Genter Julie AnneJULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare tēnā koe. Ki a koutou huri noa i Te Whare tēnā koutou katoa ngā mihi o Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori ki a tātou katoa. Ka tū au mō Ngā Kākāriki ki te kōrero i te pānuitanga tuatoru o tēnei Te Pire Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. Kia ora tātou.[Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings to you all around the House and accolades of Māori Language Week for all of us. I stand on behalf of the Greens to speak in the third reading of this Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. My appreciation to us all.]The Green Party is here in Parliament because we want a fair society. We want to look after our people and our planet and we know that can be done with smarter policies. We are opposing this bill because it is not best practice and it is not going to take us in the direction of a fairer society unfortunately. I am sure that members on the Government side really believe that this bill is the best way to achieve it. The previous speaker Jono Naylor gave a really passionate speech and I really agree with the aims that he articulated in his speech but I think that he is mistaken about the effectiveness of this particular bill. It was telling that he said that rather than burying ourselves in reports and reading the evidence we should just get out there and talk to some people anecdotally. I think that sums up the problem with the National Party's approach to governing in general. It tends to take a blindly ideological approach particularly when it is about social security. This particular approach which is evidenced in this bill is punitive and it is controlling. It is both reacting to and perpetuating the myth that people who need help—those young people some of whom are parents—are irresponsible and have not worked hard enough. That myth has really been abounding in New Zealand for several decades now. The reality is that the neo-liberal policies that were embraced in the 1980s and 1990s in New Zealand have led to a stark increase in inequality and that inequality means that the playing field is just not level. It is easier I think for those people who are doing well in Aotearoa New Zealand to tell themselves that the people who are not doing well are not doing well because they deserve to be poor or deserve to be punished for their lack of work ethic. It is oversimplistic. I have seen the same thing in America.Hon Anne Tolley: This is so arrogant. I find that offensive.JULIE ANNE GENTER: It is not arrogant; it is just how it is and I am sure that the Minister is offended because it is true. In fact she finds it offensive because it is so on-point. It is very hard for people to confront the truth—Hon Anne Tolley: Oh really? I find it offensive that you would stand up in this House and accuse us on this side of trying to do something to help people.JULIE ANNE GENTER: I am sure that the Minister and the other MPs on the National Government side of the House believe that they are doing the best for people but I think that unfortunately they are very wrong and they do not want to listen to the evidence and accept that. I am going to quote Dr Jess Berentson-Shaw who is a researcher specialising in this at the Morgan Foundation. She says that 40 percent to 60 percent of New Zealanders believe that parents who do not have enough are irresponsible people who have not worked hard enough. The research shows that there is a belief in New Zealand that those people are losers and by implication the parents of healthy well-off children are hard-working winners. The National Government regularly buys into this meme in this way of describing what is happening in society saying that in order to move parents to a winning frame of mind a firm hand is needed and we need to push them into work and off the benefits that could help them. It is extraordinary that these Victorian values continue to inform our social policies" says Dr Jess Berentson-Shaw "especially given that research from all over the world shows that moving low income parents into work through use of sanctions does not often improve economic positions overall and children suffer associated pressures." So the truth is that this National Government's approach is paternalistic and the approach in this bill is paternalistic. The reality articulated many times by my colleague Jan Logie during the debates on this bill is that people tend to do best when they are given both freedom and responsibility when they are treated with respect and when they feel that they can trust those who are there to help them and not that those people are there to chase them up and check on them and make sure they are complying with a whole lot of bureaucratic requirements. The best practice from around the world shows there are two principles. They are that the help is better when it is less targeted and when it is unconditional. "It is a highly disruptive concept;" according to Dr Jess Berentson-Shaw "our entire social welfare system is built on the provision of conditional aid." The Green Party supports a smarter approach."