Hayes JoJO HAYES (National): Talofa lava Madam Assistant Speaker. What a load of rubbish that member Kieran McAnulty just said then. Honestly what would he know? What would he know? I can tell you that now. Well I'm pleased to stand up to actually vote against this bill—this bill that will actually support more people to stay on benefits—to support those that have had generations and generations of beneficiary families. It will say to them that It's OK. If you're not ready to work right now it's OK and you can stay where you are on the benefit." This is not wellbeing—it is not wellbeing. Just as my colleague before me Agnes Loheni said there is a big difference between welfare and wellbeing and this is bill is not it. It is not a wellbeing bill I can tell you that now. I too have been a sole parent. There are a few of us in this House that have been sole parents and that have been on the domestic purposes benefit and yes when it came to naming the father I named the father because the father of my child needed to take responsibility and needed to pay the State. That was his role and he said that he would do that. I didn't want him in our lives but he said he would do that. There is no reason why dads cannot pay something towards their children unless there are those exemptions that my colleagues have already talked about. Why would somebody want to have a relationship with a woman that results in a child and then just walk away? Why would you want to do that? What about those young people that are in our jails today that are children of sole parents? These kids have ended up in the system because they have not had a father figure helping them guiding them through their lives. Why on earth can't the dad pay? If he wants to play he's got to pay. Every other parent—that is couples in this country married or not—that take that responsibility do that without a blink of an eyelid and yet we have a small group that sit back and say "No you don't have to pay. That's OK we understand."—everyone except those that come in under those exemptions that my colleagues have already alluded to in this House. When we start to look at the abatement rates well yes—as my colleagues before me have said—we do support abatement rates and the increase of abatement rates but how by much? What about those hard-working Kiwis that are working out there? They're paying their taxes and then we see that those people that are on a benefit get a large abatement and get a little bit more than those who have been working all their lives on a lower income. What about them? Where's the fairness there? I know that we want to see more and more of those people on benefits going into work. We have to support them. Is this the way? I don't think it's the way. There are other ways to get people off benefits and into employment opportunities. Perhaps the money that is being spent in this particular area could have actually gone more on employment. There was a little bit there for employment but it could have gone a lot more and much deeper. There are other ways rather than allowing people to say "It's OK you can stay on a benefit. You're not really ready to work yet. That's OK." No all that does is just breed more and more beneficiaries and we will see a lift in the rates of those young women—and it will be young women—that will end up being on that benefit and for what reason? For what reason? Because the dad—the father of those kids—won't cough up. He won't cough up and it is a shame. It is an indictment on our society that we let this happen. We are supposed to be a society that looks after everyone. We all look after each other. We actually help people to get into work. But no what this particular area in the bill is doing—repealing section 192 of the Social Security Act—is allowing women to not name those dads. Well for some women yep as my colleagues have said there are reasons why and I totally agree with that. Why put themselves at risk? But for the majority of them they can name the dads. I could almost say confidently that there will be sole parents sitting out there that are actually cohabiting with the father of their children and he will pay nothing. I can say that confidently because I know the areas where it happens. Some of those I know them and it's wrong and they should be naming that dad.So again I stand here—I'm very very upset that this Government thinks this is a great bill because it is not and that is why I'm not supporting this bill. That is why this side of the House is not supporting the bill. This Government needed to go away and do much more work and they didn't and if this is all they've come up with well shame on them—shame on them."