Ball DarrochDARROCH BALL (NZ First): It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill. I just want to make it quite clear that New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill through this first reading. There are a couple of very important reasons why we are not. First of all before I get into those reasons I would like to make it clear that this is not a social security matter. This is a corrections matter and it should not be brought to the Social Services Committee. The fact is that every single National member who has spoken on this bill has spent 99 percent of their time talking about corrections matters talking about community-based sentences community detention or the compliance. The only words they mention about social security are in terms of when they take the benefit off them. That is the only time that they speak about social services. This is not a social services matter; it is a crime matter. But once again this is a reactive policy from the Government and basically it is an admission of failure. It is reacting to the Government's failed law and order policies and it has to come up with this type of legislation to fill the gap—reacting once again. The fact is it is reacting to the consequences of its failed policies and the consequences of its failed policies are the consequences of those offenders who are repeatedly breaking their community sentences. That is the purpose of this bill. The second reason why New Zealand First will be opposing this bill is that the Government is using the basic safety net that is provided as a tool for punishment. There is a minimum social floor that the Government and the State provides for our citizens and the Government decided to use that as a punishment. That is the second reason why New Zealand First is not going to be supporting this bill. Here is a question for Mr Mitchell: what happens to those people who are on community-based sentences who fail to comply but are not on a benefit? How many warnings do you give them? One? Two? Three warnings—three warnings? So if you have got such great interventions and processes in play that stop these people who are on community sentences and are not on benefits from reoffending in the first place why do you have to extend and make an extra one for people who are on a benefit? Answer that question—answer that question. The fact is that like I said this legislation is an admission of failure by this Government. Community sentences are a privilege for those who are given community sentences instead of a jail term. The fact is if they abuse that privilege they should go to jail. They should be prosecuted—that is plain and simple—not given one warning not given two warnings not given three warnings. This Government wants to stand up and say that it is tough on crime but it is giving one written warning 14 days later they are giving the second warning and then only the third time do they strike. This Government is soft on crime. Just like the National Party is soft on crime and just like the Labour Party is soft on crime. The fact is that crime has been increasing in New Zealand and the reoffending rates have been increasing and this Government has increased the number of offenders who have been given community-based sentences. Ever since 2008 this Government has increased the number of sentences that have been community-based. But I would just like to look very quickly at the explanatory note because it highlights quite a number of the flaws in the bill itself and the actual reason for the bill. It is talking about without burdening the court system". So the bill wants some other steps in play without prosecuting and burdening the court system. That is the real reason this legislation is here: to stop the court system being even fuller than what it is at the moment because of the failing law and order policies of this Government. The priority is not justice it is not about accountability; it is about keeping them out of the court system. One last thing it says here that they will be kind enough not to take more than 50 percent of the gross benefit for anyone with a child. I would like to know how the Government expects an individual or a family to live when they have got a benefit and half of that is taken away. I want any National member—backbencher or Mark Mitchell the author of this bill—to stand up and say how that individual would survive on half of the benefit. This bill will not be supported by New Zealand First. Thank you."