Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I stand this afternoon to speak to the second reading of the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill. As we've heard this morning there have been some very passionate contributions to this bill and to one part of it in particular. But I'll take us back to the beginning and explain that this is an omnibus bill so it is including other aspects to it and it is going to be making changes to the Social Security Act 2018 and the Veterans' Support Act 2014. We've heard that it does repeal sections 192 to 194 in the Social Security Act 2018 and will be removing sanctions that I suppose we will hear a lot more about as this debate progresses. But it will also be allowing for the manual adjustments of the rates of a main benefit. It will be adjusting them in line with the average wage in New Zealand as opposed to the current situation where they are linked to the Consumers Price Index (CPI). The changes to the Veterans' Support Act are also to bring it in line with other benefits for the purpose of making abatement rates or abatement thresholds for those pensions. National's not opposing those proposed changes to the abatement rates for veterans and we actually honour the part that they have played in New Zealand and the role that they have undertaken on our behalf as a country. If they so wish and want to earn extra money while they are on their veterans' pension then we support their right to keep more of their own money. Although a few I know in my own backyard are probably busier now that they've retired and most of that time is taken up in voluntary roles for those that do find themselves employed we certainly support them in keeping that. However we do have some concerns with the changes to the Social Security Act 2018 and I'll explain those as I work my way through. I thought it might also be helpful to explain to those people who may be watching—and I know it's a particularly unusually wet day on the West Coast; so there may be some people tuned into Parliament TV—what those abatement rates and the indexing actually does mean. The abatement rates refer to the amount of money that someone on a benefit can earn while they are employed before it affects their main benefit. So for instance earning between $100 and $200 will make a 30c reduction in the dollar to their main benefit. If they earn over $200 that increases to 70c in the dollar. The indexing is about tying benefits to the percentage increase in the net average wage rather than the CPI as it currently is.The other aspect to this omnibus bill is what I would consider a retrograde step where the sanctions are to be removed in situations where in most cases mothers refuse to name the father of their baby meaning that that father is now no longer liable for contributions towards their own child's financial support. I call that Spray and Walk Away". This is unfortunately also a reversal of Labour's own policy.SPEAKER: I think the member should watch her taste really.MAUREEN PUGH: It was brought in by the Clark Government so it's a bit ironic that we find ourselves actually supporting the Labour Party's own original policy.What I have heard this week was a very heartfelt contribution from our newest MP Paulo Garcia. I thought he summed it up extremely well in his maiden speech on Wednesday and I'd like to quote the part that really resonated with me and I believe relates to this debate we're having today: "We live in a day when we have put our own interests ahead of our children and this modern society will continue to do so to its own detriment. Men are particularly to blame. Women are often left abandoned uncertain and pressured to get rid of unexpected children or to raise them on their own. I salute in absolute praise all single mothers. I can honestly say that if either my wife or I had had to raise our daughters alone we would have struggled severely as well. Despite the due importance we all attach to this task in our hands—that of governing this country—parenting is the most important job we really have. As mothers and fathers and collectively as a Parliament and as a nation we need to support our parents we need to support our families and we need to support our children but I highlight that the men of this country need to do more. We as men need to stand strong in our relationships. We must be reliable providers and protectors. We must show tamariki the way to respect and honour women." I think that is really relevant to today's contribution to this bill.After 18 months of work by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group which cost this country around $112 million this is one of the recommendations that is coming out of this. So my question is around the need to actually change policy and I'd like to know what evidence the Government is using that shows that the sanctions were not working that shows that their own policy was not working. I know that the former Minister for Social Development Anne Tolley has told us that actually to impose a sanction was particularly hard. It was not an easy task and so if there was good reason that there should not be a sanction and that there should not be the naming of the other parent particularly around safety for the other parent and child those sanctions were not imposed. There was careful consideration of the situation that everyone was in and so I simply have to ask: what is the hurry in having this particular part of the bill that we're discussing today in this House? It could have been sent to a select committee so that we could have explored the evidence and we could have heard from the experts about what parts of this regime of sanctions were not working and then we could have looked at the solution to that problem.I know that the Hon Anne Tolley did a huge amount of work in this space around benefit dependency and encouraging people back into the workforce. I also know that one of the great indicators of a successful society is the number of people that are currently and actively employed not only in work but also in society. What we are seeing is a reversal of the trend and we know that all of the indicators were heading in the right direction. In fact it was even stated by the Children's Commissioner and in the Salvation Army's State of the Nation report that the indicators were heading all in the right direction—in fact even the indicator around child poverty. It was stated that it appeared that the trend of increasing child poverty had ceased and that the trend was heading in a positive direction. So again the indicators were saying that the policies in place were actually working.We do know that children that grow up in welfare-dependent homes do not just suffer because of a lack of financial support but it is the other social impacts that also make a difference to their life. It was very well articulated by Bill English when he said "We already have a whole lot of measurements of child poverty but it looks like they're just going to focus just on incomes and of course that's only half the story with any kind of poverty including child poverty because the other side of the story is social dysfunction". We don't fix social dysfunction by keeping people dependent on the State and that's where we're heading with this Government because alongside removing these sanctions they have also removed compulsory training and upskilling that will actively get people back into the workforce. Thank you."