Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Oh that was a briefer contribution than I thought we would have. I stand to speak on the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill. I want do something a little bit different because in actual fact it was Minister Carmel Sepuloni who set the tone here. The Minister decided to go on the attack and actually began to talk about the things of the past rather than talk about celebrating the things of the present and what they're doing. In fact I noted there were about four points. So in actual fact she stirred the pot to make the pointers at this point. But I'm going to do something a bit different. I'm actually going to start off by being a bit more positive. So I do want to commend her because when we on the other side look at the factors and the things that this bill will contain what do we support? Well the abatement thresholds—we would support that. We think that's important. What we would say though is a caution because when you think about it the fact is that the amount of the abatement threshold that we are talking about is going from $80 to $150 I think so that's an increase of $70. Most people have talked about that. The Welfare Expert Advisory Group actually wanted it to be $100. They felt that that was what the threshold should have been. So it's $30 less but it is an improvement. On this side we'd say that that's actually a good thing so I want to commend the Minister and the Government for doing that because I think that's really important as well. Let's talk about the indexing of benefits each year to the average wage growth. That's a good thing and we should commend them and say that that's something that we think is important. We can talk about Consumers Price Index indexing which we actually did when we were in Government but this is indexing—right? OK that's a good thing. You've made the effort to do that. However it is maybe not as good as what the Minister and the Government may have thought. Let's think about the amounts that we are talking about here because in actual fact though the Minister gave an amount which actually was for 2023 we are talking about 2019 and when this comes into force what are the actual amounts that beneficiaries will receive? It is actually $11—that's what it is. It's actually $11. So there was the talk about This is amazing. This is the first time—this is history." and on the other side the Hon Andrew Little said "Well what are you guys going to do? What will you do?" Well in actual fact he may have forgotten Budget 2015—in fact he won't have forgotten it because he was there. In Budget 2015 under a National-led Government core welfare rates were increased for the first time—since 1972 by the way. Hon Andrew Little: Seven years into the Government—seven years into your Government. Hon ALFRED NGARO: But hang on hang on. Since 1972 right—42 years. By the way in the previous Labour Government of nine years: nothing. In the previous Labour Government: nothing. So talk is cheap but in actual fact when you had the chance you never did it. Hon Andrew Little: National cut it in 1991. Hon ALFRED NGARO: Hang on let's talk about this bill right here. You've introduced an indexing that will give $11 so let's think about what we did in 2015. What we did was we increased the base benefit rate so that after tax it was $25—$25. Let's think about that: $11 versus $25. Well we had an independent report by Radio New Zealand. They went out and asked "What could we buy with $25?" and I've got a list of things that they could buy with $25: 2 litres of milk a bag of chicken drumsticks cornflakes bananas Wattie's tomato sauce two tins of baked beans two tins of spaghetti two tins of peaches—Fletcher Tabuteau: Don't read your shopping list in the House. Hon ALFRED NGARO: —12 eggs pasta margarine a loaf of bread and for those who are out there who may be gluten-free like Mr Fletcher Tabuteau you could get gluten-free biscuits—that's right—for $25. They're only getting $11. That's right—the indexing will only give them $11. So I'm not so sure if you want to crow so loud to say that this is amazing and this is wonderful because in actual fact when we did it it was $25 and that's what you got. Here's the shopping list which was independent and that's what you got for that. Let's talk about the area of concern that actually we have: sections 192 and 194. Now what I'd like to say hand on heart is that I'm pretty sure that I would be the only one on this side that has actually worked with the Hon Steve Maharey. When I worked with him—like with the Welfare Expert Advisory Group—because of the work that I was actually committed to in the community around community development I was asked to come on to form what they called the Blueprint committee. This was after the baseline review where Judge Mick Brown was commissioned by Mr Maharey to look at the whole of the welfare sector. With that we spent three to four years putting together a framework to look at how we could get greater connectivity less duplication and greater efficiency into the whole of the welfare sector. So I can talk about when the Hon Steve Maharey was here. When he talked about these sanctions I heard him say directly—and this is what he said—"It is a rort and I have said time and time again in this Parliament that fathers must front up to their obligations and we will make sure they do. It is not unreasonable to expect that single parents bringing up children on their own identify who in law is the other parent or to expect that they seek financial support for the child from the other parent. It is not unreasonable to penalise financially those who do not." Now the others have talked about it and we know that the numbers have been slightly dwindling but the fact is that there are those out there that need to be held to account. The speeches on the other side have talked about National members being the ones who have been using the stick. Well isn't it interesting? The stick actually came from the Labour Government of the day. They made the stick a bigger stick. They increased the penalties—from a Labour-led Government of the day. So it's a bit interesting for them to turn around and say that it was a National Government that put this in place when in actual fact what you are reversing here from sections 192 and 194 of the Social Security Act was actually implemented and increased by a Labour-led Government with its ideology. That's interesting—Darroch Ball: What year was that? Hon ALFRED NGARO: —2004—but we would agree. We on this side would actually—Darroch Ball: Didn't you have any common sense in there? Hon ALFRED NGARO: Yeah—well you were probably still at school. You were probably in primary school over there. But we would agree with this. Why? Because it's only fair. In my maiden speech I talked about fathers taking up their responsibility. I've worked in communities to ensure that where it's possible a father should take up his responsibility not just in the financial contribution but in being a father where he needs to be. We know that in this country there are women that are having to struggle day in and day out. It is not unfair to put on them a burden of responsibility—whether it be financial or even emotional—that fathers should be held to account on. So we do not resile from the fact that we uphold what was actually put in place by a Labour-led Government reinforced by a Labour Minister for Social Development and Employment. We would say that this is appropriate and this is right. You cannot turn around and say that this is a wonderful thing and that this is freeing for all of those people because it's not about the women we are talking about that we want to put the burden on—that the burden is actually on. The burden of responsibility is purely on the fathers who do not take up their responsibilities and we think that's critically important. The Minister then talked about the importance that the contribution of all of these things—there's actually only a few of them—was really important because in the end it was about contributing to child poverty. So what I did—as we all did—was pull out the report that was submitted. In the report this talks about the Wellbeing Budget. I studiously looked through this report to look at what was actually in here. We've got the before-housing costs and the after-housing costs and all the things that you would measure though some of them we do challenge. But as I went along I found a little disclaimer. I found a little disclaimer in here in the words of the Prime Minister herself—right? So while they're saying they're doing all these wonderful things and they're increasing benefit rates indexing removing the sanctions and so forth here's the little disclaimer. It's on page 6—and I quote—"Are we on track to reach our targets? While it's too early to say with certainty if all the changes we've made will enable us to reach our targets"—that's actually here in print from them. Right? It's the little disclaimer because what you're trying to say is "We're going to try but we may not get there." It's a bit like KiwiBuild and a bit like all these things. I don't want to go out of scope but you see it's the little disclaimer that says "Look but we did say that if we don't quite get there we may not make it." We would say on this side that there are things that we would support in this bill. There are two things that we would support in this bill so we want to be positive. We're not a negative group over here but we do have to say that we take exception to the areas around sanctioning but not because of the burden upon the mothers that are out there who are the single mothers up and down our country and in our communities in whom we have great pride for the effort that they put in to raise those children. But what we do want to challenge are the fathers who are out there who do not take up their responsibilities. On that principle and that principle alone we will oppose this bill. We will continue to oppose it. Why? Because that's the right thing to do to make them responsible so that their children will know who their fathers are—taking up their responsibilities for this. We cannot support this bill because of that principle."