Adams AmyHon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): I wanted to come down and take a call on the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill because it seems to me that this goes right to the very heart of some of the differences between this side of the House and the coalition Government that now occupies the Treasury benches. Just while we're talking on Part 1 of course about the removal of sanctions and starting to eat away at that obligation part of welfare I think we need to talk about what's really driving this. We know that the Government is made up within its ranks and particularly out of the Green Party of people who fundamentally believe you should get paid the same whether you work or not and that there should be no incentive on people to actually go out and get ahead—no reward for effort and everybody should get the same whether they work or not. They want to see the removal of sanctions and it starts here in Part 1 of this bill. We know that because that's what Marama Davidson has said. We know that they seem to believe that money grows on trees in some mythical magical pixie-land ATM at the bottom of the garden that prints out money and we can all just stay home and get paid regardless and there should be no obligations on welfare. Well this side of the House doesn't accept that. This side of the House believes in supporting those in need. We believe in supporting those in need but we believe that that support comes with obligations to the taxpayers who go to work and pay for it. Those obligations are set out in the Social Security Act which by the way Labour voted for just a year ago. Those obligations say that Yes of course taxpayers are prepared to support you in your time of need but we do expect some things in return." One of the things that taxpayers expect is that we are holding both parents accountable and responsible for the raising of their child and the costs of doing that. We already have of course—and it's important to make this point because there's a lot of nonsense being spread—provisions that make it clear that if the mother is in a situation where she cannot or it would be inappropriate to name the father that is manageable. But when the mother knows who the father is it is not acceptable to simply choose not to have that father financially liable for paying for the cost of that child. And by the way if you want to talk about welfare of children and the wellbeing of children children deserve to know who their father is. They shouldn't be a transactional arrangement between the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and the mother. Children have a right to know who their father is and fathers have an obligation to step up and pay their share of the costs. That is why this side of the House says of course we want to support mothers and children. Of course we need to ensure children are properly supported. We do not though accept the Green Party view of the world that no one should be responsible no one should have sanctions on them in welfare and everyone should have the right to a universal basic income whether they work or not. That is not reality. That is fairyland where money grows on trees. Get into the real world and understand there are obligations that come with entitlements. There is no free ride. The Green Party doesn't know that; National absolutely does.Just before I come to abatements because I do want to spend a little bit of time on the issue of changing the abatement rate I want to talk very briefly in support of a couple of my colleagues' very good Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). Maureen Pugh has an excellent Supplementary Order Paper that says that at the very least where the mother is in an informal relationship with the child's father that should be disclosed to MSD. That makes perfect sense. If there is an informal relationship of support that is something that MSD should know. This is not free money you're entitled to over and above everything else. This is there to top up where family support is not provided. I think Maureen Pugh's amendment is a very good one and certainly should be supported. The other issue in Part 1 that I particularly wanted to touch on is the changing of the abatement rates. Now again over the last few days we've heard so much about wellbeing. We've heard the spin and we've heard the fluff and we've heard the noise and we've heard the virtues. But let's look at the reality of this right. The indexing of welfare benefits was the big panacea: "Look what we're doing for people on benefits. We're indexing their benefit rates to wage growth." Well here's the reality. By 2023—what is it; $11 a week by 2023? Do you know what that works out to just compared to the extra housing costs those same families are facing over that time? I've worked it out. Over the period between now and 2023 that's the equivalent of about 500 bucks received from this policy. Do you know the extra housing costs those families face because of this Government's incompetence over that period? It is $2500 minimum—$2500.So the Government here in their Wellbeing Budget is saying to benefit-dependent families "Go backwards by $2500 because of our policies our over-regulation our inability to understand the market but here have 500 bucks in four years' time and go away and think you're grateful." That's not wellbeing. It is a fallacy. It is a joke. It is an insult. If the Government cared at all about wellbeing if they really wanted to support families in New Zealand whether they're on welfare whether they're low-paid workers whether they're families who are getting up and working very hard they would do a couple of things. First of all they would take serious action to control the cost of living. You don't ramp up costs in the private rental market that see rents up $50 a week on average and say you care about wellbeing. You don't put up petrol taxes every year for three years and another tax in Auckland and say you care about wellbeing and family incomes. You don't make it harder and harder to get a job in a slowing economy and say you care about wellbeing and you're not going to kid anybody that by indexing welfare to wage changes—which don't come anywhere near meeting the cost of that—you're supporting those families.If you really want to talk about indexation how about indexing tax thresholds to the Consumers Price Index (CPI) changes? That would make a real change for New Zealanders across the country. But no no no—that makes no sense according to this Wellbeing Budget and this "wellbeing Government". They want to ramp up costs of rent. They want to ramp up costs of fuel. Electricity costs are going up. Food costs are going up. But here they say "Have a 500 buck a year pittance in 2023 and we'll call that wellbeing." Well that is a joke. It is an insult. It is not wellbeing. This bill should not be calling itself a welfare package. It should be calling itself an insult a fallacy and a joke. If you want to help people get ahead help them get into work; find a thriving job market. Create an economy that creates opportunities. What have we got? We've got 13000 more people on benefits because of this Government's incompetence. We've got $50 million more in hardship grants because of this Government's incompetence. We've got rents up $50 a week across New Zealand because of this Government's incompetence. And what is their answer? Eleven dollars a week in four years' time—and call yourselves grateful. That is an insult and that is why people around New Zealand in the Newshub poll this morning are saying this Budget does nothing for them. This is not wellbeing; it's a joke."