Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Mr Speaker. In this third reading of the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill we need to be very clear about the origins of this bill what it does and what it doesn't do. So given that this is purely winding back a policy that was introduced by the previous National-led Government I thought it was important just to actually put on record what was behind it so that the public who are watching this debate can choose for themselves: benefit or not. So the focus of the National-led Government at that time was to support those on benefit to move off benefit where possible so that they could have a better quality of life and a higher income and greater opportunities. It was about providing a focus on work and work preparation and making sure that connections to the labour market were carried out as early as possible. New Zealanders by and large of course want to financially support themselves and want to have more choices available and the National Party has a very strong track record of wanting to see New Zealanders have opportunities instead of being trapped in a life with limited choices and being dependent on a benefit. We don't want to see the life outcomes that often follow—and the evidence tells us this—of long-term benefit dependency such as particularly for children material hardship poor educational achievement and often poorer health outcomes. Helping parents into work improves the social economic outcomes for themselves and their children. The OECD has this to say—and I quote—paid work is the most effective way of reducing the risk of family poverty enhancing child development and generally giving children the best start in life." So of course if we talk about subsequent children—as this policy is removing—that of course delays the move into paid work and so let's be clear that the Labour Party is very clearly and with an ideologically-driven position removing the ability for parents to get back into work of some shape or form at an earlier time frame.Let's just have a look at what that potentially means. So what the evidence tells us particularly for a teen parent is that if the teen parent that goes on a benefit under the age of 20 the lifetime that that young person is on benefit is 14 years. So I want you to think about—and I want this House to consider—the impact on the children in that household because that's what this is about. This is about or it should be about reducing the long-term harm and hardship and improving the long-term outcomes for those children but no—Labour don't want to consider that. They don't want to consider the long-term outcomes. It's really interesting because when we were going through these changes I remember a constituent coming into my office in Tokoroa. She sat down in front of me and she said "I'm a solo mum and I want you to take a message to Paula Bennett." and I thought "Well this will be interesting." I braced myself—I did. I braced myself and she said "I want you to say thank you to her. I want you to say thank you to her because the part-time job that I now have has made an enormous difference to me and my family." That is the difference that work makes because she had significantly more income coming into her household and—let's be clear—it is bloody hard. I'm not the only person in this Chamber who has been through it. It is incredibly difficult—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Sorry for interrupting the member. I'd just ask the Government whip to keep it down. I find it difficult to hear the speaker when he's got his back turned and—Kieran McAnulty: My apologies. DEPUTY SPEAKER: —having a loud conversation. Sorry about that—the Hon Louise Upston.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Yeah so the reality is the other side actually don't care about the long-term outcomes of children in New Zealand and they don't care about the fact that real people share real experiences. They very deliberately turn their backs and don't want to hear about the real opportunities because this is what it's about—this is what it's about. It's about the long-term impact on children in benefit-dependent homes. So you want to talk about hardship. Where are the children that live in material hardship? They are in benefit-dependent homes. So yep you can lift benefits and National did—first time in 40 years. We focused on the children in benefit-dependent homes. But what is the long-term impact of trapping a child in a household when the only income coming in is a benefit? So what is this policy doing? It is going to remove the opportunity of parents getting ready for work having discussions with their case manager about the sorts of things that are practical to support them—Hon Peeni Henare: Shameful!Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —into employment. No what is shameful is trapping thousands of children into material hardship. Do you want to know the numbers—do you want to know the numbers? Here we go. This record: 30000 more children are living in benefit-dependent homes under your watch. In four years 30000 more children are living in material hardship because of that Government and your failures—failures to lift children and provide opportunities—[Interruption]DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! We're getting a barrage of interjection which is out of order. I apologise again—the Hon Louise Upston.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Thank you Mr Speaker. You can tell when you touch a nerve in this House because the reality is—and I want these figures on the record—30000 more children are living in benefit-dependent homes under this Government.Children in poverty? Prime Minister Ardern says this is her reason for being—this is her reason for being in politics. In September 2017 she said Labour would reduce the number of children in poverty by 100000. She specifically said that this was measured by the number of children living in households earning less than 50 percent of the median income. Oh guess what? There are 1500 more children living in child poverty on her measure the measure that she said was the most important instead of the reduction of 100000. So I ask the question: in this policy are you harming children or are you helping them? Their long-term opportunities will be damaged by this policy. So let's be very clear about that: this is not a pathway to work; this is not a pathway to opportunity. If you have been out of work and disconnected from a job for a long period of time it is incredibly difficult to get back into work and this very policy is forcing that upon more families and more children in those families will be harmed as a result. As I said it is incredibly challenging making that transition and that's why the intent of the policies that were changed under National was not just about the obligations. They were very practical sensible changes around childcare around transport and around additional financial assistance and about being creative in terms of how you actually supported parents into suitable work. I think back to the constituent the woman who sat in my office in Tokoroa and said "Thank you." because the opportunity for her to have more income coming into her family and the opportunity for her to have hope and to see a path forward where one day she would be off a benefit she would be in a better job—not just a job actually. She was really ambitious in terms of where her career was going to go. Isn't that what we want? Isn't that what we want for every parent and any person who's on a benefit? Don't we want practical measures that support them to stand on their own two feet and to have children who are raised in households of aspiration? No clearly it's not. This is an ideologically-driven bill—that is all. It is virtue signalling. It does nothing. It will harm and hurt children and their long-term futures and Labour should be ashamed of bringing this bill into the House. That's why National strongly opposes it."