Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I have 10 minutes now to speak which is wonderful. I want to specifically speak to some of what is contained in the supplementary analysis report for this particular bill because the bill does not outline all of the implications. I think it's important to note the limitations and constraints on analysis given that this is going through in urgency. It is stated really clearly in a section in this particular report that The scope of analysis in the Supplementary Analysis Report has been restricted in the commissioning where Treasury advised to only analyse the impacts risks and other elements of the Government's chosen way forward for this legislative proposal. Options other than those chosen by Cabinet are not analysed in depth."This runs counter to that Government's early narrative and line about wanting to be an evidence-based Government. We have heard from them that they want to make decisions based on evidence and yet everything that we have seen including what we see in this report says that this is not the right thing to do in terms of the impacts that it will have disproportionately on certain groups and the impact that it will have on child poverty.I was most concerned about a number of sections in this report and it is important that the general public are aware of the supplementary analysis report because of the fact that this bill is going through in urgency and because not all of the detail is contained in the actual bill. The report is really clear that "The change in indexation settings is likely to directly affect main benefit recipients who are low-income New Zealanders." and that the change is most likely to impact on "population groups of women Māori and Pacific peoples and disabled people". In reference to disabled people the report also goes on to state very clearly that some of those disabled people that are on benefit are actually not able or do not have the ability to enter into the workforce. Indexing to wage growth which we know is generally higher—not always and we've seen it in recent years—is the fair thing to do for those that are already on the lowest incomes and for those including this particular group some of whom are not able to work at all or some of whom have many barriers to being able to get into employment in the first place.The thing that really concerns me that we've touched on and many of the speakers in Opposition have touched on today that the Minister has not spoken directly to is the actual impact that this bill will have on child poverty targets and the reduction targets moving forward. As a Government we made reducing child poverty a target. We actually took it so seriously that we enshrined it in legislation. That side of the House when they were in Opposition actually supported that legislation and they now need to be held accountable to actually meeting those targets. So when they introduce a bill like this where there is evidence that clearly states that it will actually reduce their ability to meet those child poverty reduction targets then they should be ashamed of themselves.If we look at the supplementary analysis report and we turn to paragraphs 30 through to 32 the actual forecast impacts on child poverty reduction should be of concern to everyone in this House and should be of concern to the general public. It states really clearly that "Preliminary modelling … shows that indexing main benefits to inflation leads to an estimated increase in the number of children in poverty under the ACH50 and BCH50 poverty measures over the forecast period in the absence of other changes." Well we haven't seen any other proposed changes from that side of the House that are going to mitigate the risk of child poverty continuing to grow under that Government.It also states forecasted numbers for what that increase in child poverty is likely to look like. It states that "By tax year 2028 there would be an estimated increase of 7000 … children under the ACH50 poverty measure and an estimated increase of 7000 … children under the BHC50 poverty measure. … Beyond the forecast period we would expect this change may have a particularly significant impact on the primary before-housing-costs measure of child poverty." So when the Minister stands up in the House and says they'll continue to increase benefits it will continue to rise with the cost of living we know that that Minister is being disingenuous because the change that we made would have seen benefits go up slightly more each year than what we will see now because of that Government's decision to revert back to the Consumers Price Index (CPI).As I said earlier Judge Andrew Becroft who was the Children's Commissioner at the time made it really clear that changing of indexation of benefits to wage growth as opposed to CPI is one of the most significant things that we could do to actually support with reducing child poverty over time. And yet that Minister and that Government continue to ignore the advice that we have been given.What is saddest is that the only reason that they are doing it is because they went into an election campaign promising tax cuts that they had no actual plan for how they were going to be able to pay for and then were reduced to having to turn to the most vulnerable poorest New Zealanders to look for the cash to be able to prop up the tax cuts that they had committed to funding. So over the forecast period yes the Government is going to get an extra $670 million to support them to pay the tax cuts. But who is that money coming from? It is coming from the poorest New Zealanders who are struggling more than anyone else in this country during a difficult time with the cost of living and they feel no shame about the fact that they are doing that.I have to say it's not just this—however this is I think something that we should be turning our attention to with some urgency. It is the fact that alongside that the Government has taken away the free prescriptions; the fact that the Government has also taken away the free public transport for children and half-price public transport for young people. All of these things have an impact mostly on those families that are already struggling. And where does it come from? It comes from an absolute no duty of care to the people that are the poorest.I want to say you know how hard it is for these families living in poverty? I'm not sure whether that side of the House really does—and how much harder it is to pull yourself out of poverty when you're actually living in those circumstances. What I've observed over the course of my life is that those who have the most continue to get given the most. Those who have the least continue to go down this downward spiral and to get the least. And how is that fair? How is that fair for Aotearoa New Zealand in a country where actually we have been quite egalitarian over the course of our history and our time where we actually have had a propensity to care about the most vulnerable the poorest those that need us to turn our attention and support to them? Yet what that Government is doing through this very significant change actually runs counter to what I believe is the spirit of New Zealand one that cares for and tries to provide support for and puts a ladder out for those who are struggling to be able to climb out of the situation that they are in.It isn't just this that I'm concerned about. I'm actually concerned about what we're going to see on top of this moving forward with the proposed cuts across the public sector including to the Ministry for Social Development. We know that they have no qualms in actually taking the funding away from the most vulnerable. So what else will be cut?We heard from the Minister that her response to addressing child poverty is to make people get off benefit. In fact she's planning on setting a target for the number of beneficiaries. Well can I just say that that will only create perverse incentives for the system to push people off benefits and will not support with us as a country being able to reduce the number of children that are living in poverty.That Government I have to say should be ashamed. And I'm looking around at some of the members who I think are actually being quite considered with this debate and listening to what is being said. I am not making up the things that I have said. They are clearly outlined in the supplementary analysis report for this bill. I encourage all members of the House to read that and to actually think about whether or not this is the right course forward. We do not believe that it is. We think that they need to do a big turnabout on this. I don't have hope that that will happen but we are here to debate this and we will push this to the very end."