Prasad Rajen: Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionPrasad Rajen: Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14228. Text is subject to correction.]Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): It is a pleasure to also take a call on this Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. In doing that I congratulate my colleague Tracey Martin on picking this up—firstthinking about it designing it and then having it drawn. It is part of her advocacy for vulnerable people which is consistent with what we believe in here.But as we reflect on the period through which we have as a State developed approaches for providing assistance to vulnerable people particularly to vulnerable children we have always done that with strings attached. The history that New Zealand has of providing support to families or individuals in vulnerable families is a chequered one. It is beginning to change now as we are beginning to realise that the outcome for many of these families is not the result of their own behaviour but of where they find themselves and there are a lot of external influences on outcomes for families.In that period when we have had this approach—a residual approach if you like—to providing support to these families we have been providing them with only as much support that ensured that they were no better off and decidedly worse off than children of those families who were in work. So we have had this struggle throughout the period of child welfare history in New Zealand in terms of providing support for families of the type that this particular bill addresses. Throughout the period of the Child Welfare Act 1925 which was in existence until the late 1970s that certainly was the case.I remember many many cases working in the field with vulnerable families. A parent might have been in work but they were poor and trying to get some assistance little though it might be through the then social security system was impossible because a moralistic set of principles prevailed saying that you could not do this and if children were living with family or relatives then you could not provide financial assistance for them.We saw some of that in our foster care system for a long time. That system was not dissimilar to what this particular bill is trying to do because foster parents were in a sense required to have their own input into the contribution they made to the lives of vulnerable children often those in the care of the State because the assistance provided for them was not all of what was required. There was a gap between what they needed—Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: It has been an interesting 1½ hours in the interlude. When I was talking before the dinner break what I was saying was that there has historically been a reluctance in the New Zealand social policy and child welfare systems to do too much or to do more than a little for families whose children have been in difficulty but whom they are caring for themselves. Then I moved from that to talk about the foster care system. Indeed it took a long time—and we still are not there—for us to develop a support system for foster parents looking after vulnerable children who are in the care of the State and to provide them with everything they require to enable them to go through that period of development and come out the other side in good shape. So foster parents do a great job in difficult situations but they have always had to fight very hard for the kinds of services they require.We come now to what this bill is about: the unsupported children who require assistance. Giving them just a small amount of money is not enough. What the bill is doing is saying that we should go to this next step as Tracey Martin has proposed and which we support and actually provide them with a clothing allowance that at least enables them to do one thing that is important. Clothing is important particularly for young people at that stage. The Green member Jan Logie was talking about this before as well. Clothing is an element of identity and having the clothes that will enable them to interact with their peers etc. in a way that enables them to have an identity that is not negative but positive is really important.So the provisions of this bill enable that to happen. I am glad that all sides of the House are supporting this bill and I look forward to the debate in the Social Services Committee. Thank you.