Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Well I wasn't going to take a call in the title and commencement debate but given Mr Bayly's mention of me a couple of times I thought it would be worthwhile proffering up to the committee a couple of other titles that could be used for this legislation because one of those could be the Social Security (Taking Money Off the Poorest New Zealanders to Pay for Tax Cuts for Landlords and Property Speculators) Bill"—because that's actually what the bill does. There's been this argument throughout the debate on this bill and during question time this week about why this was—Simon Court: Hates landlords—demonised them for years.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No—you see the member Mr Court interjects "demonising landlords". It's not landlords' fault that the Government's bringing this policy to the House. What the Government has done—and it's been extremely explicit about this in its fiscal plans—is that this money $670 million - odd will be coming out of the pockets of the future recipients of main benefits. And that money is part of what is needed to pay for the tax cuts that the National Party and the coalition Government are now proposing. So that title I think would be extremely appropriate because it's actually what the bill does.There's been this inconsistency in the argument of Government members who've spoken on this who—as Mr Bayly just did in his intervention there—say "Oh well you know they might be a little bit better off in the first year." We've actually been through that and that possibly isn't going to be the case. But ultimately it can't possibly be true that those on main benefits will be better off because the Government is going to get $670 million. Where's that coming from Mr Bayly? It's forecast. It's in the forecast you and your Government are using which means that $670 million was going to go to the poorest New Zealanders and now it's not going to. So those people will be worse off. The poorest New Zealanders will be worse off because of this bill. That's a fact Mr Bayly because it's actually in the projections. So that would be another title for the bill.Hon Member: You're making stuff up Grant.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: With respect the National Party's fiscal plan literally has the numbers in it that they expect to get in future years. That was money that was destined for the lowest-income New Zealanders and now it's coming back and it's going into the pockets of much wealthier New Zealanders via tax cuts. So that is the reason why I would say that this bill is far better titled as one that actually takes that $670 million away from the poorest New Zealanders and puts it into the pockets of others.The other potential title for the bill would be the "Social Security (The Children's Commissioner was Wrong) Bill" because one of the things that we were told when we established the Welfare Expert Advisory Group was that one of the best things we could do to lift children out of poverty was to index benefits to wages. That's what Andrew Becroft said. Now Andrew Becroft was not always a fan of the previous Government but that was something he said. So when we were working our way through the recommendations of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group we said "We're going to pick that one up because we know it will make a massive difference to lifting children out of poverty." And the reverse is clearly true in the material that's on the Table and was discussed in the House today—that this bill will push 7000 kids back into poverty.Andrew Becroft was right. This was one of the best things we could do to lift children out of poverty: to index benefit to wages. And this bill the title of this bill could so easily actually reflect the fact that this Government thinks Andrew Becroft's wrong. In fairness the Government even said today they thought Andrew Becroft was wrong. He wasn't; he was the Children's Commissioner—he worked every day with children and advocating for children. And I'm sure that Mr Becroft would approve of a title that actually accurately stated the fact that the Government thinks that he was wrong and the Government thinks that a bill that pushes more people into poverty is right.I wasn't going to take this intervention but I've taken it because I think it's important to put on the record what this bill actually does."