Baillie ChrisCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT and Karen Chhour our spokesperson for this to take a short call on the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill. ACT opposes this bill and it's certainly not because we don't care about mums and dads and kids but in fact it's because of the opposite—we really do care. We all want the best for our children and the people who surround them who look after them and love them and who are role models for them. It's the way that we do this that sets us apart—the left and the right. The difference in our philosophies is pretty obvious in most bills that come across this House but none more so than in this particular bill.The Government believes that every person is entitled to be looked after by the State no questions asked to a degree that gives them the dignity and the fulfilment which is equal to someone who gets up organises their children in whatever way they see fit and then goes to work and pays taxes. ACT believes people should be looked after when necessary—a safety net available to anyone in real need—but we also believe that people who accept being looked after also have a responsibility to the society that pays for that assistance.I heard over the last week that this particular policy affects Māori more than others which could be so. But Sir Apirana Ngata a great man often described as the foremost Māori politician to have ever served in Parliament once said that his people should never be given welfare. He could see the danger and it's certainly not a race issue. This should be a discussion that we're all open to having putting forward ideas opinions and anecdotes looking at the facts and statistics however irritating they may be to our personal ideas—all of those things that a society with free speech can openly express without being condemned for having a different view. It is very unfortunate that this isn't the case in the current environment. Anyone with kids knows that to build empathy appreciation good work ethic—all of those things—they should teach their children to work and save for themselves put in some effort and not just expect things to be given to them. They'll treat a bike that they've saved for and bought much better than one that's just given to them without any effort. That's just human nature. It's the same flawed philosophy that the Government has shown in many other bills. For example the increase in minimum wage: the belief that by paying people more they will work hard and appreciate their job rather than by paying those people who work hard more. I love their optimism but it shows an incredible naivety in how the world works. Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate if possible the need for welfare. It shouldn't encourage dependency and discourage people from going out to work. As a business owner I know this is a fact. I have numerous examples.ACT's principles of personal responsibility and freedom of choice are at the heart of this bill. Life isn't easy and it shouldn't be an option just to opt out of the workforce and expect to be looked after. Many of you will be familiar with Alan Duff of Once Were Warriors and Duffy Books in Homes fame who wrote: So much of what is wrong with the thinking created by welfarism it says the world owes people a living. We need a voice to yell 'We don't want your handouts!' We want if anything to be pointed in the right direction to help ourselves." Maybe he's wrong—what would he know? The real shame is that he wrote this book in 1993 and because of poor policy nothing has changed and in fact it's worse. In the book there is a chapter—a whole chapter—"The curse of welfare". While listening to previous debates on this bill I heard an interjection that ACT's position was like going back to the 1970s. You just have to wonder how they will describe the upcoming compulsory unionism or fair-pay agreements bill. But that's for another day. It amazes me that the teachers in the Government go along with this ideology. Getting the best out of students requires pushing them out of their comfort zones knowing that success comes from the inside; and once they get a taste the only way is up. Or do we just give kids the answers and tell them "We'll look after ya."?The great Thomas Sowell once said "The welfare state is not really about the welfare of the masses. It is about the egos of the elites." Although done with the best intentions I think this is true. We oppose this bill."