O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I always find contributions from the other side of the House on this bill somewhat confusing. We've just had a discussion by the member who's resumed her seat Tracey Martin around behaviour and bullying and power and so forth. But if one reflects on the speech it's a rather—maybe it was illustrative of the things that she does not want to happen. It's the second time in as many sitting weeks a New Zealand First contribution on a bill of substance—moral substance arguably—has just been a discussion of process which I find again very confusing. I don't particularly care when the Bills Office chooses to open or when the Rt Hon Winston Peters chooses to turn up for an interview. I want to know what members of the Government—in this particular case the New Zealand First Party—believe about the wellbeing of children and in this particular regard the wellbeing of children under foster care and their ability to access a KiwiSaver account. I do though want to make somewhat initial comments towards the sponsor and initiator and loudest I think and rightly I would hope proudest advocate of this original bill and that's Hamish Walker. He has put forward an excellent idea that sadly is not coming to the fruition that it deserves. So my compliments—for want of a better word—to Hamish first and foremost for being the voice of those most vulnerable for hearing the voices particularly of those in foster care taking up their challenge and bringing their call to Parliament. I'd also want to acknowledge on the second line to Hamish Walker to actually stand steadfast despite the attacks the change of process and effectively a bill that's been gutted. I would suggest and as I go on will attempt to demonstrate that this bill really doesn't achieve very much at all. It does have a slight step forward but as David Lloyd George once said You [don't] cross a chasm in two small jumps." I think what Hamish Walker was trying to bring to this House was that one large jump that one bold—and I would suggest—rightful move to allow young people in foster care to be able to have access to a KiwiSaver account.So let's start—he says three minutes in—with the notion of KiwiSaver. KiwiSaver is a good thing I'm sure all members of this House would agree with that—Michael Wood: We voted for it on this side but they voted against it on that side.SIMON O'CONNOR: The idea that a person is able to put money into—oh well we'll come to the contradictions that have been coming out from the other side. They've talked a big game about Government contributions; they might regret that in a few moments. KiwiSaver is a good thing; I don't think anyone would disagree with that: the ability for any New Zealander to be able to put money aside.But the suggestions that have come through the Social Services and Community Committee and some subsequent debate is that somehow allowing some New Zealanders—in this case foster children—the ability to have money in KiwiSaver is somehow a bad thing; it might set a dangerous precedent. I have struggled when I've given this some thought to understand exactly what that bad intention is. I can think of a number of bills before this House where there are really bad outcomes mainly because of shoddy lawmaking usually with badly advised lawyers. It's just unclear what bad is going to come from this. I suppose one of the suggestions—the only one I could sort of begin to reach—was that somehow someone involved with the young person was going to steal their money. Well I don't know about other members of this House but trying to get money out of a KiwiSaver account even with legitimate reasons is one of the most difficult processes imaginable—imaginable. In fact you know to really illustrate the point I think KiwiSaver is probably the most difficult structure for want of a better word in which to—well it's easy to put the money in unless of course you're a foster child but it's immensely immensely difficult to get it out. So how putting some money in on behalf of a foster child is a bad thing I just do not understand. I think one of the objections that was put forward a pyrrhic in a way was that: "Oh you know foster parents might only be with that child for a couple of weeks." Well I don't particularly care. I mean in the sense it's the nature of foster care. But if those foster parents for the sake of argument over one or two weeks—or gosh let's really make it extreme: for one or two days show the wherewithal in care for a young person that they are prepared to open an account for them and put money in; how is that a bad thing? How are those foster parents going to cause any harm? Their opening an account for little Jack or little Mary is not going to entitle said foster parent of one day two days two weeks or three years any entitlement to that money.So what we end up with here now is a bill—and we will support it because there is just that vague notion of good intention left in it and there's some debate about whether 500 or 700 young people will be helped and that's a good thing; the fact that you know almost 5500 others are not is unfortunate. Again it's a missed opportunity but we will support it. But what effectively this bill does is I would argue and others may take a different point of view it effectively just entrenches the existing system. It's just a change of language and it's illustrated by the fact that so much energy was put to changing the bill which Hamish Walker put forward I think quite smartly: KiwiSaver—and then in brackets—(Foster Parents Opting in for Children in their Care) Amendment Bill; which I would say is a slightly long title but actually I'm all for you know clear language of what it intends to do and that's exactly what it intends to do. As is a bit de rigueur in this House now we've ended up with a title that doesn't really mean much. We've just thrown in the words "Oranga Tamariki Guardians" instead which really just reinforces what already exists in the law which is that the guardian and often what used to be Child Youth and Family have to sign-off. So there isn't actually a lot of change; we're still requiring a guardian to step in. These are substantial—substantial—hurdles for the young people to go through.What I would want to put to the Government even though they are supporting this small step and I think people at home need to understand that while I believe the whole House is supporting this but we'll find out soon—it's not supporting the initial and reasonable attempts of the member to make a substantial change. It's simply allowing—in a sense redressing or dressing up in a different way—what already occurs which is the young person has to go through substantial hurdles including now going to Oranga Tamariki and asking the chief executive or through their delegation for permission for this good which is a KiwiSaver to be opened. So I suppose I am putting the question then to the Government that well they often like an argument which is effectively "Who will think of the children?"; they do it often they use lots of nice virtue-signalling words and so forth. There is no harm in what Hamish Walker had put forward; there was only good.But one of the counterarguments—which is rather tangential but I suppose it's somewhat related to KiwiSaver—is that we've been challenged because a previous Government dropped the Government cash contribution and that somehow this is a huge knockout blow of why we should discriminate against young people in foster care. It might not have dawned on the other side that if you are not allowed to open an account as a foster child it doesn't matter if there was or was not a contribution of $1000—actually it was $1012 if I recall correctly. It doesn't make any sense. I think it was my somewhat eponymous namesake across the other side who was railing against the fact that a previous Government took away the cash contribution and that's the reason why we should continue to deny young people in foster care access to KiwiSaver. Well again I just repeat for the sake of clarity: there is no contribution if you cannot open an account period.But then I suppose the final challenge is—because we've heard huge talk from the other side about this $1000 contribution: this terrible injustice which occurred under a previous Government. So I'd love one of the other side—and I see Paul Eagle he's a good man a good man. I've probably destroyed his reputation now by praising him in the House; I'll withdraw and apologise if required. But there has been so much talk about this great evil that has been done: the withdrawal of $1000 from people that again foster children couldn't get. Will there be any gumption on the other side by Government members to stand to take a call and then at the finish of their call to seek the leave of the House to immediately debate that we resume having $1000 Government contributions? Will the Government actually stand by their debate today and say that not only will they support foster children but they will be announcing another spend. I mean they've spent billions of dollars—just go and talk to Shane Jones. So let's listen in these last seconds to whether the Government will actually announce that they're going to make a return to $1000 per year per person: no not a sausage."