Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): I rise to speak in opposition to the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill. As fairly recent to the grandparent phase I'd like to acknowledge the important work that parents do for our young children. I think it's already been acknowledged today that it is one of the hardest jobs in the world but certainly one of the most rewarding so I give a shout-out to all those parents who are sleep-deprived and who might be in front of the TV now. Returning to the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill under the current policy if someone has another child while they are receiving a main benefit work obligations are based on the age of their youngest non-subsequent child from the additional child's first birthday. This means a parent is required to look for or enter work once their youngest child turns one. The bill proposes to remove the subsequent child policy also known as the additional dependent child policy from the Social Security Act 2018 and the Social Security Regulations. As has been mentioned earlier it was the fifth National Government that introduced the subsequent child policy in 2012. The purpose of that policy was to reduce long-term welfare dependency and align the expectations of those on main benefits and those in paid employment. I've listened to a lot of the speakers on the other side of the House this evening talking about how important those first thousand days are but they seem to only be important to those parents who are on a benefit. I think that both the aims are equally important—the issue of parity and equity. An expectant new mum or parent on maternity leave from employment has to return to the workforce often after a year's leave but this bill differentiates the expectations of a new parent on a benefit. The last thing that I want to see in New Zealand is mothers particularly of young children being pitted against each other risking festering resentments about each other and this signals a differentiation that we shouldn't underestimate in terms of what it means for either parties. The aspect of dependency is an incredibly important one for us to be looking at and there is a huge body of evidence about the negative impact of long-term welfare dependency. I will read from some of the findings from the 2011 Welfare Working Group report Reducing Long-Term Welfare Dependency. They state for most working age people paid work is beneficial to overall well-being and long-term absence from paid employment can be harmful." They've also found that "There is growing consensus that joblessness is particularly harmful to mental and physical health. There is increasing evidence that long-term benefit receipt has harmful effects on confidence skills and future employability." We must keep central to this discussion the children and their findings that "For parents with … children long-term benefit receipt is strongly associated with poor results for children. Children raised in long-term benefit dependent families are likely to suffer adverse health effects poorer educational achievement and reduced aspirations." The Welfare Working Group's report Long-Term Benefit Dependency: The Issues in 2010 noted that "People out of work for long periods are likely to find it hard to return to work as skills and confidence erode." and "There is powerful evidence to suggest that a long period 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." The National Party absolutely believes that paid employment is the best way for families to break the circuit of hardship and poverty. As well as the financial benefits the social and developmental benefits to both parents and children should not be underestimated. Confidence new friendships social relationships greater participation in the community and greater self-worth are all tangible benefits from being in employment. National's social investment approach based on early interventions when the subsequent child policy was introduced in 2012 included additional employment support for those on benefit and also introduced training childcare health and disability support services and wraparound support for young parents at risk. I relate the impact of this proposed policy change on the wonderful parents in my electorate of Invercargill who I know had children while on benefits and I watched how they transitioned away from dependency into employment. They became wonderful role models and the impact and the responsibility that was transferred to their children was absolutely tangible. I also look to my previous role at Southern Institute of Technology where there were many second-chance learners and the difference in those people often young parents who were gaining qualifications to gain employment and the aspirations they had and the changes you could see in the pride that they had as they progressed through. So I see this policy as condescending to those people whom I have watched pull themselves off the benefit transitioning into employment through qualifications and becoming wonderful role models for their children. If we have a look at the numbers 5400 sole parents would have their work obligations changed 2500 on jobseeker support would move on to solo parent support and 1000 partners of people on main benefits would have their work obligations changed. These are not insignificant numbers. If we refer back to that evidence of the harm of long-term dependency on the welfare system and we look at the almost 10000 additional people potentially impacted by the harm of long-term dependence on welfare support we are seeing almost 10000 people who could be consigned to those negative impacts but they are not the biggest concern that I have. The biggest concern I have is the number of children attached to each of those numbers that I've quoted. I want to go back to that piece of evidence that came from the 2011 Welfare Working Group that said that children raised in long-term benefit-dependent families are likely to suffer adverse health effects poorer educational achievements and reduced aspirations. To those on the other side of the House that think that that is a wonderful thing to do to those children I would say: take a very long hard look at what you are proposing for them long term. I can see no better reason to oppose this policy change in this bill than the children of those long-term beneficiaries."