, I know she’s got one under two; her second may be just over two. But she’s chosen, as part of her service to her whānau, her service to her community, and her need because of her struggle, to establish this free op shop where people give her clothing, give her kitchenware, bric-a-brac, and small pieces of furniture, that she then cleans, sorts, and deals with and distributes amongst the community as a service, as a solo parent who is doing her best to empower her community, to build our society. I believe that she is doing far more than people, often, in this House do or talk about when it comes to the narrative and the rhetoric when it comes to pieces of legislation like this.

So, in closing, I just want to say that we as a Government, we as the Labour Party, want to enable individuals, families, and whānau to thrive. We want to recognise the value of unpaid work, and that includes caring and being caregivers. We as a society need to value this, need to own this, and need to support this piece of legislation.

I’m on the Social Services and Community Committee, and I look forward to the submissions. I look forward to hearing the stories from sole parents themselves, telling us about how they’re achieving—not that it’s a deficit model, but it’s an aspiration model for them to live their lives.

So, please, I’d like to say the first thousand days are so important—we all agree on that. Secondly, let’s look at this from a possibility perspective, not a problem perspective, and how this piece of legislation will impact in a positive way on our community. Finally, I’ve seen it, and I know many of us here—and if you haven’t experienced working and walking alongside whānau who may be sole parents, please find someone in your community to learn and listen from. But I support this piece of legislation, and I look forward to listening to the words in our select committee on it.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I’m rapt to stand in support of the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill. This is an overdue change overturning a cruel policy implemented by the previous National Government.

I want to start by acknowledging that our caregivers are precious. They nurture our future generations. They do important labour in our society that often goes unnoticed. It’s a full-time, often all-consuming gig. We should support it and treat it as such. Our parents and caregivers should be celebrated and supported, not punished.

I’m incredibly disappointed by the rhetoric that implies that parents and caregivers outside of paid employment are simply lying there doing nothing. They’re actually doing some of society’s most important work, and to imply otherwise does a disservice to the many people who have raised this. It’s a disservice to our ancestors as well. Perhaps in a colonised, Pākehā-framework state of mind, caregivers are not part of our community, but, rather, a burden to our welfare system. I disagree. So we’ll be rapt to support this bill into the first reading.

I also want to acknowledge this side of the House’s comments around the so-called negative effects of benefit dependency, because the only negative effects of being on the benefit come from benefits being too low to begin with. All the research tells us that incomes are one of the largest and most important determinants of health, and consecutive Governments who have kept benefits far too low have created the conditions for people on the benefit to struggle. It is not the caregiver’s fault, while they’re providing incredible labour to our society.

The history of this bill is rooted in racism and misogyny and assumes that people are simply having children to avoid doing labour. I would make the challenge to caregivers who are taking care of multiple children that it is hard, hard work. I had the small privilege of caring for my teenage brother for a year and a half, and that was exhausting on its own. I can only imagine what it must be like to raise multiple tamariki.

Despite the National Party quoting so-called research that shows the negative effects of long-term dependency, what the research tells us about work-test sanctions and sanctions overall in the welfare system is that they do not work. They do not work to support our whānau into employment. They do not support people into aspirational empowerment situations. We’ve got multiple research that supports this, including the Australian Journal of Social Issues, that found that work obligations do not support people into work. The Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD’s) own modelling has shown that there’s no evidence that the status quo is achieving desired outcomes to help people into employment.

In fact, if we go all the way back to 2017, when we had a National Party Minister for Social Development, the Hon Anne Tolley, their Parliament’s social policy evaluation and research unit found sole parents in particular found themselves back on a benefit within two years of being obligated to take up work because of this sanction. What this shows is that this policy is not rooted in evidence. It shows that it’s rooted in arbitrary prejudices about people on the benefit. It shows the disconnect from this House about the lived experience of people on the benefit, and it’s disappointing to hear people who have firsthand experience of being on low incomes talk about it in this way when the truth is that people on the benefit are struggling to make ends meet and doing more work than many of us in this House, I would reckon. It’s a shame that this House is being co-opted by a neo-liberal ideology that takes away people’s right to dignity and it takes away the dignity of caregiving itself.

I want to give a shout-out as well to all the people on the benefit who spoke out against this policy over the course of many years. In my time at Auckland Action Against Poverty before entering Parliament, I worked alongside people on the benefit to submit to the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s public meetings, and we heard very clearly from people on the benefit that these work-test obligations were not working. People on the benefit have been generous in sharing with us their lived experience about our broken welfare system and calling for changes themselves, and it’s overdue that we are discussing these changes just now. I’m excited to be on the Social Services and Community Committee with my colleagues on this side of the House, who I know will be listening with care and duty to the submitters in the weeks to come.

