O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): We're obviously addressing the second reading of the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill. The other side have been talking at length—usually through heckling rather than taking a call—about being against sanctions but one of the great paradoxes of the second reading is that they've sanctioned their own speeches to be at least 30 seconds when they had a full 10 minutes. They are sanctioning themselves which is rather ironic.Look obviously we're at second reading. I'd love to thank all the public who came into the select committee to talk. I'd like to thank the officials. They did an amazing job advising us in the select committee—no wait a minute; there wasn't one. Now obviously we're in Budget urgency—and I seem to be getting a rough Boris Johnson voice for a moment. SPEAKER: Is that a leadership bid?SIMON O'CONNOR: Yes I do apologise but thank you. That's the second time in almost as many days I've semi - put my foot in it of a sort around the leadership. Let's not make it three.It is understandable being a piece of Budget legislation that is going through all stages that by definition we don't do a select committee stage but I think it's a pity that we haven't had that opportunity for two reasons. One I don't think there is the urgency when one looks at the bill as currently proposed around commencement dates and when the benefits as put forward by the Government manifest themselves. There isn't the rush that's needed. The other is that I feel a number of people would have liked to have spoken.There's been a lot of talk in the House particularly from the other side—not through speeches I might add—about the young people. I think it absolutely behoves us as a House to hear the voices of young people on this issue. Again there's a paradox of a sort that you know we've had a climate change protest or something recently and it was lauded that the young people were having a voice and yet here on something relatively important—that of parental rights and the support of parents to their children—they haven't had that chance. I suspect too that mums and dads would have liked to have had that opportunity. So I suppose in my second reading contribution I just need to think through or try to articulate what I would imagine would have been some of the thoughts coming through.Starting at the back of the bill of course is around veterans' affairs. Look it won't surprise the House I think—quite supportive of that. I think aligning the abatement system of the veterans pension to the wider scheme is prudent and I acknowledge actually that that's starting on some wider work that's being done around veterans' affairs in its entirety. Without belabouring it too far because it's not as significant a part of the bill the work that our veterans have done in serving the Realm needs to always be recognised on par or beyond—or beyond—the rest of us. So I suppose as we get into the committee stage we might draw that out a little bit further to make sure that the abatement rate for veterans is not only appropriate and aligned but if you will that it might even conform to an argument that they deserve more. I'm not completely convinced of that yet but it's something for us to explore in the committee of the whole House if this bill passes its second reading.There's obviously been a lot of discussion about the abatements themselves. As I mentioned in my first reading speech—and again I could imagine this would have taken up a lot of time in select committee from the public—it is something that National has supported in principle. I think the way it's been expressed in this bill is good linking it as it's doing effectively to the average ordinary-time weekly earnings. I think we're going to have to tease it out a little bit in the committee stage as to exactly what that means. I see it is linked to Statistics New Zealand. We're going to have some confidence in their data coming through but I think linking the abatement to that is prudent. There are potentially other options. I don't think they'll be necessarily the right ones but I think that's prudent.The other is the abatement total which is I think now at $150 or that has been suggested. Is that prudent? As I mentioned in the first reading debate I think it's probably in about the right space but there is always a balance when we are dealing with abatements to make sure that we are always encouraging people to seek work first and foremost and to seek any work that's prudent. I'd better stress that by saying any work" I'm not saying that someone should take up something illegal or completely demeaning but you know within the general notion of what it means to work—to take that up.It wouldn't surprise you that from this side of the House we do believe that if you are doing a day's work you get to keep as much of that money as possible. So that's a positive and I acknowledge the intention that this bill is bringing in that regard but we always want to make sure that the balance is right to encourage a person on to more hours of work. I personally don't want to see a situation or a regime—and this bill might be playing into that. Again we'll have to tease it out further in the committee of the whole House to make sure that through the benefit itself which is a generous abatement we are not accidentally—and I hope it's accidentally—allowing that person to say "You know what? It's actually financially and socially beneficial for me to remain on a benefit." We want that encouragement to remain to move into full-time work.I think others with a smarter mind than me—particularly around taxes and tax relief—will want to understand how the abatement plays into the likes of Working for Families and tax work credits and so forth. Again we don't want to end up with a funny or a perverse situation where a generous abatement—for the right intentions I'm sure—leads to a person actually remaining on a benefit. There is a real importance of dignity in work and I would hope that all members of the House would acknowledge that. Fundamentally from this side of the House we do believe in the goodness of work. We believe that it actually is beneficial not only to the worker but to their family and to their children. It creates aspiration.I was explaining to some Americans who were here recently on a State department trip that New Zealand is a genuinely socialistic country. We—all parties—believe in having a social State. It's a place where we do want to provide support but I suppose it becomes an argument of balance. That's why in the last section around sole parents not declaring the father's name which a number of colleagues have traversed quite well we think that line is crossed just a little bit too much—just a bit too much. We can understand there are situations where people don't. I understand there were about 12000 people last year who did not declare who the father was. There are rightful exemptions and these remain actually in the current legislation such as where someone feels threatened where there are acts of violence or where there is an incestuous nature of relationships and where the father is not should not and never should be declared.But there is a feeling I'd say by a good portion of New Zealanders who work very hard and support their own families that there is a responsibility on behalf of the parent seeking that benefit—primarily women but not exclusively. I think it's easy—me included—to fall into the trap to make this just a single gender issue. It is not. But ultimately there is a responsibility. In fact it's probably more of a moral position but actually one should rightfully and knowingly share the information that they have. So in the framing of a benefit dynamic I would hope everyone in the House would feel that benefits are good right and proper. We want to help people and we want benefits to be as generous as they can be but there is an expectation on those who are seeking—[Bell rung] Thank you Mr Speaker—oh sorry we're in the second reading not committee stage aren't we?SPEAKER: The member is not obligated to use all the time.SIMON O'CONNOR: Oh no I feel I have to put my foot in it for a third time at some point today. There's an element too with the benefit system that we expect a degree of honesty. So perhaps if I could phrase where my opposition to removals of sanctions are coming from even if I was to step it away from my earlier comment which I stand by which is that people should not be paying taxes for other people where they should be—in other words where particularly a father is not paying their due money to support their child. But for someone to knowingly not share information is for me a problem.I think it's probably important to keep it in Hansard and for anyone watching that we're not arguing here about a person who is unable to declare who the father particularly is; it's knowingly holding back that information. In more legal moral and ethical terms we're talking about a wilful ignorance. That for me is a bit of a problem because effectively a welfare system—[Speaker shifts in his seat]—you have put me on edge now Mr Speaker—is based fundamentally on integrity. It's the integrity of the wider taxpayers who say "We are prepared to work hard to obviously generate money to pay our taxes to help those in need but there's a reciprocal contact"—a social contract that we talked about in the first reading—"that means we expect an honesty and an integrity in completeness from those seeking a benefit."Fundamentally where I'll end it is that we expect a parent who does know who the other parent is to be honest and open and provide that information. Thank you Mr Speaker."