Hayes JoJO HAYES (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm pleased to stand for the third reading of the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill. I am really disappointed that we were unable to make headway with some of our Supplementary Order Papers some of the amendments that came through because they would have actually made this bill much better. However it is what it is.Here we are on the third reading. It's been interesting sitting here listening to some of the contributions especially this contribution around living a life with dignity. Well at the end of the day I think that there are some people that can live a life of dignity on a benefit but many of them actually do strive for employment at the end of the day.So anyway this bill—and back to this bill—looks at some key areas of indexing the main benefits which some of my colleagues have already traversed this evening and removing some of the abatement thresholds and it also looks at changes within the Child Support Act and that Veterans' Support Act as well.The area that has been of contention for our side has been the repeal of sections 192 to 194 of the Social Security Act. That has been because we have felt that the dad must take responsibility which we have traversed. What we have also said is that the rights of the child have actually been ignored and that nobody has actually listened to what the child actually wants. To me that is a contravention of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child especially the principle of all children having the right to an opinion and for that opinion to be heard. In this particular part of the bill that has gone through the child's voice has been silenced throughout especially once they start getting older and realising that dad is no longer in their lives hasn't been in their lives and the only life that they have lived is within a one-parent family.The changes that have been made to this bill—as you know sole-parent beneficiaries because they are no longer able to name the parent or they don't have to any more that reduction that was in there of $22 for each dependent child has actually been lifted as well as the reduction of $6 a week after 13 weeks regardless. So that has actually been lifted. Will that actually help these parents? I'm not sure. What it will do as my colleagues on this side have actually said is give the responsibility for that to every taxpaying New Zealander in this country. Is that the right thing to do? I don't think so. There will be a lot of people out there tonight listening to these debates and wondering just how much of Parliament is actually listening to those hard-working Kiwis who are paying their taxes who are looking after their kids who are proud to be mother and father of those children and who are thinking What on earth is this Government coming to?"I think the disclosure of sensitive personal information from Work and Income case managers is one of those things that are a big miss in this bill. I think that we do need to keep tabs on and files on our people on benefits including this benefit as well.I've talked about the child's right and I'm going to talk about what I call "whakapapa interrupted" because this is where when the father is no longer named he is out of the child's life and I assume that because if the father is there within the same household as the child is then the father should be paying or there should be some reductions made and that does happen. We would be foolish not to think that that doesn't happen in our society where the dad of a sole parent is actually on site even though he has not been named as the parent.When we then move on with the related amendments to section 9(5B) of the Child Support Act in order to enable sole-parent beneficiaries to discuss with Inland Revenue—all of that has been taken away because of the repeal by clause 6 of sections 192 and 194. That is a shame and I wouldn't be at all surprised if sooner rather than later we're back here because things have gone a little bit awry because of this bill. It is one of those bills where there has been a history of that happening—where we have come back to relitigate some of the areas where the bill lost its momentum.The annual adjustment of rates of main benefits—and this is the abatements—bringing it up to an additional $70 on top of the $1850 and bringing all of that up to the Consumers Price Index (CPI) which is by Order in Council annually—everybody else has that. We do support abatement as long as it doesn't favour others over and I think that bringing the abatement up to the average wage does that.As I have said I have traversed this bill quite thoroughly. I have stood and listened to the Minister in the first reading debate who started her contribution by saying this bill will lift people out of poverty. Benefits shouldn't be something that people are on for the rest of their life. It should only be a portion of their life and then it sets them on a road to their independence without a benefit. I don't think that this bill will lift people out of poverty to be honest. I think it might be a step towards it but it sure as heck won't do that. There are a lot more other things that will actually help lift people out of poverty like good education.The Minister said that she wanted a welfare system to be comfortable under a benefit—for people on a welfare benefit to be comfortable there. I think that a lot of people that are on a benefit aren't that comfortable. I think that what they want to do is get off that benefit as soon as they can and that's called dignity. That is actually called dignity at the end of the day.Finally the Minister mentioned in her first contribution that she felt that people with a benefit should return to work when they are ready. That did concern me because they might never be ready and that is a concern for all New Zealanders—that people who are beneficiaries may not be ready and they need to be encouraged to be ready and to end up going through the various work programmes etc. to get them ready. I mean that side over there is laughing thinking "Yeah everything is sweet as and we're going to win this." and whatever but really all they are doing on that side is consigning beneficiaries to something that will actually not be of help to them in the long run. That is a shame really and it is shameful when dads are let off the hook as my colleagues on this side have said.One day the Government members may wake up to the fact when it all hits them in the face when people who are earning good money realise exactly how much is actually going into supporting these women who will not name the father and that's when the proverbial will hit the fan and we will end up coming back here again. So it is no wonder that this side of the House cannot and will not support this bill. It is an ill-thought-out bill. It should have actually gone to a full select committee process so the public out there could have come in and we could have listened to the officials and what the officials had to say and keep asking questions the way that you normally do it in a parliamentary process. So again I do not support this bill. Thank you very much."