Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a real tragedy that we are even standing here tonight talking to the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill in its first reading. We've heard a lot of commentary from the Government side of the House tonight about how kind this is to people on benefits because it takes away the subsequent child policy that's been in place for quite a few years but I think it's worth noting the reason that that was in place. The subsequent child policy was around employment support that was provided by the Ministry of Social Development earlier in a parent's time or lifetime because we recognised the disadvantage in long-term benefit dependency. In fact the member Angie Warren-Clark who has just resumed her seat mentioned training incentives but that was the whole point of having this subsequent child policy introduced. It was because it incentivised people on a benefit on get retrained and to re-enter the workforce. It doesn't matter what research you look at families that are trapped in benefit dependency have much poorer outcomes in the long term and my colleague Louise Upston mentioned a few of those earlier. The research and the facts do not lie. In fact I will quote from the OECD actually. They wrote that paid work is the most effective way of reducing the risk of family poverty enhancing child development and generally giving children the best start in life. It sets an example. It sets a routine. It sets up an obligation on parents to get up in the morning to get their kids up in the morning. It teaches them about the responsibilities you have in going to work and earning for your family. In fact in 2010 the Welfare Working Group actually highlighted a few things that we should be turning our minds to. There is powerful evidence out of that working group document to suggest that long periods spent on a benefit and hence a low income is associated with a range of adverse social and economic outcomes especially for young adults and children. These adverse outcomes may be transmitted across generations and become entrenched in communities. The most effective thing that Governments can do is to break that cycle and give people back their independence. While they are dependent on the State for their income for their livelihood they have lost their independence. Empowering people to be independent is a far better investment than reducing some of these benefit support systems that we're talking about tonight. I was pleased to hear some of the members mention the first thousand days—lovely to see the Labour Party picking up some of the language from National Party policies. The first thousand days of course is the most important part of a child's life from conception the only time in a human's life when we get the chance to build a brain. So supporting people through those first thousand days—mums and their babies and their dads and their siblings—is crucially important. It doesn't mean that you do not have to go to work. It does mean that you get supported at home. But it's lovely to see that policy spreading out across this House. But what we don't see with this subsequent child policy being removed is what is replacing it. What is the plan going forward that is going to give these families the key to escaping their long-term benefit dependency? There is nothing in this—all it does is take something away and it gives nothing back. It has no alternatives for the people who are affected by it. The Government would be far better off if they focused their attention on creating jobs and supporting businesses so they can grow and employ more people and in that way we've actually got somewhere for single parents to be able to go or families that are dependent on the State. Give them work to go to. Give them back their pride and independence. We don't need them to be totally reliant on the State for every dollar they are spending. There is no way this country can afford to keep bashing business and supporting the social sector because we are going down the gurgler quite quickly and you will see that in the fiscal reports. But supporting the creation of jobs is probably the most effective way of empowering people and giving them back their independence. We heard that this is only a small piece of legislation and it's granted that yes it is only a small piece of legislation but actually it's a giant leap backwards for a lot of people that have no prospect of breaking out of that cycle and there is no support indicated in any of this. I take note of a comment that was also made about benefit bashing. Benefit bashing is something that that side of the House likes to talk about. We like to talk about empowering people. But I recall—and this is what brings it home to me—having a heartbreaking conversation with a group of teens who were still at school. They were part of a youth council. I was asking about one or two of them who were missing from previous meetings that we'd had. Their ambition was to go off and get on a benefit so that they didn't have to go to school. Their solution to doing that was to get themselves pregnant. I couldn't believe that this was a deliberate conscious decision—that they would go out and do that. There is something gravely wrong with a system that does not have ambition for its young people. You take away their ambition and you've taken away their hope. This is another giant leap backwards for this country. I feel for the people who are entrapped by it and I feel that one day we will wake up and see that we have made some terrible decisions in this House. I am grateful that we will have on record our opposition to this stupid type of legislation that is going through. It's a giant step backwards. We will not be supporting it.