Grigg NicolaNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you Mr Speaker. I like my colleagues rise in opposition to the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill. I'm the National Party spokesperson for women and I want the women of New Zealand to thrive—not survive but thrive. We on this side of the House are ambitious for women and especially for solo moms especially young solo mums. But there have been a few cheap shots I think thrown around the House this morning—you know words like stigmatism are being thrown around. We're not here to stigmatise women. We're here to advance them and their families and help them to see a way towards a better life for them and their kids.I think it's becoming clearer and clearer that never before has a Government that proclaims to be progressive been actually in fact incredibly regressive in the policy it brings in front of this House. You know I'm just still a very new MP but so often I find myself talking on social policy that is ideological and has well-intentioned highfaluting intentions that will actually make things worse for the people it impacts in the long run. So today sadly this subsequent child policy removal amendment bill will effectively become law. It's a bill that's a result of a Labour Party campaign promise and as always it was about the PR and not necessarily the policy.I think in passing this law the Government needs to take into account that it was actually brought into law in the first place by the Hon Paula Bennett. Paula Bennett as a teen mum on a benefit she has experience—real lived experience—in this space. She actually brings some credibility to this discussion—Hon Member: And Maureen.NICOLA GRIGG: —and I don't think—and Maureen Pugh and other colleagues on this side of the House as well. Hon Members: And Louise. NICOLA GRIGG: I could run through the list of names but thank you. There are many. There are many women in this House irrespective of the colour of the team they play for who have this lived experience and I think all of them would acknowledge that once they're back in the workplace once they're earning money and once they're improving the wellness of their family and their own personal wellbeing it is better for them and their sense of self in its entirety.But this policy that Paula brought before the House was primarily about obliging women once their youngest child turns one to just start looking for work. Listening to some of the speeches here this morning anyone would think we were tearing babies from breasts and forcing women into the workplace. That is simply not the case. The safety net has always and will always be in place so much so that under the National policy the CEO of the Ministry of Social Development was afforded powers to enable them to intervene at such time as they saw cases where women needed extra help. It is a flexible system designed to motivate mums back into work while still providing support for those with kids who might be older than one with more complex long-term needs.Today the House is being asked to reverse a policy that actually came into place alongside a suite of policies and that has conveniently been forgotten in the arguments from the other side of the House. They were all about helping people off a benefit and back into either education or the workplace or to just start looking for work. It is not the bogeyman that the Government tries to proclaim it is. It is about having children being able to grow up in a household that is ambitious and forward-looking. But today this House unfortunately is going to throw that all out of the way and put in place a roadblock instead that will prevent people from being inspired and encouraged to enter the workplace. Because of that I along with my colleagues oppose this bill.