O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I think that speech was rather symbolic—short and indicative of how much time they want fathers to spend with their children which is basically very little.Hon Members: Oh!SIMON O'CONNOR: I just thought I'd start with that little hand grenade. I'm really pleased to take a call to actually oppose this bill.I thought I'd start though around the word stigma"—that's becoming en vogue now. What I thought was ironic a bit earlier was a speaker—I'm not sure if it was Greens or Labour; it's blending in a little bit—who was talking about stigmatising as being a bad thing and then turning it on to this side of the House and effectively trying to make us feel ashamed for having a different opinion. I think that explains progressivism which is basically if you don't agree with them then they're going to come after you. You know shame is good for some but not for others.Marama Davidson: Oh—pot black!SIMON O'CONNOR: I think I hear the shaming happening now and it's just hurting my feelings. All right.Let's start with a couple of things—the positive sides. A lot of the positive sides—well actually we can't talk about the positive until we put this in the context of what has been the welfare reforms. A group was put together over 18 months ago to look into welfare reforms—and to acknowledge on the positive side the Minister for Social Development has come to the House with some changes through this bill. That welfare advisory group or expert group came up with 42 recommendations. This is manifest in only two of three which have been taken up. In other words there are at least 39 other recommendations which are not part of this Budget 2019 welfare package. In fact I think it's rather generous to call three of 42 or two of 42 part of a package; it's like going into a pick n' mix store and walking out with only two lollies but strangely enough and symbolically paying a lot of money for it.So I do challenge the Minister—I'm sure we'll come to it in later readings and in the committee of the whole House stage—to explain to us why this piece of legislation is not more comprehensive. The reason for that is fundamentally we were told this was urgent 18 months ago. In fact during our time in Government we were told that reform was urgent and yet 18 months in we only have effectively what are two aspects in this bill. So the first part that I think is overall good is the abatements. National's been supportive of that in the past. I think there's in a sense been a relative form of cooperative thought on that. I am a little concerned of where the balance point comes around abatements where actually it's supporting them—in this case a beneficiary—to keep the money that they earn to rightfully help them support their families. I think we're probably in the right space with this bill. I'll be interested to tease that out at the committee stage.But there is a tipping point in the complexity that is the ever-growing New Zealand welfare system with its tax credits and Working for Families and abatements and how much work you can and can't do. All of a sudden you tip between encouraging people towards work which I would argue is what leads people towards dignity—but equally if abatements are too generous on top of generous benefits and tax credits and where Working for Families potentially kicks in we may tip ourselves into a point where remaining on a benefit is seen as better than actually seeking work. To put it in very crude terms why work 40 hours a week to earn say $50 more—and I'm making up the figures; it's a crude analogy—where in fact staying on a benefit with an overly generous abatement means actually by not working those hours I can remain on a benefit? So it's a debate point but as I say I think we've landed this—oh sorry not "we"; that's highly presumptuous. I think with the abatements we've landed in a good area. We'll tease it out in committee if this passes first reading and second of course. I think it's around $150 which is in effect about eight hours a week. In fact there's possibly argument or discussion to be had as to whether that needs to be more generous.Look the other area which has certainly excited the passions of this House has been around the non-naming of a parent in order to receive the sole benefit—or rather to effect a sanction that's been in place for the other sole parent. The example being—and it's usually the mother but not always exclusively who has been asked to name the father so that he can take some financial responsibility for the child. I think that's important to stress: we are only talking here about the financial responsibility; it would take many hours of discussion to draw out the wider obligations that actually a mum and dad have to their child in fact from the moment of conception right through to when they're born and until they leave home at 18 and beyond.What's happening here today in this proposed legislation in a sense—if I could be somewhat paradoxical—is not actually removing the obligations on fathers. It's actually not removing the obligations on fathers; what it's doing is increasing the obligations on all fathers myself included to pay up for the children of other people. All the other fathers in New Zealand and mothers now need to work just that little bit harder and contribute a little bit more money to in a sense make up for the gap of those fathers who aren't prepared to take responsibility. I'm very fortunate—granted only to be a stepfather—to be the stepfather of five amazing kids and I try to work as hard as I can to be responsible to them and their mother. But I do take a bit of umbrage that I'm now through this legislation required just to work that little bit harder a little bit further to pay for someone else's child where actually that should be—Tamati Coffey: You're quite well paid.SIMON O'CONNOR: Actually someone says I'm quite well paid. I absolutely am well paid and I'm pleased that member puts that up because you know I think of some of the people in my electorate who work on minimum wage jolly hard. I'm thinking of a particular family who have nine kids already—my God they work hard—who are now being required not only to look after their nine children and work that little bit harder to look after another child of another family simply because the mother and the father in that relationship are not prepared to acknowledge that relationship.We had it a bit earlier the discussion of the social contract. I think again it came from the Greens. The Greens I would suggest have absolutely no conception—all puns intended—of what the social contract means. The social contract is not about one person doing whatever they want and everyone else paying for it—that's the Green Party thinking. The social contract is actually based on the primacy of the family. It is based on the primacy of the family as a building block and that the State should never interfere in that and that the State should only step in when it is absolutely needed and there has been a breakdown.The thing about today is we are not talking about the breakdown in the relationship between a mum and a dad. The law currently covers that very very adequately. What we are talking about here is when that relationship between a mother and a father and their obligations to the Crown are ignored. Fundamentally—and my colleague Louise Upston started this point in her speech—we are effectively here talking about a tax cut for fathers—particularly fathers—who will not take responsibility and a small tax increase for everybody else. Fundamentally a child has a right not only to know their mother and father but to be supported by them. It is what we as a society expect that particularly a dad—and I do feel a bit bad that I'm just leaning on dads but I do acknowledge the statistics; it's primarily the fathers—does have an obligation. Maybe I could put it this way because one of the other words of late which is very big is choice. Well fundamentally there is no obligation in any social contract theory for me or anyone else to fund another person's choices. There is no obligation whatsoever—whatsoever.I return to something else which I think my colleagues touched on earlier and that is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I'm pretty sure that those on the left are very big fans of the UN but they are not so keen when they read through the UN Rights of the Child which stresses the importance of whakapapa. I thought I could say "genealogy" but let's use "whakapapa." A child has that right and I think it's going to be really important as we move through these stages to understand how the left how the Government respects the rights of a child to have whakapapa to have a knowledge of who they are. As Agnes Loheni pointed out this bill not so subtly discourages that behaviour arguably for some of our most vulnerable.We don't want to misuse children and shouldn't—as I would suggest the other side is doing—politicise the children. What we want to do is make sure first and foremost that the child does have a mother and a father and that that father and mother support the child well beyond simply money. There's a whole lot more to it than that and fundamentally this is just one more undermining of that relationship. It's one more undermining actually of the rights of every taxpayer to first and foremost look after their children and expect others to do the same. Fundamentally too it's just another cost that's being placed on hard-working Kiwis because we will not allow other people to take their rightful responsibilities."