Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): I'm taken by surprise—that was a short speech from the honourable member Peeni Henare who actually is a very good orator. I'm very surprised. I was actually looking forward to his waxing lyrical about all the things that are good and great about this bill and then he caught me by surprise.I stand to take a call in the second reading of this bill. In particular I want to just address a couple of points that were made in the first reading. The first point is one that was made by Marama Davidson. She was talking about ensuring that this welfare system which is broken is fixed and so forth. I just want to remind the member that actually last year she voted in support of the Social Security Act when there was the rewrite of the Act. If she was to look into the Act it says this in section 3(e): to impose on the following specified people or young people the following specified requirements or obligations:" and it begins to list these obligations. The member talked a lot about how we don't need sanctions and we don't need obligations and that it is hard-headed but it was that very member and her party that voted for those. Why? It's because obligations are necessary—in the right place at the right time for the right cause they are necessary. So I just wanted to remind the member of that as well.We are talking about this bill in particular the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill. There was reference by the Minister in regards to Whakamana Tāngata which was the report by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group—here's the full report here. I've read through the report. There are 42 recommendations. There are a number there that we would support. I commend the committee that put this together. What is a concern is that it actually talked about the importance of indexing and about the abatement rates but only two of the 42 recommendations are being put forward here. So when this current Government is talking about actually taking a hold and taking the recommendations seriously—which by the way it cost us around about $5.4 million to put this together; a good report—you would have thought "If that was the case why wasn't there more put to it?"When we think about this issue here the most critical issue is around the removal of sanctions in sections 192 to 194 in the Social Security Act. I know the member across the House Darroch Ball was talking about whether this actually worked—is this right? Is the imposition that this has especially on children and on families the right thing to do? So I take it that the member may not have read the full part of the whole Act. I'd like to refer him to section 70A of the Social Security Act 1964 so that he can actually see that there is a discretionary clause so that where there is just cause this sanction or this obligation is not imposed. By the way this sanction or obligation is written in the Act and by the way again New Zealand First and the members across there voted for this rewrite. It says in here section 70A(3) that the sanction "shall not apply if the chief executive is satisfied that—(a) there is insufficient evidence available to establish who is in law the other parent; or (b) the beneficiary is taking active steps to identify who is in law the other parent; or (ba) the beneficiary or any of the beneficiary's children would be at risk of violence if the beneficiary carried out or took steps to carry out any of the actions referred to in subparagraphs (i) to (iii) of subsection (1)(c); or (bb) there is a compelling circumstance other than a circumstance mentioned elsewhere in this subsection for the beneficiary's failure or refusal to carry out any of the actions set out in subparagraphs (i) to (iii)". I'd like to say that these again were voted for. They are discretions that are available to the chief executive and actually these clauses give just cause why there shouldn't be a sanction applied. So I'd like to remind the member that these are the reasons why that's critically important.What we are talking about here is not unjust. What we're talking about is not unfair. What we're talking about is actually in this case the importance of having a sanction where there is need to put obligation and responsibility on to the father and in a moment I will refer to some of the demographics of who is actually receiving sole parent support. It may surprise some of the members across the House. In fact I'll refer to them now. I've actually looked up the stats and so forth and had a look at who's receiving sole parent support and we've tracked this back as far as March 2014 where there were 78844 receiving that amount. But if we look at the numbers and if we go by gender there are actually 5048 males that are receiving the sole parent benefit. There are 53776 females. If we look at the ethnic groups there are approximately 1745 New Zealand European there are 27966 of Māori descent Pacific peoples make up 6339 and for all other ethnicities the figure is 6015. So that makes by the time we get down to the figure of 19 March of this year around about 58824. So that's the demographic profile. It's predominantly female but there are some males. It is predominately Māori in terms of ethnic demographic and those are predominantly between the ages of 25 and 39 as well and the majority have been on a continuous duration of more than one year as well.But what was surprising to me as I was looking through the statistics was looking at how over that period of time the trends have changed. In fact in March 2014 it was 78844. Currently in March 2019 it's 58000. So we can see that on average over that period of time from 2014 there's been a reduction of 3400. But what interested me are the statistics between March 2018 to March 2019—this year. So it's 58830 as of March 2018 and as of March 2019 it's 58824. In one year of a coalition Labour - New Zealand First Government there's only been a decrease of six. Maureen Pugh: How many? Hon ALFRED NGARO: Of six. So in the period of time of a National-led Government with the work that it was undertaking there was on average 3402 that we were reducing on the sole parent support. In just one year of the Labour - New Zealand First Government the only reduction decrease has been six. So that has to show something: that the amount of work that was put through under a National-led Government was quite significant. In the time that I have I want to point out a couple of things that are particularly important about this bill and that is the issue around sanctions. We've talked in the first reading about thresholds the abatement rates and the indexing which we on this side of the House have some support for but in the sanctioning there was quite an opposition from the other side. Here are the reasons why we have the sanctions: obligations are critically important; they are in the Act which was voted for and supported by the other side. There's been a report released that talked about the obligations and it states this: "Obligations are a reality in the workplace in schools and in our relationships. Why wouldn't they be part of the benefit system? Far from being unfair to beneficiaries they ensure integrity and a level playing field for all who have dealings with Work and Income. Beneficiary advocates should support rather than oppose obligations because they build public confidence in the benefit system [they] lift empathy and regard for those who rely on it". It's very clear that the sanctions that are appropriate and imposed in the right way are actually important to this welfare system as well. So in my last moments here I note that the real concern for us on this side is this: the speeches from the other side have been talking about how wonderful this system is how groundbreaking this system is and how they are truly making a difference but why is it under urgency that we are here today for all stages of this bill when the implications of it and the application of the indexing will not happen till 2023? That is four years—four years—and yet we have those from the Child Poverty Action Group and the Children's Commissioner saying that the indexing should happen now. Why? Because the benefits would happen now. When it does happen what will they receive? A measly $11. So on the other side they are telling us "This is a good thing this is a great thing." but guess what? You're going to have to wait till 2023 and when it does come it's going to be great because it's going to be $11! Yet we on this side in 2015 increased the benefit level immediately by $25. That's right—that's the difference. So I'd like to hear from the other side the speeches that will justify why we are in urgency why it's in four years and why it's only $11. That will truly make a difference! Why is it that when you talk about the sanctions there is already a discretion here in the Act that allows for that to happen so there is no just cause why a father cannot be named?"