Loheni AgnesAGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'd like to start my contribution to the second reading of the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill. First of all I'd just like to acknowledge my colleagues on this side of the House who've already spoken around the parts of the bill that we are in support of. But in my contribution I want to focus particularly on the repeal of sections 192 to 194 of the Social Security Act 2018. I've stated that I feel that the removal of the benefit deductions for sole parents who do not identify the other parent of the child is a change that I do not support. I've been listening to the very short contributions from the other side of the House who can offer what I feel are very shallow arguments as to why this part should be repealed. To me this is really about an ideological lens which is essentially against families. Why is this Government so anti-families because this is what I see as the premise of this bill and particularly this part. Words like stigma" and "punitive" have been bandied around on constant rotation and actually that's not an argument to withhold the fathers from their children to withhold the names just for that child to know the name of their father. That is not an argument.If I look back at the intent of this bill which includes "to support a sustained reduction in child poverty."—well this bill won't do that. It's a shallow attempt to address child poverty. The best thing that we can do for these children is to support their parents into paid employment. The sad fact is that parents in our society are not supported in the fulfilment of their parental responsibilities. My concern is that this bill specifically the removal of sanctions around naming fathers devalues the importance of parents—of mothers fathers—in their children's lives and parental involvement is critical to children's wellbeing as well. In most cases we know that children benefit socially economically and emotionally from having access to both parents. So why is this Government putting up barriers to that access? Knowing both your parents is key to them knowing their identity.So dads do matter. Studies have shown that children of involved fathers are less likely to drop out of school engage in risky sexual behaviours and break the law and they are more likely to do well in school and pursue healthy relationships. This is a terrible bill when I think of the children and how it will potentially affect them long term. There is a level of deceit here. This bill seeks to deceive the children who will not know who their fathers are. Dads can get out of being responsible for their children.If the Government really wanted to lift children out of poverty then how about tackling the rising costs of living? These families are currently facing rising costs in petrol rent and food. Where is the aspiration? Where is the ambition for these families?The Minister for Social Development wants to repeal the sanction because it's punitive to the sole parent mother. Well how about the fact that this bill actually punishes children with regards to putting up those barriers—those barriers that we might not think will affect them today but will affect them long term as adults? Is this the message that we want to give to our younger generations—that dads aren't important that we don't value them that we don't think their role is important and that we don't think they should be responsible for their children?On this side of the House we value strong families and personal responsibility parental responsibility. This bill goes against those values. As I said before in my first reading speech welfare is not wellbeing and I'll tell you why: when I grew up in a three-bedroom State house with 15—Kiritapu Allan: Pull up that ladder.AGNES LOHENI: Oh no it's not about pulling up a ladder. When I grew up in a State house with my family who migrated to this country from Samoa they didn't come here all this way to be on welfare. No they didn't because they knew that jobs were the pathway to opportunities. They did not travel across the ocean to stay on benefits. I don't recall any of them being on benefits. Most of them my uncles and aunties—they hadn't even finished their secondary schooling but they came here and they took those factory jobs and they pulled together because they knew that that was the pathway for opportunities for them. They wanted work because it gave them skills and they pulled together to make ends meet. All of us children were well-fed but more importantly we were nourished by the strength of family. That's actually where wellbeing comes from. It's not a handout; it's supporting families. It's supporting families supporting mums supporting dads to support their children to take responsibility for their children and you know it—you actually know it.SPEAKER: Order!AGNES LOHENI: Wellbeing for children comes from supporting families in this country. It comes from taking responsibility. We've got to stop giving excuses for dads to abdicate their responsibilities to their children. As we said it's not a big group of dads but it's the underlying message that this bill gives. It's the underlying message around values—values of family strength of family and resilience.The sanctions are appropriate and they are just because ultimately this is also about other people in this country other hard-working people with their families who are also having to pay out for these families. Is there any consideration at all when this Government comes up with these bills to think of the taxpayers who are paying for this as well? Clearly not—clearly not in this one. This is sending a wrong message and I absolutely oppose the removal of that sanction. Finding meaningful work is absolutely the main ambition for New Zealanders in this country and that's what we should want for them as well because ultimately that is what will be better for these children.When I think about the figure that's been tagged here it's also misrepresentative to say the headline figure of—what is it?—a $46 a week increase by 2023 and then to say afterwards in small print that it's $11 a week by 2023. When you look at the extra increase that we've got at the moment in the rising living costs that goes well beyond the extra $11 a week. It's not really a gain. It's not really a gain for a sanction that is so destructive to families putting that barrier up to families. Actually we should be supporting families and removing that ability for these children to just know their father's name—Darroch Ball: For goodness' sake! Do you know how out of touch that is?AGNES LOHENI: No that's not out of touch actually. It's not out of touch. It's actually really important. It's disgraceful that you want to remove it. That is actually what's really disgraceful. If it's so important why didn't the Government take up the recommendations that were estimated on the fiscal cost of improving the adequacy and design of income support? What about the report? How many of those recommendations did this Government make? It is interesting that they're preparing for an increase in sole parent support when it's actually been declining over the last few years.This is a step in the wrong direction and it's a step back for these children. I oppose this bill."