Loheni AgnesAGNES LOHENI (National): Talofa lava Mr Speaker. Thank you. I'm pleased to take this call on the third reading of the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill. It's been an interesting day. It's been a long day as we've traversed the various stages of this omnibus bill. But it's important that we do spend the time to debate this bill—in particular the parts of it that we oppose. There have obviously been parts to this bill that my colleagues have indicated we are supportive of but I'd say it's fair to say the arguments from both sides have been heated and emotional. That's understandable given the nature of parts of this bill because ultimately it comes down to a clash of ideologies between this side of the House and that side of the House where on this side of the House we don't see welfare as wellbeing. So for me the biggest objection I've had to this bill and I've relayed that in my first and second reading speeches is the removal of the sanctions—the repeal of sections 192 and 194 of the Social Security Act 2018. I see it as an affront to the values of accountability to the values of personal responsibility and to the values of parental responsibility. It is not good enough for a sole parent normally the mother to not name the father of her child merely because she's uncomfortable about doing it. I'm not talking about mothers who are at risk of violence or other cases because those parts are already covered in the exemptions. So I fail to see why the Minister for Social Development wanted to remove these sanctions. As my colleague Maureen Pugh has said there has been no case really as to why those sanctions are being removed. We have a duty of care to hard-working taxpaying New Zealanders who have their own families to pay for. We have a duty of care to where we put their tax dollars and basically the Government is saying in this bill that we're going to let dads off the hook. We're just going to let them off the hook.It's been amusing to hear some of the exchanges from the other side of the House during the course of the proceedings of this bill. There were comments that we pull the ladder up" or something like that. "Pulling the ladder up behind"—what does that even mean? No one on this side is pulling the ladder up. This side of the House wants to build bridges so that we can move families out of welfare dependency and into independent self-determination for themselves. That is wellbeing. How about the Government just tries to build some ladders so these people can get up? Why don't you just actually try and build some ladders?This bill—in particular the removal of sanctions—is a shallow patch-up job that does not really address child poverty at all. If the Government really wanted to address child poverty then there are other ways that we can look at it—for example addressing the costs of living. Stop adding taxes to everything. These are the taxes that affect the very families that we're talking about—the ones that can least afford it. And it's not just us that don't want to have these sanctions removed. New Zealanders up and down this country also want these dads to step up and take responsibility for their children. We owe it to the taxpayers to challenge this—to challenge this in this House. As I mentioned in my earlier speech as well there was no acknowledgement around the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which New Zealand is signed up to. It protects a child's right to preserve their identity including their nationality name and family relations without unlawful interference. So the child is not at the centre of this bill. It is right and just that a child knows the name of their father. That is right and just. They may not have a relationship with them at the point in time that the mother has to name the parent but it is about a future relationship. It was unfortunate that the Minister did not give any real response as to why they would not consider the amendment in my name which was merely to insert a clause which would require the Ministry of Social Development to during the annual interview and reporting stage process give that parent the opportunity to add the other parent's name at that point in time. Relationships are complex and in that year some things may have changed. It would have been great to give that parent the opportunity to maybe put down the name of the father. I didn't really get a chance to speak to that amendment and it was unfortunate that the Minister didn't really give an explanation why she would be opposed to making that amendment to this bill.I've said that we on this side of the House believe we absolutely need to ensure that all New Zealand children no matter where they come from no matter where they live have a warm dry home have food on the table and have the opportunity to have a good education. But why then put in a barrier to them knowing who their father is—just having that name down? It's not just about that: it's not just about taxpayers having to pay for these dads; it's also about the State interfering with families. It's that the State—no it is. It's about the State interfering thinking that they know best. It is absolutely that. So this bill just lowers the bar—lowers the bar—for people to get into welfare and to stay in welfare and for the communities that I come from that is an indictment. It is an absolute indictment that we don't look for more aspirational measures and goals for these families. I just want to go back to again the reasons—all I could hear that the Minister wanted to give—as to why the mothers didn't want to put down the fathers' names. Again we've covered that. That has been covered by the exemptions. There is no reason—there is no reason. It's actually not about the children; it's actually about removing that responsibility of dads that they should have to their children. Hon Member: That's right. AGNES LOHENI: It is. It is absolutely about that and it's about saying "Actually you know what? Taxpayers and New Zealanders you can foot the bill for these. You can foot the bill for your children and you can foot the bill for these other children because we're not going to follow up on these dads. We're not; we're just going to let them off the hook." So what does that say? You know what? That sends a really bad message to the children about the values of personal responsibility. It actually does. It sends a really bad message because actually children learn from their parents. They do. They learn from their parents. So this is the wrong message that we're sending to our communities to our children. On that note I oppose this bill."