Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. There have been a lot of mistruths spoken in this House so it's I think important to put a few things on record. National absolutely believes in supporting people in times of need and working with them to improve their lives. We do believe that those who can work should work. We do believe that people should keep more of what they earn and we do believe that supporting people is to give them a hand up so that they can lead independent lives where they have more choices and more opportunities for them and their children. What we don't believe is that this is a welfare system that is broken. We don't believe this is a welfare system that needs an overhaul. Actually I don't think the other side believe that it's an overhaul that is urgent because otherwise why are they planning a five-year plan to overhaul if it's urgent? If it's urgent why is it that in four years' time in 2023 the indexing will result in a mere $11 a week while earlier this morning the same Government that was willing to increase tax on petrol has passed legislation that's affected rents by $50 a week and we see that the cost of living continues to increase? So we don't believe it's urgent and we don't believe that taxpayers should pay when others avoid their own responsibilities and that is constrained when we refer to the removal of obligations consequences and sanctions when a father isn't named and therefore is not responsible for his own children.But I wanted to put some more facts and figures on the table because I think when hard-working New Zealanders are either watching this debate live or listening on the radio or who might tune in to some of what's being discussed here under urgency for Budget 2019 there's an element of wellbeing that they won't be aware of yet that is very pertinent to the debate on this legislation—which for those who have just tuned in is the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill. There are two areas of statistics that I think are worth introducing to this debate. The first I'm going to start with is around job seekers and this is because of two of the elements of the package: one is indexing and one is abatement rates. What we've seen in March 2014 the number of job seekers and I'm referring to the March 2019 quarter in the benefit fact sheets—rounding it up there are 122000 New Zealanders on the jobseeker benefit; in March 2019 132000 New Zealanders. So as a percentage of the working-age population it is increasing year to year that this Government has been in office.Not just that—not just has the number of job seekers increased; what the Budget document Vote Social Development states is that the Government is anticipating an additional 15600 people to come on to the jobseeker benefit—Hon Member: How many?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: 15600. So I'm kind of puzzled in this welfare assistance package because I think the Government see it's a measure of success if there are more people on benefit. If there are more people on benefit that's seen to be Oh that's kind." Well can I say it is not kind. It is not kind. At the same time this Government is cutting funding for compulsory programmes about getting people into work. It is kind to have 15600 more people on jobseeker benefit and do you know what that costs? The cost is borne by taxpayers and I'm talking about the additional amount; I'm not talking about those that are on benefit today just for job seekers: $122 million—$122 million. I wonder how many new cancer drugs Pharmac could fund with $122 million. When we're talking about stats how many new jobs were promised to be created in Budget 2019? How many new jobs? I looked in the documents—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! We are straying a little bit from the bill.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Ah this is about benefits. This is about welfare assistance. I referred to statistics in Budget documents: 15600 new people on jobseeker benefits.We've also had quite a lot of discussion about sole parents. The majority of them absolutely fulfil their responsibilities and we've heard some personal examples on this side of the House. I must say I was quite appalled at the Government members scorning members on this side who chose to talk about their personal examples. So when you talk about stigma look in the mirror. Look in the mirror at how rude and obnoxious that side of the House is—the Government members that are supposedly so kind all of a sudden. When members on this side talked from personal experience about their times on the DPB—Hon Andrew Little: Pull up the ladder—pull it up behind you. They don't care about people in hardship.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: So the Minister in the front seat of the Government is saying that this side of the House don't care. Well if we didn't care why did we increase benefits by $25 a week in 2015 when that Government has the opportunity right now and you wait for four years? If you're on a benefit four years' wait for $11; in 2015 $25 a week because this side knows money talks and that helps.I want to go back to the area of sole parents because again sole parent statistics have been declining significantly for many years from 75000 to 76000 in March 2014 to 58000 to 59000 in March 2018. Guess what? It's no longer declining; it's now static. So again this Government whose responsibility and whose vision is about wellbeing is overseeing numbers on benefit increase. How is that kind? How is that kind when actually opportunities come from work and independence?Hon Gerry Brownlee: That's cutting the ladder off from the bottom.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: That's right. They want them to go on benefit and stay there which is an absolute disgrace. Not only is the number not declining what Vote Social Development in this year's Budget also says is that there's a prediction of an extra 1600 people on sole—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the lunch break. Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.SPEAKER: Before the lunch break the House was considering the second reading of the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill. The Hon Louise Upston was speaking and she has two minutes and 23 seconds left.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm pleased to continue my contribution on the second reading of this Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill. What I was highlighting before the lunch break for those who have just tuned in was what we've seen in terms of increasing numbers on jobseeker benefits—a significant increase—plus a prediction of 15600 more on jobseeker benefit which is $122 million and a 1600 increase on the sole parent support benefit which is a cost of $195 million.On this side of the House we do believe that it's important for people to be able to keep more of what they earn so we do support the abatement rates and we do think that's an important element for people being able to work with the Government to assist themselves in stepping off benefits. But we don't support a blatant increase in benefit numbers including jobseeker benefit numbers when supposedly we have an economy that's in good shape and growing.We do support indexing—the National Government introduced it. What we don't support is fake kindness and this ridiculous suggestion that benefits will increase tomorrow when in fact it will be $11 a week in four years' time. We do support the financial incentives—I use those words "financial incentives" and I'm quoting the Hon Steve Maharey in using those. We do support obligations we do support reciprocal obligations and the social contract and we do support sanctions when obligations aren't fulfilled. What we don't support is deadbeat dads getting off their financial responsibility and instead that responsibility landing at the feet of hard-working taxpayers.Admittedly this is a small number. We're not saying it's a large number. But we believe that dads should support their children and for someone who is claiming a benefit to name the father when there are clear exemptions for all reasons that we accept. We don't accept that deadbeat dads should get off paying their fair share."