Prosser Richard: Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 01 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2864. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am enormously proud to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take my first call on my colleague Tracey Martin’s bill. I know it has been a source of great passion for her as well as reflecting the great knowledge that she has on this subject. I do not intend to take up too much of the House’s time. I do wish as I say to give some acknowledgment to Tracey Martin for having this bill drawn from the ballot and also for the enormously productive cross-party work she has done both in the Social Services Committee and through other auspices to gain the Government’s approval to basically get it on side and to persuade some essentially very decent members on the Government side that this is a necessary bill and this is a bill that will help a sector of the community that otherwise would not get help. I think it does reflect the fact that even in a combative adversarial Westminster-style parliamentary democracy there are still avenues by which we as good people can work together for a common goal.I want to also acknowledge the other Opposition members who have spoken as well as Government members such as Mr Ngaro. I acknowledge Jacinda Ardern for bringing what is a very forthright and valuable Supplementary Order Paper to this bill. I also acknowledge Jan Logie and I want to speak about her Supplementary Order Paper in a moment.I had a brief conversation with Tracey Martin this morning when we talked about the upcoming Committee stage of her bill. She said to me: “What’s an orphan?”. My understanding of an orphan was that it was a child who had lost both their parents to death—that was my perception of it. She said: “Yes you’re right but there’s much more to it than that. A child in New Zealand is legally declared an orphan if they do not have parents for a number of other reasons.” which I had not previously been aware of. If for example both the child’s parents are in jail or if they are both unable to carry out the activities of parenting because they are drug addicts or alcoholics or otherwise incapable of providing care then that child is declared to be an orphan.As this bill addresses there are a number of gaps in the legislation and in our social care arrangements that need to be filled so that children who fall into these categories and the people who care for them are able to access the sort of support and the kinds of allowances that are available to children who for whatever reason do not fill those particular pigeon holes. We do not want to go into too much more detail on that because I know it has been addressed by other speakers and I realise there are other speakers who wish to take a call on this bill.I want to predominantly talk about Jan Logie’s Supplementary Order Paper 70 which calls for bringing forward the commencement date of this bill from 1 July 2018 to 3 months after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. Again I say I am very appreciative of the fact that Government has agreed to support this bill but pushing the start date out to 2018 means that what we are essentially doing as a nation as a Parliament as a Government in order to save a comparatively very small amount of money is putting what is a small amount of money for a Government and for a nation onto the shoulders of a small number of people who are in the worst possible position to be able to afford to pay it.I do not want to be provocative but I do wish to make a comparison between the amount of additional funding required from the Government that bringing the start date forward will cost and compare that with one particular other item of discretionary Government spending that is going to go ahead. We know from the breakdown and from the figures that Tracey Martin has given us in support of this bill that the additional cost to the taxpayer of rolling it out will be about $16 million a year in total. So what I would like to say is that what we are about to do as a nation is spend $26 million on two referendums on changing the flag. I say that just to put this thing into perspective. Many people would contend and I would agree that no one has called for a referendum on the flag. No one actually wants a change in the flag if the political polls are to be believed. Yet here we are about to spend nearly 2 years’ worth of what it would cost to bring the start date of this bill forward from July 2018 to 3 months after the date it receives the Royal assent.We can as an intelligent caring nation and as a Parliament that has shown we can work across party boundaries look at those two things not in isolation but alongside each other and say: “Here we have a bill that will cost about $16 million or a referendum that will cost $26 million. One of them is for a change in the flag that no one wants and a referendum that no one called for. The other one is a very tangible assisting support payment to some very vulnerable kids and some very stretched caregivers who look after them.” I would really like the Government to take that on board look at those two things side by side have a deep think about which is more valuable and put its money where its mouth is and support Jan Logie’s Supplementary Order Paper 70 as we are going to. Thank you.