I want to also speak to the idea of work seminars and these work obligations that we place on people, because the reality, having worked at the front lines, is that they’re simply not fit for purpose. People on the ground have told me that they feel pressure to take up any job, no matter how unsuitable, out of fear of losing their benefit. Caregivers often are forced into work that provides irregular hours and often is far away from home. Caregivers tell us that they have to then fork out money for childcare, which results in their sometimes being worse off than when they were on a benefit. Work-test obligations simply make no sense when caregiving is, again, a full-time gig that should be treated as such.

We should be supporting our caregivers to nurture a future generation of people who are healthy and are thriving. People should be allowed to look for employment on their own terms. In fact, MSD’s own research also tells us that when supported living payment recipients who have no work obligations do find work, they actually stay at work for longer and they find work that pays better, because this set of people on the benefit who do not have these obligations can find people within their own terms, and that is what the Green Party wants for all people on the benefit.

We support this piece of legislation, but we recognise that the problem isn’t the subsequent child policy, but the idea of obligations and sanctions in the welfare system overall. All that we do with these punitive obligations, whether it’s removing 100 percent or 50 percent of people’s benefits, is put people into hardship. What removing people’s benefits does is create the conditions where children are missing out on food and people not being able to pay rent at a time when benefits are already acknowledged as being too low to survive.

The Green Party believes in having a welfare system that provides unconditional support, a welfare system that does not carry these punitive sanctions and obligations, and a welfare system that allows people to live with dignity. This piece of legislation is a small step in the right direction, but we’re very clear that we want to see not only all the Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommendations implemented as soon as possible but a guaranteed minimum income that ensures that caregivers are able to find work on their own terms and that we value the work that they provide for our society. I look forward to future sittings of this bill and our select committee process, and I hope to hear from people with the lived experiences, instead of a neo-liberal narrative that is not grounded in evidence. Kia ora.

Well, I’d just like to let you know I have had the lived experience of growing up in a benefit household and also a household where, when it first started, we were working, and I can tell you that being in a benefit-dependent household is not all it’s cracked up to be. I’m not saying single parents and people on a benefit are bad parents; I’m just saying it’s a lot harder on a benefit to raise a child. So when you’re having a child on a benefit, yes, it is hard. It is lower than the wage you get when you’re working, and it’s never going to be the same as a wage when you’re working.

We are living in a time now when child poverty is a major problem in this country. We have a Government talking about how we want to solve child poverty, and one of the biggest causes of child poverty is being born into it. So why are we focusing on making it a priority to create ways to keep people dependent on the State, instead of helping them gain their self-esteem, gain their sense of independence, and gain some skills to get out in the workforce?

It’s like it’s shameful to want to go out to work. It’s like you’re telling working parents they’re neglectful for going out to work because they’re missing out on their kids’ first thousand days. What’s the difference between a working parent and a parent on a benefit? Shouldn’t they both have the same chances to be with their children?

A working parent gets 12 months; a beneficiary parent gets 12 months with this—it brought it equal. When they first brought this in in 2012, they tried to make it so that the beneficiaries and the working parents had 12 months at home with their children. Working parents would love to stay home for three years, but sometimes they can’t, and they feel forced to go back to work. Are we now saying they shouldn’t go back to work? Are we saying that they should feel bad for going to work and leaving their children and not spending the first thousand days with their kids? And why should one have more than the other?

I think the balance of 12 months for beneficiaries and 12 months for working parents made it kind of fair, and I was glad that they still allowed for those 12 months. It’s not until they’re three years old they have to go look for part-time work obligations, and I know it’s tough at the moment with COVID. I know it’s really hard to go out there and find a job, and there are lots of parents going through that at the moment.

We must understand that the longer we are out of work, the harder it is to get back into the workforce. We feel like we don’t deserve to be back in the workforce. Our self-esteem gets lower and lower—and I’ve been there myself—and then it’s really hard to get yourself out of that funk. So part-time work obligations, I think, are a good stepping stone to get back out in the workforce, get your confidence, and gain the skills that you are going to need when you have to go into full-time work.

Solo parents are not bad parents—they are some of the best parents out there. They provide for a mother and a father, or we have solo fathers that become mothers as well. I’m not saying solo parents are bad parents. I’m just saying we need to be helping these people to get back into the workforce, gain the skills, gain the self-esteem, and get their independence back, and it’s not kind to keep creating situations where we’re keeping people dependent on the State. It is hard to get out of that mind-set, and it’s hard to get back into the workforce the longer you wait. I just would like to see more effort going into helping these people get the skills they need to better themselves and to better the lives of their children. Thank you.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker, and can I just say it is a privilege and honour to be able to take a call on the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill. I also want to mimic the words of some of my colleagues just to thank the Hon Carmel Sepuloni and her office for looking at not only this punitive piece of policy but, actually, the whole of the welfare system as it is at the moment.

