Prime Willow-JeanHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): E te Māngai o te Whare tēnā koe. Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to take a further call on this bill. Given that we have 10 minutes in this contribution I will take a little bit more time and won't be so rushed with my comments because I think it is important to get on the record the evidence that we have before us and the information that we have before us which comes in the form of the supplementary analysis report on the indexing of main benefits to inflation and also the departmental disclosure statement. In the earlier contributions in the first reading and some of those today I think people may assume that we are speculating or making these things up. But in fact on our side of the House we have been referring to the information that has been reported to this House and I think it's important that I take the time to point some of those things out. I do though want to start by actually pointing out that there are limitations and constraints on the analysis that we have on the bill before us and that is because this is being done under urgency and it is being done so that it can be in place in time for the 1 April changes. In the report it says Because of the time sensitive nature of the proposal it was progressed through the mini budget in December 2023. … Due to these tight time frames it has not been possible to conduct external consultation on this proposal." So I refer to the contributions from Takutai Tarsh Kemp where she said to go and meet with the people at Manurewa Marae and to go and talk to those in the sector. Well as we can see from the report here that has not been possible because of the time frames in which those members want to implement these changes. It is noted in this report that there has been no external consultation on these proposed changes. Further to that it says "The scope of the analysis in this Supplementary Analysis Report has been restricted in the commissioning where Treasury [were] advised to only analyse the impacts risks and other elements of the Government's chosen way forward for this legislative proposal. Options other than those chosen by Cabinet are not analysed in-depth." So in short there were no other options explored in terms of this. I turn to the departmental disclosure statement and as I mentioned and spoke about in my first contribution my concern was that there was little or no Treaty analysis done and why that is important is because as is stated in the supplementary analysis report Māori will be disproportionately impacted by these proposed changes. So in the departmental disclosure statement which asks "What steps have been taken to determine whether the policy to be given effect to in this Bill is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?" it says "As Māori are disproportionately represented in the population receiving main benefits the amendments contained within the bill to the indexation rate of those benefits will in turn particularly impact Māori. Due to the nature of this proposal as a manifesto commitment and the compressed time frames associated with its implementation there has been limited opportunity to conduct Treaty analysis of the proposal." That concerns me. Turning now to other points identified in the supplementary analysis report the main conclusion of the report is that this will result in beneficiaries over the long term actually receiving less income. We heard from the Minister that this is about addressing the cost of living crisis and that this is about providing beneficiaries with more income. However what the supplementary analysis report says is that while for one year that may be the case—and it is a very small increase—over the long term there will be less income and they conclude that it "may result in slower progress in achieving child poverty targets as set by the … Act in 2018." In the supplementary analysis report it says "What is the problem or the opportunity?" I would like to focus on what I think is the opportunity for the Government. The opportunity for them is that indexing main benefits to inflation presents an opportunity to create fiscal savings in the longer term leading to a more sustainable cost to the Government and what would they need fiscal savings for? Well they need it to pay for their tax cuts and they are going to take from the poorest. They are going to take from the poorest and from the most vulnerable—from women Māori Pasifika and people with disabilities—to pay for their tax cuts. What it says in the supplementary analysis report is that the total net savings over the forecast period comes to $669 million—almost $670 million. We are going to take that from our poorest—from our beneficiaries and from our children who live in these households—to pay for tax cuts so let's be very very clear about that. As I said in my earlier contribution as the spokesperson for children this concerns me. This proposal that we are debating today is going to mean that we have more children in poverty. Now I have heard in the debate so far that for 31 years all Governments indexed it to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). When the Labour Government made this change in 2020 what we saw was the largest increase outside of one-off adjustments in nine years. You know we take a similar approach to adjusting superannuation so that's fairer and more consistent and it will help reduce poverty amongst our most vulnerable. Adjusting rates to increases in the average wage ensures that we share the benefits of a strengthening economy and it means that those on benefits don't fall further behind. I now want to turn to the part in the supplementary analysis report which says what the direct impacts of this bill will be on main benefit recipients. It is clear in the report that "The change in indexation settings is likely to directly affect main benefit recipients who are low-income New Zealanders." and that the change in main benefits "will disproportionately affect people who identify with the population groups of women Māori and Pacific peoples and disabled people who are overrepresented within the main benefit population." Women for example make up 55 percent of those receiving a main benefit whilst only being 50 percent of the population. It says that "Māori are overrepresented in the population who receive main benefits in comparison to the wider population." For Māori "Approximately 39 percent of people receiving the main benefit are Māori [compared to their only being] 17 percent of the general population." and for Pacific people they are also overrepresented by "making up 12 percent [of the population receiving main benefits] compared to [their being] 8 percent of the general population." I want to reflect on the contribution from the New Zealand First member when he said—I wrote it—about disabled people that "they're an untapped workforce". The supplementary analysis report at paragraph 29 says "Disabled people and people with health conditions will be affected by a change in indexation settings. … Beneficiaries that are not able to work will also be impacted by this change but will have no ability to enter work to change their situation." These are people with disabilities. These are people with health conditions that prevent them from being able to work. Shameful! In the last minute that I have available to me I say that I am really proud on this side of the House of the progress that we made under the Labour Government. When we made this change it was recommended by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group. It was welcomed and commended by the Children's Commissioner at the time—Judge Andrew Becroft—as the single biggest thing that would impact on child poverty. We had under Labour 77000 fewer children in poverty. I am concerned for our tamariki who live in the households of those receiving main benefits. They are going to be the ones who are going to suffer as a result of this mean-spirited change where we take from the poorest to pay for the tax cuts that the National Government supported by ACT and New Zealand First is hell-bent on providing."