Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Mr Speaker. I am pleased to take the first call on behalf of the National Party in the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill. I want to just put some context into this debate so those who are following the debate in the third reading can just understand a few things. The first thing is that we've seen a 21 percent increase in the number of sole parents on benefit in the last five and a half years; that's a 21 percent increase. And none of my questions on the earlier stages of the bill have given me any confidence that this piece of legislation won't add to that number.The reason that's concerning is a couple of fold: firstly we see that there are today approximately 36000 more children being raised in benefit-dependent homes than when Labour came into office in 2017—36000. Now I think many New Zealanders would be shocked to know that one in five New Zealand children are being raised in benefit-dependent homes today so that is why National is concerned about the 21 percent increase of the numbers receiving sole parent benefit. So I do want to just address that concern from the start because National's view very clearly is that the social contract exists and actually some of the Ministry of Social Development's own documentation talks about the fact—and actually I quoted it in an earlier reading in this debate from the regulatory impact statement. It basically says where someone and their family can provide for themselves the expectation is that they do. In this instance if there is a liable parent then the expectation is that they provide for their children and that funding goes to the receiving parent. On the surface of it that should be agnostic between whether or not the receiving parent is on a benefit or not. Except in this instance when the receiving parent is on a benefit purely and only for the reason of being a sole parent then the child support payment first and foremost should cover those costs. That's why very clearly in the law there is a difference between how sole parents are treated in this way and why those on other benefits are treated.So the Minister says the primary sole purpose of making this change is to make the sole parent benefit line up with others. Well National says actually it's different and it should be because the sole parent is receiving money and should be from a liable parent so that parents—and you know the majority of them are fathers who are the liable parents—pay for their children they pay for the costs associated with their family. So that is a clear view from the National Party: that if you have children you should be responsible for them. So we don't agree with the position that a sole parent receiving the sole parent benefit should be treated the same way as others. That's the first point that I want to put on record in this debate. There is a social contract and parents should provide for their children whether they are in the same household or not. When they're not in the same household the liable parent should pay. And if they are receiving a sole parent benefit they are there because they are a parent—and the other parent the liable parent should pay. It's actually as simple as that.It's interesting the Minister has finally admitted that this payment is necessary because of the cost of living crisis. Well why hasn't the Government focused on taking actual steps that would reduce the cost of living crisis instead of yet again finding a solution that means paying more money. But they don't focus on that side and they don't focus on how to reduce the number of people who are reliant on the sole parent benefit. And I think that's the bit that continues to frustrate me in this debate on the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill because actually if you think about children being raised in benefit-dependent homes we do know they are better off if a parent is in work. And so that's the disappointment from this side. So now that the Minister has said the need for this is because of the cost of living crisis—actually National believes they should have taken some steps to alleviate the cost of living crisis rather than finding more ways to push money out the door. What we do know is that for the children being raised in benefit-dependent homes they are the ones that financially are the worst off. And so from a child poverty reduction perspective National is keen on this because it will make a difference to those families—$20 a week doesn't sound a lot but in the cost of living crisis that $20 a week will mean for some sole parent households standing still. So it is good from that perspective.But the question I asked in the committee stage that I didn't get a decent answer to was the $354 million that is the price tag of this particular policy change—I was interested to know what other options had been considered that would have had a more lasting impact on the children in those households. Because what we do believe is that's where the focus should be and that's why the National Party's focus is how do we actually support sole parents who are receiving the benefit into work as opposed to just continuing to find another way to provide financial assistance. The financial assistance might help today or tomorrow—or actually it comes in on 1 July so from 1 July. But longer term we want to see more of those families with a parent in work because we know in terms of lifelong outcomes that that's what makes a difference for those children and that's our focus.So yes this legislation might go some way in terms of child poverty reduction; there were some estimates for that. What there weren't estimates for though which is particularly frustrating given that the Minister mentioned it in this House this afternoon was that there's an expectation that more liable parents will pay. Well not once have we seen numbers of how many more liable parents will pay. And if you can estimate how many children will be come out of poverty as a result surely I would have thought they would be estimates forecasts of how many more liable parents will pay. Because equally that is an important value that the National Party holds in terms of personal responsibility in that parents pay for their children. So it would be great as a part of the evaluation if we were able to see how many more liable parents will pay because that will offset some of the $354 million this policy will cost. We haven't seen that.Again the Minister said This is about equality of different benefit types for the pass on of child support." I suggest that's just actually a ruse because it hasn't been applied to the unsupported child's benefit. So you can't say you're fixing an inequity issue on one hand and then not do it for another classification of beneficiary and so I actually don't think that's the real reason. I think the Government saw with the cost of living crisis that sole parents on benefit were doing it very tough—and they are. And that is actually because of the cost of living crisis. So the Minister wanted to find a way to get some money out the door to them but actually didn't bother about those on the unsupported child's benefit which actually this side of the House is particularly frustrated by. Because just as it makes a difference in a sole parent household it would have made a big difference also to those unsupported receiving the unsupported child's benefit.So it is with some reluctance that the National Party supports—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order Camilla Belich. It must be important to interrupt the speaker.Camilla Belich: I just wanted to raise a point of order because the member in her speech referred to what the Government was doing as a "ruse". And as you know it's contrary to Standing Orders to call or indicate that something is dishonest or a lie and the definition of "ruse" is "the intention to deceive".DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did hear that comment and I have given her the benefit of the doubt on that one in the context. So I will allow that to carry on.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: So as I say it is with reluctance that National supports this bill because unsupported children deserve to be supported. If the name of this game was all about equality—which clearly it's not but we do say that children living in benefit-dependent homes if we are to lift children out of poverty we must do that. That's the reason we're supporting this bill."