Currently, as we’ve heard, if you have another child while you’re on benefit and that child turns only one year old—still in nappies, some still breastfeeding. But if that child turns one year old and they’re your subsequent child, you are then forced to undertake part-time or full-time work obligations. This essentially means that what they’re saying is “The child doesn’t matter. It is around getting you off benefit.” It is around putting the work obligations first, and not the child, or that one-year-old.

Working at Work and Income during the welfare reforms—I was there in 2012, when the National Government brought in the welfare reforms—this, along with a whole suite of punitive legislation, was sad to see. I saw firsthand the damage it did to some of our communities, and most of all to our sole parents and our tamariki. It was confusing to sole parents to go from, one minute, encouraging you, supporting your child, to “That’s it, one year old—whip them out the door and you go to work.” Also, you worried about that rushing to make sure that you get to work, all the while wondering about your baby “Are they OK? Are they coping without me?”, because, let’s remember, they’re one year old—they’re just a baby.

You’re talking about a one-year-old. Like I said, some of them are still breastfeeding, so you’ve got to wean them off your breast. That takes time.

I’ve got three children; I know what that looks like. It takes time to wean them off your breast, and let’s also mention the fact that they encourage breastfeeding. They say that’s the best thing for your child, but we’re saying “That’s fine until that child is one, then it no longer matters—just get them out the door and get you off benefit.” We are supposed to be a supportive Government coming from a strengths-based place, and this, as it currently stands, is not strengths-based.

A sole parent, like I said, being forced to wean their baby off breastfeeding, to quickly find day care, to organise two-plus children—one of them, again, is only one year old—dropping them off to day care while you go to work, and all the while, while you’re at work, trying to focus on your mahi and not be worried about “How’s my pēpi doing? Are they being looked after OK? Do they need a kai?”, because māmās know best, right? So that’s another worry. Not only are you having to rush and do that, but how productive are you, really, while you’re going out there to work? I say that that is not support. That is not a strengths-based approach.

That is not putting the child first, eh—the child at the centre. I remember when those welfare reforms came out, they were all about it, and, actually, it’s absolutely the opposite.

This is not about looking after māmā and pēpi and tamariki’s wellbeing. This is not about supporting them into work, actually, and it’s not sustainable. Rather, this is going to ensure that those māmās stay and remain on benefit. It’s harmful to the sole parent and to the children but, ultimately, to our society as a whole. We deal with the aftermath of what that looks like for those māmās and those pēpis and that whānau.

The amendments in this bill will lead to better outcomes for māmā and pēpi and, again, our society as a whole. Sole parents can use the time that they need to go out there, undertake any employment training, further tertiary—really proud, again, that this Government is bringing training incentive allowances back. They’ve got options to look at what they want to do to get into a job that they’re going to want to wake up every day and work towards. That is going to ensure sustainability—if you get up and you go to a job that you’ve worked towards or you know. That’s going to show sustainability. That breaks some of the intergenerational benefit—whānau staying on benefit. That is the good role model to your child: taking that time needed, rather than being rushed and, actually, kind of bullied into getting off the benefit, and not worrying about the time it needs to take to have a relationship with your baby and also having that time to find meaningful employment and longevity in employment.

I’ve heard about the thousand days, and I’ve been to many Nathan Mikaere-Wallis workshops—a leading child professional—and many other professionals in my social services career. I can tell you that along with the thousand days, they also talk about the time needed for māmās and pāpās to have their relationship and build that time with their babies. That is critical, that is key, and that is what makes a difference to tamariki and their families growing up. That is going to make all the difference, when they have a trusting relationship with their parent, and to be able to say, “You’ve done that at one year old. Now, out the door, off you go, and find work.” is not enough time for a trusting relationship.

We know that when they do have that time, this leads to great outcomes as our tamariki grow, knowing that they have someone at home that’s got their back. While their mum still has their back, when they have to go into work after they’re one-year-old, it’s not the same. That’s not the same amount of time.

I feel like this, again, is a punitive approach as it currently stands, and I worry about how at this moment māmās are worried, and that then leads to their babies being worried, eh? We know our babies feel what we feel, so when those mothers feel pressured, they feel rushed, they feel forced into taking up jobs just in case their benefit gets cut or halved or sanctioned, and so they have to take whatever comes, regardless of how hard it might be to get your kids there and to organise yourself as a solo parent, that’s worrying in itself, and actually, again, that is not what we are about as a society. That’s not what New Zealanders do. We care about ourselves, we care about each other, we care about our māmās, our pēpis, and our pāpās, and that’s how it should be. So this amendment to this legislation does that.

