Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Mr Speaker. It is a bit of a pity to be standing in this House with the Government unwinding what was an important part of the changes that were made to the welfare system in the fifth National Government. I want to just explain a little bit about why that change occurred because you wouldn't have heard it from the Minister who's just resumed her seat. The subsequent child policy in 2012 was about reducing long-term welfare dependency and the important part was to align the expectations of those on main benefits and those in paid employment. Currently if you are in employment and have a child then you'll get paid parental leave for 26 weeks and you'll get parental leave for a total of 12 months so the removal of the subsequent child policy was about actually aligning it to someone who was on benefit and in work. I'm somewhat puzzled as to why the Government thinks there should be a playing field that's not level—so basically putting more emphasis on a person receiving benefits and they have different choices available to them than the person who's in paid employment. Look for any parent juggling parenthood and work is incredibly difficult. Transitioning from being a sole parent on a benefit into work is bloody difficult and I know I'm not the only member of this House who's been through that. But the core of this issue is about the wellbeing of children over the long term. So when you introduce a policy the question always has to be: what problem is this policy attempting to solve but also what problem will this policy create? I think that it's a sad day in this House because the impacts of long-term welfare dependency particularly on children are harsh. Of the children and there are thousands of them in New Zealand who live in material hardship 60 percent of them are in benefit-dependent homes so to put measures in place that keep their parents keep their families dependent on benefits is just plain wrong. It is totally and absolutely wrong to remove the expectation to remove the aspiration of that family being a working family and keeping them as a benefit-dependent family is plainly and simply wrong. If you look at any of the evidence about the impact of welfare dependency—and I'm pleased that the members opposite are hanging their heads in shame because they know what this does. I want to give you some quotes about long-term benefit dependency because that's exactly what this does. The general expectation to be looking for work in the benefit system makes an important difference to how long someone stays on a benefit. We already know the evidence says if you go on to benefit under the age of 20 your lifetime on benefit is likely to be 14 years. Unfortunately what we've seen in the last 12 months with an increase in nearly 80000 people going on to the job seeker benefit is that many of them have been there for 12 months already. This is a quote from the work that was done in 2011 by the Welfare Working Group Reducing Long-Term Benefit Dependency: There is a growing consensus that joblessness is particularly harmful to mental and physical health. There is increasing evidence that long-term benefit receipt has harmful effects on confidence skills and future employability." But this is the one I would like the Government members to listen to: "For parents with dependent children long-term benefit receipt is strongly associated with poor results for children. Children raised in long-term benefit dependent families are likely to suffer adverse health effects poorer educational achievement and reduced aspirations." That's what the Government is doing with this bill. They are destining the next generation of children instead of them being with an expectation or an aspiration of being in work with higher incomes and greater opportunities with three times as much income coming into a household if you're in work—three times as much. But no the Government would rather keep those families down and the children of those families locked into long-term poverty and reducing their opportunities. I think that's just entirely wrong. But what I also suspect it is signalling is a significant change in how Labour sees the welfare system because the current principles of the Social Security Act—and I want to just put them on record for the House because I think it's very relevant to this bill. The Social Security Act principles currently are that "work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being:". This Government wants to talk about being the Government of wellbeing. Well that says it right there: work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic wellbeing. The priority for people of working age should be to find and retain work. So I fully accept for a household where there are already children—this bill is about the subsequent child and obligations that should be in place when that child turns one which is no different from any other working family up and down this country when their parent gets 12 months' parental leave. But no the Government wants to tip the balance the other way and potentially trap that family in long-term benefit dependency which is a lousy future for that child. These are the principles of the Social Security Act. I think what we are seeing is the signal with this removal that just seems to be very arbitrary. Here's another one that talks about the outcomes for children: "One in five children spend at least seven years of their childhood up to the age of 14 in households that rely on benefit income." As I said if someone is in work they'll be earning three times—it might be more than that now—what they'd be getting in a benefit. So how is that better for children? How is that better? No no answer. No answer from the other side. At the end of the day a family will be worse off on a benefit than they are in a household that is working for that child's benefit for the family's benefit and for their future prospects and if there is anyone watching this debate who says "Oh this is an opportunity to bash beneficiaries." it is not—it is not. I've been there. Don't grin at me from the other side. It is bloody hard to pick yourself up with a young baby and get back into work. It is incredibly difficult but the opportunities afforded from the families who work through that the opportunities for them and their children are far greater. That is what the National Party holds dear to—the aspirations and future for every child in this country—and the Labour Party by repealing this provision for subsequent children is destining more Kiwi kids to a life of poverty a life of hardship fewer educational achievements and poorer health and social outcomes. How is that the big Labour Party dream of child wellbeing? It is totally and absolutely not and that's why it's just devastating to stand and speak in this House for a massive step backwards for some of the most vulnerable children in New Zealand for whom for a period of time their parent or parents aren't able to create an income. Instead they chop it off at the knees provide fewer opportunities for that family to be in work fewer obligations fewer expectations and unfortunately lower aspirations—welcome to the Labour Party."