Loheni AgnesAGNES LOHENI (National): Madam Assistant Speaker talofa lava.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Talofa.AGNES LOHENI: Thank you. I take this call on the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill. So the key parts of this bill are indexing of main benefits removing deductions and changing abatement thresholds which require amendments to the Social Security Act 2018 and the Child Support Act 1991 and Veterans' Support Act 2014.Just touching on abatement rates which some of my colleagues have already mentioned in that generally we are supportive of abatement rates ultimately finding meaningful work is the main ambition of many New Zealanders who are currently on the jobseeker support. So there is a fine line between where we have those settings to ensure that there are still incentives to move into full-time paid work which is ultimately better outcomes for those people for their families.I'd just like to touch on a comment that the member Marama Davidson spoke to about divisiveness in terms of the repeal of section 192 which was the one to remove the benefit deductions on sole parents who do not identify the other parent of their child. Ultimately I think this part of the bill—actually this bill—is divisive to families. We on this side of the House have always been pro-families and supportive to families. The underlying ideology in this bill is actually to be divisive. It's actually putting a barrier up between children and one of their parents.Marama Davidson: It's not what the sanction does.AGNES LOHENI: The sanctions actually did work. So let's have a look at what this says. It's a really shallow attempt actually. This bill is a very shallow attempt to address child poverty. In terms of a stigma this isn't about removing stigma; this bill is actually about parental responsibility. It's about personal responsibility. It's about the fact that taxpayers are paying for this. This is not the Government; this is about other hard-working New Zealanders who are contributing to this who are paying for this. They've got their own children to pay for and at the moment now these other hard-working New Zealanders have also got increased costs of living under this Government. So this is another burden on taxpayers.So I recall that Minister Sepuloni had been quoted as saying that this bill was about catching up with the times. So catching up with the times let's see—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! [Interruption] Order! All members—I think we need to all come to order. This is starting to get a little out of hand as with the previous contribution. We shall not heckle each other in this Chamber. Is that clear? I can refer members to Standing Orders if you would prefer but let's just have a little decorum in this particular debate.AGNES LOHENI: As I said Minister Sepuloni had been quoted as saying that this is about catching up with the times. So what are the times that she is referring to? Is it the time to throw away personal responsibility? Is it the time to withhold kids from knowing who their dads are? Is it the time to disregard dads and their roles and their responsibilities?True dignity actually comes from being independent of the State. Of course we are there to help and to support people who need it when those times come. It should be a safety net. We don't want it to be a permanent state of existence. That is actually not wellbeing for those children. It is not wellbeing for those families.This bill gives the message that we want to make it easier for you to remain on welfare.Kieran McAnulty: Rubbish. What a load of rubbish.AGNES LOHENI: This bill gives the message that we don't value personal responsibility. No it's not rubbish. That is actually the message that comes through in this bill. This bill gives the message to the children that Your dads don't matter. In fact your dads don't exist." Marja Lubeck: That's terrible. AGNES LOHENI: It is terrible—it is absolutely terrible. If you actually want to talk about children and then you want to give visibility to the children—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Do not bring the Speaker into the debate.Hon Member: Shameful. AGNES LOHENI: This is not shameful; this is actually the message that this bill gives. Where is the incentive to move off the benefit and on to a pathway to work and to better outcomes for your families? Where is that incentive? The best pathway out of poverty is through work through jobs. Let's not forget—it's been mentioned and I'm going to mention it again—the former Minister for Social Development and Employment Steve Maharey who supported sole parents being required to name the other parent. As he stated in this House "It is a rort and I've said time and time again in the Parliament that fathers must front up to the obligations and we will make sure they do."—as much as we can. Hon Andrew Little: And if they don't you punish the kids—very clever. Very clever—punish the kids.AGNES LOHENI: Well no this bill is actually about punishing the children. The National Party actually reduced the sanctions for sole parents who failed to meet the requirements of the Act but left it in place because it's incumbent on absentee fathers to at least provide for their children. But this Labour coalition Government doesn't care what it costs the taxpayers—hard-working low and middle income New Zealanders who right now are finding it very challenging since this Government came into force with the increased cost of living more taxes rents on the rise and job creation on the decline. Is there any consideration at all for these hard-working families? So let's have a look at the numbers in terms of does this work. The numbers who incur a section 70A penalty did actually fall. In 2004 there were 19443 and in 2016 that number had fallen to 13616. That's a decrease of 30 percent so who was saying that it doesn't work? It does actually work. The other reason that has been cited for removing the sanction is that it was often family violence - related but actually those exemptions were already in place. The exemptions include cases where there was insufficient evidence where the child or sole parent could be at risk of violence where the child was conceived as a result of incest or sexual violation where the sole parent was actively trying to identify the other parent or where there were other compelling circumstances. Right there are exceptions to the rules for cases of violence so that blows that argument out of the water. So here we have a classic case of the State putting a wedge between children and their fathers and of the State saying it knows best for families. The repeal of this sanction weakens these children's opportunity to know and have a relationship with both parents. I refer to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which says that it is a child's right to be registered immediately after birth to have a name and nationality and as far as possible to be known and to be cared for by their parents. That is a convention which New Zealand has signed up to. It also protects a child's right to preserve their identity including their nationality name and family relations without unlawful interference. We should be supporting and encouraging dads to take responsibility for their children not putting up barriers. It comes down to values. If we truly value families if we want to support families to be strong and resilient and if we want our children to know both their parents who are a big part of knowing their identity then we would not be supporting this bill. There are real long-term effects for fathers being left out. This affects children. The long-term wellbeing of children is not keeping them in benefit-dependent households. Welfare is not the same as wellbeing. We absolutely need to ensure that all New Zealanders no matter where they come from or where they live have a warm dry home food in their lunch boxes a secure home and equal access to opportunities but not at the expense of having the State putting barriers up to children knowing who their dads are. We need to look more comprehensively at how we can improve people's financial wellbeing and at reducing the number of children who are living in benefit-dependent households. On that note I oppose this bill. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. Kieran McAnulty you have five minutes."