Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to actually put a few things on the record and to query a number of the things that the Government has stated. One of the things that concerns me is all of this talk from the Prime Minister downwards about a child poverty target and actually no connection whatsoever to the fact that children in benefit-dependent homes are the children that suffer the hardest hardship. And yet on no occasion has that side been willing to talk about how they are going to implement and—Hon Peeni Henare: Nine years. Nine long years.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —deliver lower child poverty. So nine years—what did nine years bring? I'm so pleased that they are interested. Here is some of the information that I think makes an enormous difference to children living in hardship. The number of kids in material hardship has fallen by nearly 40 percent to 135000. That is a significant number and the tax cut package that this Government is going to get rid of tomorrow would help 50000 children—50000 children. So I absolutely refute any comments from that side of the House that suggest the former National Government or the current Opposition don't care about people.Because I'll tell the House this for free: the reality is opportunities for people come from work. Actually this side of the House doesn't think that work comes with a bad name. Whether you're a tow truck driver whether you're a builder whether you're someone who's starting your first job or whether you're one of the 1.2 million New Zealanders who will miss out—who will miss out—on $1060 that they would have got from 1 April next year—don't talk to this House about who cares and who doesn't; 1.2 million New Zealanders miss out as a result of what that side is going to start doing tomorrow.It's a really interesting conversation because another group that can be quite vulnerable in this community are those that are our older citizens. Unfortunately that side of the House think they can spend their money better than they can. So by making changes and taking away a tax cut for those on the pension not only will those on the pension lose over time because it won't be connected to the average wage—and that side of the House talks about increasing wages. We've got no idea how they plan to do it but talk is cheap so they keep talking about it. But it is the usual story. When that side come in they think they can spend what you earn better than taxpayers can which I think is the absolute height of arrogance.I want to come back to what I started on in terms of child poverty because in terms of teen parents there are 57 percent fewer teen parents than in 2009. Something that the Government doesn't seem to understand is that opportunities come for individuals through work. If you want to get an apprenticeship guess what? A young person needs to have a job if they are to get an apprenticeship. So for all of the comments about—and I must admit it was fascinating to hear Minister Sepuloni talk about written questions because there are very few answers coming back from them so far. But whether it is on-the-job training whether it is the opportunity of a promotion or whether it's the opportunity for higher wages those are the things that come when someone is employed. So absolutely this side of the House cares about individuals—real people with real needs. That's why we've used social investment to tackle things in a very different way to change people's lives—change people's lives. This side of the House actually focused on understanding more about real people with real needs—real people with real needs—and how to solve some of those challenges. Some of it was around employment some of it was around mental health some of it was around lack of educational opportunities and this side of the House actually tackled those very hard issues.I look forward to seeing the plan. I'm waiting for the plan in terms of what the Minister for Social Development is going to do to support the Prime Minister's ambitious target around child poverty because the first thing that came on to the table was work for the dole and they quickly swept it off.