Tinetti JanJAN TINETTI (Labour): It will be no surprise that I rise to oppose the Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill. Gosh that's a big mouthful for such a bill that I am so appalled with—a Draconian appalling bill that can only lead to social harm and further criminal offending. But I will say this: even though it is such a bill that appals me so much I will actually congratulate whoever drafted this bill because it must be a very hard feat to draft out a bill that two absolutely opposing groups have both come out in opposition of. No Pride in Prisons against wanting to actually have real reforms in our prison system said that this was a bad bill—probably no surprise there. But also I see here a quote from the Manawatū-based Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesperson also coming out opposed to this bill. So we've got people from all political spectrums who agree that this is an appalling bad bill.Now I want to start with a quote here from one of the groups who submitted who was JustSpeak to the Social Services and Community Committee. The reason I want to start with this is because this particular quote talks about what is wrong with the fact that the department would be put in charge of punishing"—and that is the only word that they use here—people who are not turning up for the sentences. JustSpeak says this: "It is the role of our courts to determine the appropriate punishment when someone has committed a crime. It is the role of the Department to enforce and supervise that punishment. Withholding benefit payments goes beyond enforcing and supervising a court-determined punishment and amounts to imposing a punishment above and beyond that which the sentencing judge determined was appropriate for the crime committed. The Department is not equipped to determine the appropriate punishment … Nor does the Bill provide an appropriate framework for such a decision to be made." It's that not having that framework or the department having the understanding of why that non-compliance happened in the first place.Now my colleague over here from the Greens Jan Logie talked about the reasons for non-compliance. We have reasons such as transport issues accommodation and childcare issues. People who had opportunity to work—and I was very pleased to hear Jan talk about the Tauranga example of our fruit pickers our people that go to get their work in season fruit picking. Some of those people were actually parents at my school who took out the time to actually go and get work and corrections worked with those people. That unfortunately is not happening anywhere and is being seen as a reason why those people don't come for their correction service that they have to do.I want to tell a story not particularly around someone that's going through probation—but a parent of mine who I worked with in a school that I was principal at who was taken right off the system because they couldn't show up to work—a parent who had a six-year-old son when she was 21 herself. So she was a child when she had a child and she had very little support around her. One day this particular boy had severe behaviour problems—lovely little boy—and we'd got help through a child mental health foundation to actually support this particular boy and the mum so that both of them could grow and be stronger together.Transport issues were big for this particular mum and when her car continually broke down and she couldn't afford to get fuel in that car she couldn't get to the appointments. She had no money on her phone to contact anyone to tell them that she couldn't make those appointments. She was sent a letter to her old rental place—she had changed twice because of housing issues. The letter had gone to her old place nobody followed through and when she didn't make the appointment for the third time she was completely wiped off the list—completely. No follow up whatsoever. So the child and the mother were hurt because they can't get the support that they need.This is the intent of this bill. The intent of this bill is to actually hurt people because they can't get there. We don't know what the issues are. We don't know what the issues are and why they don't turn up. How does that make it right that we would put in a Draconian punitive punishment that will not fix the root cause? To make a difference in behaviour to actually help these people we need to walk alongside them. I am appalled that we have people in this House in the Opposition who believe that it is OK to punitively punish these people. They are looking at these people through their lens. They are not walking beside these people. They have no idea of the troubles that these people face and then they have the audacity to stand there and say "If we had known what these people were like."Well I will tell them that I have worked with these people for quite some time and I know the troubles that these people face. I know the hardships. I am prepared to walk with them. I am prepared to look at ways as a Government that we can make things easier that we can allow these people the opportunities and the frameworks that will help and support them and that's what we will do. I have no shame in saying that we care. I have no shame in saying that we will show kindness. It is being used against us at the moment as something that is supposedly bad. I have no shame in saying that I will put a lens of kindness and a lens of caring when we are dealing with these issues. I know that my colleagues along this side of the House feel exactly the same.We need to wrap around. We need wraparound. We need to walk alongside. One thing that I'd like to say is that there was no understanding from the member who raised this bill about incentivisation. He mentioned that this would incentivise people to do the right thing. He needs to go back and study psychology I'm afraid. There is no such thing as using punishment to incentivise. It does not work. That will not change behaviour. It absolutely will not change behaviour. As I have said we need to walk alongside.I was pleased when my colleague from New Zealand First Mr Ball talked about Brett Hudson's quote that he said "This is an alternative to the harsh fine the offender cannot afford." Tell me what the difference is. This is an alternative to the harsh fine the offender cannot afford! So we won't fine them but we'll take the money off that they can't afford to pay for the fine anyway. So we'll get around it by saying "Oh we're just going to take the money away." and that is supposed to be an incentivisation. What incentivisation is there around that? It is not. It is an absolute stick to use to punish people further. It is kicking someone when they are down.Hon Member: Have you been drinking Matt?JAN TINETTI: Ha ha! The last point that I would like to make in conclusion is that I will also make absolutely no apologies for putting the needs of children at the centre. I have been doing that my entire working life. So to have someone stand here tonight and tell me that we are going to pull out our violins and put the children and use the children—I have always put the needs of children at the front of everything that I do. I will make no apologies about this.To say that we will take money away from these families hurts the children and anything that will hurt the children I will always stand up against and I will always rail against anybody that will do that. This is a terrible bill and I am actually pleased to stand here and say that I am totally against it. Thank you."