I’m really proud of this Government for recognising this current sanction needs to be changed. Currently, the biggest number of people affected by the current punitive policy are Māori and women—no surprise there, right? Already our most vulnerable whānau, and we’re already putting more pressure on them.

Amending this puts the child back at the centre. It puts the child back in the focus of where we should be looking, especially given what this Government’s trying to work towards, which is making sure that everybody is supported, that everybody gets a good chance at life, and that everybody feels that they have a place to stand. This change to this legislation ensures a strengths-based, mana-enhancing change to the policy for those that are coming in on the system.

I know, again, from working at Work and Income, both when the welfare reforms came in and then more recently, I saw the people I served that walked through those doors. For the most part, when they walked through those doors, they were at the lowest parts of their lives. That was their last resort. Nobody goes in wanting to take Government financial assistance. You know, I see them. Sometimes they feel demoralised. They feel ashamed for having to ask for financial assistance.

Again, they’re at their wits’ end. They’ve tried everything else, and they have to take assistance for their babies and for their whānau. We shouldn’t be treating people at the lowest points of their lives negatively or more punitively. We should be, again, supporting them to see a positive way forward.

When you treat people like that, that makes them want to undertake those great opportunities of work-based training to get off benefit, and, actually, when they do take those jobs, they’re able to sustain longevity in terms of their job careers. Again, like I said, it’s changing for some of them the ongoing cycle of intergenerational benefit and they’re also being fantastic role models to their babies and contributing to society, and I’m sure that’s what we all want. So I believe the changes to the Social Security Act are going to make a massive difference in terms of the mana for our māmās and pēpis. Kia ora.

A five-minute call—Simon Watts.

I rise on behalf of the National Party and as the member for the North Shore to speak on the first reading of the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill. National opposes this bill. We oppose this bill because the amendments will not reduce the risk of poverty, nor will they enhance child development, nor—most importantly—will they give our children, our mokopuna, the best start in life. Instead, the impacts in the amendments will impact a large number of people. Some 5,400 sole parents will have their work obligations changed, and these amendments will cost nearly $4 million to implement, $4 million that will come from Ministry of Social Development baseline budgets—$4 million that will be cut from front-line services.

The proposed amendments are obviously Labour Party election promises, and the sad irony here is that they will simply not deliver the outcomes we need as a nation. Paid employment is the best way for our families and our children to transcend hardship and poverty. I acknowledge that this is a difficult and complex area, but Government has a role to put in place the frameworks to support individuals, families, and those within our communities to make important, life-changing transition from welfare to work.

Poverty and hardship is a significant problem and one that is growing for a large number of New Zealanders, many of whom are our most vulnerable. Real change can positively impact the social fabric of our local communities, but failure will impact our front-line health services, our education systems, our schools, our social services, and our police and justice services, and, most importantly, failure will impact the aspirations of our children. Our social security system needs incentives that align with the outcomes of a future New Zealand, not just for this generation but for generations that follow.

In my electorate of the North Shore, we have some people within our community—as there are across the country—that have a permanent dependency on our welfare system. In my home electorate of the North Shore, my local community expect that this House takes action on the things that they can’t influence—the things that will make their lives better, such as creating more time for parents to spend with their children to aid their development. They don’t want more government in their lives; they want a path ahead, cleared of the debris that slows them down, so that they can get where they are going and bring their families with them.

We must put our families at the centre of our policy solutions around social services and put in place the stepping stones to allow them to make a better future for themselves and their families. What people who are suffering from hardship and poverty need is hope, but hope is not a strategy in and of itself. What we need is a realistic pathway to move from welfare into paid employment, something that is recognised by the OECD as the most effective way to reduce the risk of child poverty, enhance child development, and give our children the best start in life.

When I walk the streets of Belmont, of Campbells Bay, of Castor Bay, of Devonport, and of Sunnynook—communities who aspire to be great—I hear our communities are concerned about the slow pace of action to address the key issues facing this country, issues for which there are solutions but are lacking action by this Government to implement, and they are becoming impatient. We must act with an increased sense of urgency to implement tangible change that reduces long-term benefit dependency, something these amendments will fail to do. Madam Speaker, thank you.

This policy, previously introduced by National, has been extremely punitive and cruel, and has done more harm than good, already marginalising predominantly Māori and, yes, wāhine. By removing this policy, parents and caregivers can do exactly that—parent and care-give without fear of ridicule and shame. This policy smacked of beneficiary bashing. It is actually shame—whakamā—that is taking our whānau out and killing us. It’s the shame of being able to be too whakamā to ask for help. It’s the shame of being too whakamā to ask for addiction support, to sit there and say, “If I put my head up, I’m going to be noticed for all the things that I don’t want to be noticed for.” In fact, what we’ve done is create a generation of those that are too scared to ask for help when they’re most vulnerable.

