Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): Eighty-four thousand—that is the number I want people to think about when they think about what this bill the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill is doing. Eighty-four thousand—that's more than live in the city of Palmerston North and that number is the number of additional New Zealanders who are dependent on a benefit under this Labour Government; 84000 more New Zealanders not working dependent on the Government for their income. And this in a time of low unemployment in a time when our industries are crying out for workers where the growers literally can't find people to pick the fruit from the trees. And under Labour there are 84000 more people dependent on a benefit.Now here's the next number I want you to think about because this number is the bit that shows the true shallow nature of the compassion that members opposite talk about and that number is 30000. That is the number of additional children now living in households where mum and dad or mum or dad depend on a benefit for that family's income. Thirty-thousand more children—SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. I want to remind the member we are speaking to the third reading of a bill. It's the bill as it has come out of the committee of the whole House stage. It's a specific bill and the member hasn't even glanced in its direction yet. The member will from now speak to the bill if she wishes to continue.NICOLA WILLIS: What this bill does is remove work expectations from women who have children while they are on the benefit. It entrenches dependence on welfare for a significant group of parents and it is in that context that I point to the crisis of dependence that is emerging under this Government.I will take you to why it is that we want to encourage parents into work because there is a view on the other side that it is somehow uncompassionate or unsympathetic to say to a mother Actually we think it's time you prepare for work. It's time you make yourself available for part-time work. It's time you make yourself eventually available for paid full-time work." Because that is the status quo that this bill seeks to change. This bill takes away those requirements. And we say on this side of the House that actually when you do that what you are doing is you are removing the expectation that people will take the best known the best walked path out of poverty. What is the biggest predictor of child poverty? What is the biggest predictor that a family will face material hardship? It is that that family remain dependent on the State for their income through welfare dependence and this bill says that people will not need to face work tests when they have subsequent children on the benefit. This bill says that when a parent has a subsequent child on the benefit the expectation will be that they can stay on that benefit until that child is 14.Members opposite say that this is going to be good for children and it is going to be good for parents and what we say on this side of the House is that what we think is a lot better for children and parents is where they face strong incentives—not just incentives but expectations—that they are capable of returning to paid employment with all the benefits that that brings. The research into this is clear: people in paid employment have increased confidence they broaden their networks of support and they have more social interaction in the community. We know that when people enter paid employment that disrupts intergenerational cycles of poverty. It enhances child development because parents who are in the workforce demonstrate to their children what can be gained from work and pass that imprint on to their children. So what this bill shows is a poverty of ambition for mothers who have children on the benefit.I want to point out in response to some of the claims made by members opposite the reality that faces working parents up and down New Zealand. I want to acknowledge and recognise the mothers and the fathers who do access who do make the decision to balance paid work and caregiving responsibilities because the claim made by members opposite and in the purpose statement of this bill is that actually it's very terrible for children when parents return to work—it's stressful for the family; it's going to have all of these adverse consequences for children and for parents. That is one of the major claims made for this piece of legislation and I think that that is disrespectful of the mothers and fathers up and down the country who make a decision when their child is 12 months old or six months old or whenever they see fit that it is in the best overall interests of their family that they return to paid employment.And some mothers make that choice because they look at the pathway ahead for their children and they think "I want to provide them more material security. I want to be able to meet the rent each week without being stressed out about it." And they go and they do cleaning shifts and they work in takeaway restaurants and they return to all sorts of employment not always because it feeds their ego or their status but because they believe it is the best thing for their family. And what members opposite would have you believe is that mothers only ever return to paid employment because nasty people make them do so. And they would prefer a situation where those who are dependent on the State for their income do not face incentives to return to work. And I say well that is disrespectful of the thousands of mums and dads across the country who make considerable sacrifice by leaving their young children at home by dropping their young children into day care because they have made a judgment that the best thing overall for their family and for the hopes of their children is to be in paid employment.Why should we have a poverty of ambition for those who are currently on welfare? Well actually we should have the highest expectations for them because it is really important that they have a way out of poverty and we should not consign them to 14 years on the DPB which is what this bill would allow for and pretend that that's compassion. Actually on this side of the House we have a lot of empathy for people who have limited incomes and who are working incredibly hard to raise their families. That is stressful and that is hard. But what we also have for those people is compassion that they need more money and members opposite may think that there is a never-ending money tree at the end of the garden but there isn't. There will never be enough benefit lifts to equal the wealth that comes from paid employment and an aspiration for further promotion for bigger pay packets.And I'll tell you how that happens: it happens because you return to work part-time as a mother as is actually required by our current law—you face an incentive that once you have that subsequent child you have to make your absolute best efforts to return to work—and when you take that chance you take that part-time work and you build from there you meet other people you gain a sense of self you establish a relationship with an employer then in time you can get that promotion then in time when your child starts school and things are easier you might be able to get full-time work and suddenly you can put more on the table for your kids. You can give them a better future. That is the aspiration we have on this side of the House. So we will not be told by members opposite that this sort of legislation is somehow compassionate. It shows an absolute poverty of ambition.Before I sit down I want to acknowledge the Hon Paula Bennett whose vision was to create a system in New Zealand where welfare was a safety net that encouraged people to be ambitious for themselves and what was possible for them. The subsequent child policy was a change she introduced. It was a great thing to do. It recognised that work is the greatest liberator that increases choices and opportunities. Members opposite may not understand that but they should think about the children they are consigning to poverty as a result."