Sepuloni Carmel: Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSepuloni Carmel: Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7925. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I really do want to thank the parties that have spoken in support of the Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill and I want to just acknowledge all the speakers for their contributions even if I strongly disagree with some of the contributions that were made. I just want to reflect on some of the contributions and use this as an opportunity as a right of reply I guess just to finish off the debate on this bill.The previous speaker to me was the ACT Party MP David Seymour. Thank you for meeting with me David Seymour. Thank you for showing me a graph and talking to me about—I am not really sure actually what you were talking to me about when I came to your office so I am not going to pretend that I did. But I will say this: the ACT Party member says that I have not demonstrated why this is a good use of expenditure. I just want to say that every welfare reform that that Government has put through is not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. We have asked that Government and we have asked the Ministry of Social Development on numerous occasions what evidence they have to support the welfare reforms and the decisions they have made and the response we get back is: “There is no evidence.” So please do not question whether or not this is a good use of expenditure—whether or not putting money into the pockets of the poorest New Zealanders is a good use of expenditure.We had Parmjeet Parmar reaffirming a previous line that was run by National MPs—that is that money is not an incentive to work. I do not know whether any New Zealander would listen to that and think: “This is a Government I can have confidence in.” Of course money is an incentive to work. Money is the biggest incentive to work. That member also said that this bill is a disincentive to work; by giving more money to go out to work it is a disincentive. In the same speech that person had the audacity to then turn round and say the focus should be on children. So here we are talking about putting money in the pockets of some of the poorest New Zealanders some of the poorest New Zealanders who are looking after 60 percent of the 305000 children living in poverty and that member still says that the focus should be on children but they will not support my bill.We had Todd Miller launching an attack on me for my opposition to the Support for Children in Hardship Bill. But Todd Miller we are supporting the Support for Children in Hardship Bill; we just disagree with certain aspects of the bill—aspects like the fact that with no evidence that Government is saying you must go back to work when your youngest turns 3 rather than 5. There is no evidence to support that. We also disagree with things like the fact that the Government is pushing the part-time work obligation from 15 hours a week to 20 hours a week when there is no evidence to support that that is a good thing for those parents or those children. Those are the elements of the bill that we are not supporting but Todd Miller we are voting for—Hon Members: Muller.CARMEL SEPULONI: Muller sorry. Mr Todd Muller we are voting for the Support for Children in Hardship Bill. We are just voicing our concern about elements of that bill.We had Jono Naylor—again a line that was repeated by Parmjeet Parmar; she really needs to learn whom to take advice from—saying that money is not an incentive to work. That is coming from a man who claimed two salaries for a number of months as he transitioned into work in this place—lest we forget—and he is not one of the lower-income earners in this country. So it is OK for the National Government to support certain members of society—certain members of society—to have tax cuts tax breaks and yet here we are considering a piece of legislation that would provide a break to some of the poorest New Zealanders that would provide some incentive to go out and work and it has the potential to have an impact on the 305000 children who are living in poverty.I think the National Government members should be ashamed of themselves for not supporting this bill. I say this one more time: I do hope that the other parties in the House will have a little more sense and will at least support this bill to select committee so that we can have the debate and discussion there.