So we stand in acknowledgment of Minister Carmel Sepuloni and the Government for bringing this bill to the House. It’s good to see the Government implementing some recommendations from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group. However, we do implore that it goes further, and we need it to go fully further in realising more of the recommendations. We make acknowledgment to the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s hard work in providing recommendations to the Minister. In 2019, the group released its report Whakamana Tāngata, restoring dignity to social security in Aotearoa, which identified that incomes are inadequate for our people, including those receiving benefits and those in low-paid work. Current levels of support fail to cover even basic costs for many of our whānau, let alone allowing them to meaningfully participate in their communities.

Many of my esteemed colleagues to my left and opposite have referred to those on the ground, those who have the reality of living in these situations, and it’s that that we need to talk about. Our whānau haven’t rocked up to the Work and Income New Zealand office and willingly said, “Put me on a benefit.” These are whānau who have endured all sorts of situations from economic unemployment and redundancies to relationship issues, and we actually need to put faces to our people here. There are hundreds of thousands of our whānau living in poverty in Aotearoa, and material hardship is increasing. Around 200,000 tamariki are living in poverty. So it’s really concerning when I see our colleagues to my right talking about giving Māori back our independence, especially when they’re the first to shun mana motuhake the minute we mention it.

Te Paati Māori’s income policy, Oranga Tangata, talks about the importance of raising the minimum wage to $25 per hour and legislating for an annual increase to keep up with the costs of living. We talk about guaranteeing pay equity for all of our Māori nurses and our teachers, doubling baseline benefit levels, individualising benefits, removing all penalties and sanctions and work-test obligations, cancelling income support - related debt and ensuring that additional grants do not need to be paid back in future, and raising abatement rates for benefits and student allowances.

In short, when we talk about our whānau here that are enduring all sorts of situations, we’re talking about people like myself who have also been single parents, who have also sat there and had to talk about and think about, “How am I going to get through the night? Where’s my next $5 for my bread and milk going to come from?”, and the last thing we need is people out in our community judging. We will never ever be able to address poverty and the complex social issues that come with that if we keep making it a shame to be able to reach out and ask for help. What needs to happen—and Te Paati Māori will continue to say and bring faces and places and voices to this House—is we need to continue to advocate for low-income whānau. It’s important the Government works to support low-income whānau through implementing the rest of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s recommendations.

I’d also like to ask that we take time to actually talk about what it is that we, as whānau, in the first thousand days, and it was talked about very clearly across there with Terisa Ngobi. We have with us whānau that belong as pā harakeke. We don’t exist just in the 999 days or the thousand days; we exist before we’re born. How we decide to actually look after our whānau and our pā harakeke and how we decide to whakamana our whānau when they need it, including our tamariki, is really important for this House to contemplate. For those that are sitting there making it seem so easy to be on a benefit, I suggest you go out there and look at those who are volunteering and still doing everything they can to get ahead.

Kia ora. We’d like to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

What an absolute privilege to have been in this House tonight to listen to this debate. This is a bill that I am proud to rise in support of, but it’s a bill that is obviously opening up some deep and some serious issues in our thinking about our pēpi and our thinking about parenting and our thinking about what it is to value our whānau and to value the most vulnerable members of our society.

It has been such a privilege to listen to my colleagues in the Greens and in Te Paati Māori and to my colleagues in Labour who have talked about their experience as professionals dealing with beneficiaries dealing with the shame that people feel when they have to come and ask for State help, and to listen to the experiences of solo mums and dads—particularly the mums—talking about what it was like to put themselves and their children through those difficult early years. It has been a privilege to hear my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March across the aisle talk about his experiences in listening to the various submitters, and to hear from the member Debbie Ngarewa-Packer her speech. Colleagues, I am grateful to be here.

I was lucky as a mother. I never had to make the choice between a benefit or a job—I was lucky. But one of the divisions that has opened up tonight in this House is around the valuing of parenting and the valuing of the hard work that is parenting. I remember the first day I chose—because I had that choice—to go back to work. I had three little kids, and I was doing two mornings a week. My youngest was 11 months old. I left him and I went in, and, after about the first morning tea, a young woman who’d just started in our office came up to me. She said, “You must be finding it so hard.”, and I thought, “What a nice young woman. She’s valuing the fact that I’ve left my babies for the first time.” I said, “Oh well, we’ve found a really nice babysitter. It’s all right.”, and she said to me, “No, no, I mean concentrating, having had all those years off with children, doing nothing.” I nearly fell over.

