Ball DarrochDARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why does this member support this? Why do you support deadbeat dads?DARROCH BALL: —just listen up Mr Smith and you'll find out—in support of the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill. First of all I'd just like to congratulate the Minister and the current Government the coalition Government with support from the Greens on bringing this legislation to the House. As has already been mentioned by some of the speakers on this side this is just the start of a well-overdue overhaul of the entire process.I think what this bill does in its essence—and I'll get into a couple of details and obviously one of the specific details has been topic de jure at the moment and we'll get into that—is it actually brings in a good balance between ensuring that we've got a robust and effective safety net for those in this country that need it but also ensuring that there is a focus on getting those who are on main benefits into work.I'll start with probably the most controversial issue that has been voiced so far which is section 192 and the repealing of the sanctions. I think that there needs to be a little bit of common sense brought to this argument and that's why we're here but what it shows is that the National Party continue on their modus operandi which is a cursory glance at any of the statistics a one-dimensional view on the surface of the problem and then basing their entire premise of their argument on flimsy evidence if any and very little logic if any.I'd just like to say first that there's a couple of questions that came out of the Hon Louise Upston's speech which didn't make sense and I'll be asking her a couple of questions. Then there's a question that I want to ask every member of the National Party that wants to stand up. First of all the Hon Louise Upston said that we shouldn't be taking away the sanctions because the sanctions work. But if they worked then how come there are around 24000 children significantly being affected by the sanctions? She also said that it had increased by 40 percent in the time period she gave. If it was successful how come there has been an increase of 40 percent? If the sanctions were working to ensure that the father in this process was paying a fair share then if the father started paying the sanctions wouldn't be applied. So if that was the case then it would be working and we wouldn't have seen a 40 percent increase would we? It makes no logical common sense whatsoever.I think there's one important difference in wording that the Hon Alfred Ngaro hasn't picked up on: there's a difference between consequence" and "responsibility". So one of the last things that he said was that the National Party are proud of the work that the mothers do in raising their kids in poverty and on benefits but the problem with section 192 is that the consequence is not worn by the father. So how can a sanction that is designed in theory to hold the father to account—which is what New Zealand First agrees with and we were agreeing when the National Party speakers were standing up and saying "We believe that all fathers should be held to account and pay their fair share." We agree 100 percent absolutely. But in no way shape or form is this sanction actually achieving that because where is the consequence when you fulfil the sanction? If you implement the sanction who wears the consequence? Who wears the consequence? The solo mother on a benefit. You're taking money away from the solo mother on a benefit and who does that ultimately affect? The children. Riddle me in any way shape or form how the father is wearing any of those consequences and being held accountable. Where is it? How is it?So you see we've got a situation—if you take a step back—where the father in the first place is not responsible because they're not paying the child support. They're not paying the child support. So the father is irresponsible.Melissa Lee: Not responsible for the children that they create?DARROCH BALL: No Melissa Lee—listen up. I'm saying that the father is being irresponsible—the father is being irresponsible in the first place. So now you're going to take money away from—who? The father? No. Are you going to have some consequences for the father? No. You're going to take money away from the families and the children and the mothers who need it the most in this country—the solo parents that are on a benefit. Riddle me that logic.Now New Zealand First like I said supports the concept that the fathers who aren't paying child support need to pay child support need to take responsibility and there needs to be a way of doing that. This section is not the way. That's as plain and simple as it is.Hon Alfred Ngaro: Name the way.DARROCH BALL: This section is not the way. Not only is it not the way Mr Ngaro it is affecting the wrong people. That is why New Zealand First is in support of the removal of this section.I'd just lastly like to say that with the indexing of main benefits I think there's a short memory in this House for some of the people on the opposite side. Prior to 1991 one of the benefits that we're talking about is the sole parent benefit or the DPB as it was known back then. That was the equivalent of around 70 to 75 percent of the average wage—prior to 1991. In 1991 it dropped and kept dropping until last year it was under 50 percent of the average wage—it was 47 percent or thereabouts. Now consider the cost of living—one of the essential aspects of a robust safety net. Now we can start talking about—we're going to hear from the other side; and we've heard—how there need to be incentives to get off the benefit and sanctions to get off the benefit and that's a separate argument. What we're talking about is the absolute essential genuine nature of needing that safety net. There's no way that there could be any sort of argument from that side of the House for that lower benefit—it was once 75 percent—which is so low that a beneficiary who has children and needs it the most can't survive. That's as simple as it gets.New Zealand First supports this bill because it goes a long way—like I stated right at the start—towards the balance between ensuring that we've got the robust safety net that this country needs and ensuring that we encourage people to get into work. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker."