Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. This is of course the Estimates debate for social development and housing and I'm going to focus my comments this evening on social development. It is $28 billion per annum of taxpayers' money so I do think it deserves a bit of attention in this—this in the year that the Prime Minister has quite blatantly and repetitively said is the year of delivery. So what has Labour delivered? An increase in 15500 job seekers an increase of 17 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds on benefit—an increase of 17 percent—and a 43 percent increase in benefit advances. Now those are people that are going further into debt under this Prime Minister's watch. That's 172000 benefit advances but not just that: half a million hardship grants and the largest reason—Simon O'Connor: How many?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —half a million—is for food.So this supposedly is Labour's year of delivery but what's even better is one of the Government's own partners the Greens have called Labour out for their failure to deliver for those New Zealanders who need them most. That's before of course we go into the KiwiBuild debacle and the complete retreat of the 100000 houses. There were many Kiwis out there waiting for those houses to be built because they knew that was an opportunity for them and stability for their family.But let's have a look at a couple of the examples that came out in the Estimates hearing. One of the beautiful ones is Mana in Mahi. Again the Prime Minister launched it over a year ago and there were going to be 4000 places. These are those 18- to 24-year-olds in which I'd said there was a 17 percent increase on benefit—27000 New Zealanders in that age bracket. Anyway they launched with big fanfare 4000 places in Mana in Mahi. Oh less than a year later it's a bit of a reset sounding a bit like KiwiBuild—sounding a bit like KiwiBuild. It's down to 2000 and it's down to 2000 in four years—oh but by the way of the places that are already there they've got a drop-out rate of 32 percent. This is a Government that is failing to deliver for the very New Zealanders who need them the most. These are young people 18 to 24 that absolutely—we want them in work we want them in opportunities because that's where their brighter future comes from. So not really the year of delivery for the Prime Minister.But let's have a look at the hardship grants. Half a million hardship grants have been given out and the majority of them for food. So what does that tell you? That tells you this is a Government who was having blatant increases in the costs of living for hard-working New Zealanders. So rents are up $50 a week on average petrol prices—man don't even get me started on petrol prices because that is a significant reason behind why people are getting half a million hardship grants in New Zealand—and of course food. But what is the Government's answer? Oh they're going to change the way that the benefits are indexed and you get excited because you think maybe they're going to do what the previous Government did under the wonderful Minister Anne Tolley and they're going to lift benefits. No—not going to do that. What did we end up with? Eleven dollars a week on average per household in 2023. That was their big announcement for families who are currently doing it particularly tough. So it's not really the year of delivery.The Prime Minister always talks about how her Government's a kind and caring Government. Well actually it's not. It is not because the very New Zealanders who need them the most are being failed by this Labour Government. Children in poverty—8000 more children living in benefit-dependent homes in the last year 8000. We know if a child is in a benefit-dependent home they are 60 percent more likely to be living in material hardship. That's an outrage but that's these results. That's the results that this Government's delivering for New Zealanders. I don't think it's much and I don't think it's much for vulnerable New Zealanders who need them most.What they could've done is picked up the social investment approach which actually targets support to those individuals and families who need it the most. They have the data they have the information they have the ability to actually deal with the underlying causes of dysfunction and they haven't even done that. They haven't sorted out and given assistance for their day-to-day issues.