I have done jobs that society considers prestigious and difficult. I have never done anything as difficult as looking after small children. I have never done anything as difficult, sleepless night after sleepless night, as maintaining my temper in the face of tantrums and remaining the adult with three under 3½ and a very frenetic six-year-old. We need to value parenting and the difficult work that it is, and what I worry about in the debate is that we have seen a lack of value placed on parenting and lip service paid to the importance of the first thousand days, but not a real appreciation of the value of the unpaid work that we do as parents, and I do not think that it is a coincidence that most of that unpaid work is done by wāhine. I am sorry to say it, but it is the fact. So I see a division opening up, and I worry about it.

I see also a certain amount—and I am sorry to see it—of blaming of beneficiaries for being where they are, and we need to think about that. There has been a constant rhetoric from across the House about the need to get people off benefits and how that is best for children. Well, that’s lovely, but what about when it’s not possible? How exactly do we do this with this policy, that’s been in place since 2012?

This policy has had nine years to show us that it works, and the empirical evidence is that it does not. More parents have not ended up in paid employment as the result of this punitive piece of legislation. More whānau have not ended up better off as a result of this punitive piece of legislation. When you talk about wanting to make results, I suggest we have a look at the last nine years, and we see that there haven’t been any, so let’s start with the facts.

Now let’s go to the next set of facts, which include the importance of those first, fabled 1,000 days. Let’s talk about the importance of what actually happens in those thousand days. When a baby is born—ignoring those previous nine months—its brain is essentially smooth, it is undeveloped, and it is small. It is in those first two years of life that children’s brains become incredibly more complicated. If that child is not provided with stimulation and with security, above all, that child is not going to develop to its full potential.

Now, I am not saying—and here we come across another part of this debate, which has been really interesting. There is a cringe factor. There is a fear factor in talking about the way in which we parent and the encouragement of mothers who want to work to work. I support my sisters—literally, my sisters—who want to work when their children are small. But when you do it, however you do it, what we need is stability.

If you have a child who you want to stay home with—if you have a child who, for example, does not really cope in a childcare situation—then you need to think about the possibility of staying home if possible, because the fact is attachment theory proves that in those first three years, in fact, children need some regular, steady attachment to one or two people in their lives for optimal development. Now, that could be just about anyone, but if you want to make the choice that you’re the mum or you’re the dad and you stay home, then I say that is actually going to add to our society.

Attachment theory is said by psychologists to be at the basis of all good development. It is not merely a child’s emotional ability to attach to one person and to maintain a relationship; it goes throughout their entire lives. It forms the basis of their educational achievement and of their intellectual ability, as well. If you want on pure economics to come up with a policy that will add to our society’s wellbeing, privilege those days. Privilege the ability of parents to stay home with children, if that is what they choose to do.

There’s an old saying “A stitch in time saves nine”. There is evidence upon evidence upon evidence that if you put money into a child’s early development, you will reap the rewards. We can pay $100,000 a year to keep someone in prison, or we can give that parent the ability to look after the child early on.

This debate is one which is opening some serious issues in the way in which we think about parenting and the way in which we think I poverty and the way in which we want to blame the poor for their situation. I ask that we step back from that and that we actually consider the best interests of society in the round. We take away the blame that we want to attach to poverty because if we can blame someone, then maybe it won’t happen to us because, clearly, it was their fault in some way and we can avoid their mistakes. Let’s step back from it and let’s think about the long-term good of society. The long-term good of society is we have children who are rounded, who are whole, and who understand what it is to love and be loved. If the best way for your particular pēpi is for you to stay home, then by all means let us, finally, make the investment in our beneficiary parents—the investment in our children and in our future—because that is how we will build back better, and that is what the Labour Government is trying to do.

We are putting into place a range of measures which will, in the round, contribute to the looking after of our children, the power of our whānau to raise good children for a good society, rather than to build more prisons—it’s up to us. What are we going to do: the $100,000 a year to keep them in prison, or the money to keep the ability of whānau to look after their babies at home?

For those reasons, I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to speak in opposition to the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill. As fairly recent to the grandparent phase, I’d like to acknowledge the important work that parents do for our young children. I think it’s already been acknowledged today that it is one of the hardest jobs in the world but certainly one of the most rewarding, so I give a shout-out to all those parents who are sleep-deprived and who might be in front of the TV now.

Returning to the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill, under the current policy, if someone has another child while they are receiving a main benefit, work obligations are based on the age of their youngest non-subsequent child from the additional child’s first birthday. This means a parent is required to look for or enter work once their youngest child turns one. The bill proposes to remove the subsequent child policy, also known as the additional dependent child policy, from the Social Security Act 2018 and the Social Security Regulations. As has been mentioned earlier, it was the fifth National Government that introduced the subsequent child policy in 2012. The purpose of that policy was to reduce long-term welfare dependency and align the expectations of those on main benefits and those in paid employment.

