Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Mr Speaker. I am pleased to take a call in this first reading of legislation that will pass on child support to those on the sole parent benefit. I have to say from the outset that we will support it in the first reading but with some significant reservations. So I do want to speak through that in the first reading to be clear about where our support lies and where it doesn't lie. So the first thing is in terms of families being able to keep more of their own income—that is absolutely a philosophy that the National Party supports. In an instance of a sole parent where the child support is paid to support the children in that household it does make sense to find a way to be able to pass that through from Inland Revenue. So I do support that measure and that is based on the fact that if we are able to—and it would be very interesting to see when we get to the committee stages how many more liable parents will pay their child support commitments if it is passed through directly to the sole parent and they are more often than not women so it'll be interesting to see how that goes.We absolutely recognise that sole parents—particularly in a cost of living crisis—are doing it tough and we want to be able to look at measures that alleviate that pressure on their households. We also want to make sure—and this is the bit that we don't support. The Minister talks about this being a complex piece of legislation. Well the more complex it is the more there should be public scrutiny.This is the seventh piece of legislation by Minister Sepuloni that has had either a shortened report-back or none at all being done through urgency. So it is particularly concerning and I want to put that on the record now: that the Minister is calling for a shortened report-back. It means that those in the sector—those who are affected directly by this legislation—don't have the opportunity to assist the House in improving the legislation. So I do want to put that on the record.I think the other thing when we talk about child poverty—and of course we've seen the statistics come out last week—is there's been no change in the last year and that's not good news for anyone. So I don't take any pleasure in saying that that's a measure that we're not seeing any progress in. But what we also know is that for the children in material hardship 60 percent of them are in benefit-dependent homes. What we continue to see Labour's answer being is simply to increase the benefit or increase support for the beneficiary—in this case a sole parent—as opposed to looking at how we can support more sole parents into work.I've been on the record on multiple occasions recognising how incredibly difficult that transition is from personal experience and I know other members in the House have had the same experience. It is incredibly challenging to do that but not impossible. When we look at the statistics five years ago there were 60000 people on the sole parent benefit and 5½ years later that has gone up 13000 to 73000 New Zealanders. So we have one in five of our children being raised in a benefit-dependent home.So that is the statistic when I'm speaking around the community and in New Zealand that has people's jaws drop because if we are coming out of an economy that has been going so strongly why is it that we still have one in five of our children being raised in a benefit-dependent home? We all know the evidence tells us the outcomes for children who are raised in benefit-dependent homes are less positive than other children. So there equally needs to be a focus on how to lift children out of households that the primary source of income is a benefit and to reduce benefit dependency.Unfortunately what we are seeing is not only are there more on benefits but they are staying there for longer. What we've seen in the sole parent support category is that in addition 14000 have been on the sole parent benefit for more than a year. So I would like to see some of the focus and policy effort on how to actually support families into work because we do know that's when they will have greater incomes greater opportunities and greater choices in life.Of course we have seen two of the policies that Labour have already passed—the subsequent child and the requirement not to name the father—have both had an impact in terms of lifting the number of children being raised in sole parent households. So that of course has been a step backwards in our view.In terms of this legislation the other part that we do not support is the fact that the unsupported child's benefit hasn't been included in this first phase as the Minister refers to it because again those who are receiving the unsupported child's benefit are some of our most challenged and vulnerable families. So I think it is somewhat frustrating that that hasn't been included. I'm hoping in the select committee process that we can push to have that included and I'm sure there'll be many stakeholders and submitters who ask exactly for that as well.The other measure that we don't support is the change for liable parents to be able to access greater benefit support. We think it's really important in terms of the social contract both in terms of if you are providing assistance from the State that there are responsibilities that you have as well and in this instance where there is a liable parent who is receiving a benefit to then allow them access to greater benefits where they have child support obligations. To me it feels like a backward step.What we should instead be doing is asking: how do we support parents to provide for their children rather than loading that burden on to the taxpayers? That was exactly what happened unfortunately with the change that the Government made when there was no requirement for fathers to be named in terms of the sole parent benefit.So it's a mixed report on this bill and that's why we do support it with some pretty significant reservations. Yes on the surface of it additional money into a sole parent's household for their children is a positive step but we do want to see some of these other measures thrashed out in the select committee and I accept there'll be a further discussion on the time frames of that in a little while. I would encourage as many people as possible to submit on this legislation. Because it is technical and because it is complicated it is more important that we get it right. We definitely don't want legislation back in the House fixing things which is what we've had to do in the past when there's been insufficient time for scrutiny. All that does is actually have an impact on those that we are all here to serve. So I don't think because it's a complex bill that's any excuse not to get it done. It was a Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommendation back in May 2019—one that in principle the National Party agreed with. So it is somewhat frustrating to be here years later dealing with legislation and having it rammed through under a short time frame without sufficient scrutiny and it not being the whole job anyway with the unsupported child's benefit excluded and more work to happen.So as I say we support the bill. We have significant reservations and we do want to have some of these issues ironed out in the select committee. It would be nice to be in a position where it is legislation we could continue to support but that will depend on what happens next. Thank you Mr Speaker.