Muller Todd: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMuller Todd: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7780. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise for a short call in the second reading of the Support for Children in Hardship Bill. We had 31 submissions and 16 then submitted in person. All—every single one of them; that may well have been lost in the narrative to date—were generally supportive of the intent of this bill to improve the lives of New Zealand children living in material hardship. If I can quote just one submission from the Child Poverty Action Group not known for its echoing of the National Government’s direction it said: “CPAG is pleased that the government has acknowledged the role adequate income plays in child outcomes and is pleased that there is no attempt in this Bill to confine the increased income to only those children exhibiting hardship.” So from all quarters we have had unanimous support that the intent of this bill was heading in the right direction.I have to acknowledge that there were of course two or three areas that had some debate and concern covering obligations and the nature of the support that is proposed and I particularly want to talk about the obligations this afternoon. The specifics that were raised through the select committee process related to the obligations that we now have on sole parent support beneficiaries and partners of those same beneficiaries around lowering the age of the youngest child at which the part-time work obligations kick in—from 5 to 3 years—and changing the hours of work required to meet that part-time work test from 15 hours to 20 hours.You have already heard in this debate this afternoon some highly emotive and I think quite extreme responses to those sensible obligations to ensure that when your youngest is 3 you ready yourself to get back into the New Zealand workforce. Through the debate I was significantly convinced by the advocacy of Dr Russell Wills the Children’s Commissioner who when talking to this point specifically said: “The research indicates that a parent obtaining full-time paid employment with sufficient earnings is the most important event to lift children out of poverty.”He then went on to say in respect of the obligations around moving from 5 years to 3 years—and although this is a significant quote it is worth adding to this debate this afternoon. This is again from the Children’s Commissioner: “I can’t see a good reason for the age of return to the workforce being different to people who are currently working than parents who are going to work for the first time from a benefit. Therefore 3 years old is a reasonable choice and 20 hours of work will increase that connection to work.” So this is the Children’s Commissioner—whose report has been echoed here this afternoon ad nauseam—speaking very clearly without debate that the move from 5 years to 3 years and the move from 15 hours to 20 hours are appropriate for New Zealand and are appropriate for this group to connect them back to the New Zealand economy because that is how they lift themselves and their families out of poverty. That is why we have this policy in place and why it enjoys the support not only I am sure ultimately of this House but of the wider country.Finally I would like to make a couple of points in respect of the concern that was raised around the obligations that we have of putting people back into suitable work and some concern around what suitability looked like. In my view there was far too much of a paternalistic view from the other side that jobs needed to look a particular way otherwise it simply was not appropriate for people to put themselves forward for such part-time work as if somehow the Labour Opposition knows a view of what works best for people out there. It is paternalism at its highest order.I do want to make a final point around flexibility. It is absolutely clear that there already exists a highly flexible approach from Work and Income that looks at the individual looks at the family situation looks at the part-time work that is on the table and puts a sensible solution together that works for them works for their family and works for the country. I strongly support this bill.