I’ve listened to a lot of the speakers on the other side of the House this evening talking about how important those first thousand days are, but they seem to only be important to those parents who are on a benefit. I think that both the aims are equally important—the issue of parity and equity. An expectant new mum or parent on maternity leave from employment has to return to the workforce often after a year’s leave, but this bill differentiates the expectations of a new parent on a benefit. The last thing that I want to see in New Zealand is mothers, particularly of young children, being pitted against each other, risking festering resentments about each other, and this signals a differentiation that we shouldn’t underestimate in terms of what it means for either parties.

The aspect of dependency is an incredibly important one for us to be looking at, and there is a huge body of evidence about the negative impact of long-term welfare dependency. I will read from some of the findings from the 2011 Welfare Working Group report, Reducing Long-Term Welfare Dependency. They state, “for most working age people, paid work is beneficial to overall well-being, and long-term absence from paid employment can be harmful.” They’ve also found that “There is growing consensus that joblessness is particularly harmful to mental and physical health. There is increasing evidence that long-term benefit receipt has harmful effects on confidence, skills and future employability.” We must keep central to this discussion the children, and their findings that “For parents with … children, long-term benefit receipt is strongly associated with poor results for children. Children raised in long-term benefit dependent families are likely to suffer adverse health effects, poorer educational achievement and reduced aspirations.”

The Welfare Working Group’s report, Long-Term Benefit Dependency: The Issues, in 2010, noted that “People out of work for long periods are likely to find it hard to return to work, as skills and confidence erode.” and “There is powerful evidence to suggest that a long period spent on a benefit, and hence a low income, is associated with a range of adverse social and economic outcomes, especially for young adults and children.”

The National Party absolutely believes that paid employment is the best way for families to break the circuit of hardship and poverty. As well as the financial benefits, the social and developmental benefits to both parents and children should not be underestimated. Confidence, new friendships, social relationships, greater participation in the community, and greater self-worth are all tangible benefits from being in employment. National’s social investment approach based on early interventions, when the subsequent child policy was introduced in 2012, included additional employment support for those on benefit, and also introduced training, childcare, health and disability support services, and wraparound support for young parents at risk.

I relate the impact of this proposed policy change on the wonderful parents in my electorate of Invercargill who I know had children while on benefits, and I watched how they transitioned away from dependency into employment. They became wonderful role models, and the impact and the responsibility that was transferred to their children was absolutely tangible. I also look to my previous role at Southern Institute of Technology, where there were many second-chance learners, and the difference in those people, often young parents, who were gaining qualifications to gain employment, and the aspirations they had and the changes you could see in the pride that they had as they progressed through. So I see this policy as condescending to those people whom I have watched pull themselves off the benefit, transitioning into employment through qualifications and becoming wonderful role models for their children.

If we have a look at the numbers, 5,400 sole parents would have their work obligations changed, 2,500 on jobseeker support would move on to solo parent support, and 1,000 partners of people on main benefits would have their work obligations changed. These are not insignificant numbers.

If we refer back to that evidence of the harm of long-term dependency on the welfare system, and we look at the almost 10,000 additional people potentially impacted by the harm of long-term dependence on welfare support, we are seeing almost 10,000 people who could be consigned to those negative impacts, but they are not the biggest concern that I have. The biggest concern I have is the number of children attached to each of those numbers that I’ve quoted.

I want to go back to that piece of evidence that came from the 2011 Welfare Working Group that said that children raised in long-term benefit-dependent families are likely to suffer adverse health effects, poorer educational achievements, and reduced aspirations. To those on the other side of the House that think that that is a wonderful thing to do to those children, I would say: take a very long, hard look at what you are proposing for them long term. I can see no better reason to oppose this policy change in this bill than the children of those long-term beneficiaries.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d just like to start this evening by commending the Hon Carmel Sepuloni for bringing this bill to the House and for her continued work to overhaul our welfare system. This bill shows our commitment and our vision for a welfare system that ensures people have adequate income and an adequate standard of living, that they are treated with dignity, and that they can live in their communities in a way that enables them to participate meaningfully in life.

I’ve heard members from across the House tonight say that the changes the previous Government made enabled families to spend more time together, yet the issue that we’re debating tonight actually forces parents to go back to the workforce, ready or not. They’ve also talked about people on benefits a lot, and the insinuation is that if you are on a benefit, you want to be there.

I’d just like to remind the House that life happens, and my family learnt that the hard way, firsthand, when my dad died. My younger siblings were just five and six at the time. My mum lived a 30-minute drive from the nearest main centre, in a small rural community. Babysitters weren’t exactly plentiful or readily available. Forcing parents to go back to work before they are ready or able or have the necessary support systems in place harms families. It doesn’t protect them.

The first thousand days, as we’ve heard this evening, are important. They are the most crucial, and that’s something that I’ve been particularly mindful of since becoming a parent. I want to acknowledge the contribution of my colleague Dr Emily Henderson. Recounting sleepless nights as a parent is something that I have recently gone through, and even now, on the occasional night, I still go through. It’s hard work. This bill is about ensuring that families can make decisions that are right for them and that they are not being forced back into work before they’re ready.

Last year, I spoke to a single mum in my electorate. She had been at home and been forced to go through the back-to-work checks and been forced to make that decision, whether it was right for her and her family or not, and she said to me that she was struggling to make ends meet and it was hard and that she was being forced to look for work that wasn’t right for her or her children or her circumstances. But what gave her hope was that last term, the Government brought back the training incentive allowance, and she was then supported to be able to go out and get qualifications that mean that she can now apply for work that is going to give her family more security, higher wages, and better long-term prospects.

She’s not trapped in a situation where she is being forced to apply for just any old job, be it low-skilled, be it within her skill set, or whether it is right for her or her children. She is not being trapped in a situation that will lead to long-term poverty and hardship. She’s been able to make choices that will see her and her children better off. Seeing the hope on her face, and the pride when she talked about it—that’s a moment that’s going to stay with me for a long time to come.

Forcing a parent to go back to work after a subsequent child turns one places huge financial pressure on families, and, again, this is something I know, having had to fork out each week for day-care fees. I am so grateful for the support that the day care provides me and my husband as we raise our daughter, but a benefit does not cover childcare fees. Currently, until a child turns three, they’re not eligible for any subsidies to help with the childcare costs. So when a parent’s got two children under the age of three, that’s a huge financial burden that’s being placed on them. At the moment, that creates more pressure in an already difficult situation.

I’d also like to acknowledge the work that our social service providers do in our communities, and not one of the social service providers that I’ve talked to in my electorate has praised the subsequent child provision. All of them have told me stories of single-parent families who are struggling.

Last week, I went and visited Birthright in Whanganui. Birthright is an organisation that works together with sole-parent families to support them, and they told me about stories of providing single parents with clothing and with kai, bringing them together and teaching them to bake together and to cook together, organising activities for the children and parenting courses—providing any kind of support necessary that single parents need just to help them get ahead, to help them keep their sanity in an already tricky situation. So I want to thank organisations like Birthright for the work that they do in our communities to support, in particular, our single-parent families.

Work obligations do not support people into work, and my colleague across the House, I think, has already acknowledged that tonight. But what does support people into work is actually providing them with opportunities to upskill, to retrain, and to transition in their own time in a way that is right for their families and giving them those pathways to make those choices. I know that my community in the Whanganui electorate is not the only one with interesting stories to tell or share, and not the only one with people who have been through tough times. We can all share stories where we know that this provision has harmed families, and we can all share stories of amazing organisations in our communities and the work that they are doing.

Everyone knows that it is hard being a parent. It is hard to juggle raising children. I’ve only got one, and I can’t imagine how difficult it must be to be a single parent and to have to raise multiple children and being forced to have to look for work and go back to work, whether you’re ready or not.

Somebody commented earlier this evening about children of beneficiaries and people on benefits, saying that if they’re not in work it has long-term impacts on their mental health. Well, so is forcing them back to work, whether they are ready or not. But being forced into work every single day when you’re by yourself, getting the kids up, getting them ready, making breakfast, getting them dressed, making lunches, getting them into cars, doing multiple drop-offs, going to work, and then, at the other end of the day—rinse, wash, repeat—doing pick-ups, after-school activities or childcare activities, coming home by yourself, cooking the dinner, getting through bath time, getting through bedtime, and doing all the washing and all the other household chores that are required. That takes a huge toll on somebody, and where in that day does a parent get the ability to have their own time for their mental wellbeing, let alone to spend quality time with their children where they’re not tired and where their child’s not tired?

Those first thousand days are crucial to a child’s development, to developing—as we’ve heard tonight—the strong bonds and feeling safe and secure, and I take my hat off to all parents who do that juggle, but especially to single parents. We need to be supporting them; not punishing them. Let them decide what is in the best interests of their family, including deciding whether they are ready to go back to work. This bill does that and allows parents to spend more time with their children. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is, That the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill be considered by the Social Services and Community Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.

The House stands adjourned until 2 o’clock tomorrow. Good evening.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.