Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm pleased to rise and speak in support of the Child Poverty Reduction Bill in its final reading. I want to just first of all put on record the way that our leader Simon Bridges was very clear at the outset of this work that he wanted to work constructively with the Government with the Prime Minister on this piece of legislation. That is really following on from former leaders of National both in Opposition—the Rt Hon Bill English—and then the former Prime Minister Rt Hon John Key and it's great to see that there is a continued focus on improving the lives of children in New Zealand.I wanted to just look at a couple of figures because one of the challenges in legislation that comes before the House is that it's got to be more than just what the intention is and it's got to be about the immeasurable outcomes that that legislation enables. So one of the jobs of the Opposition—although we've absolutely constructively worked on the legislation and I want to talk about a couple of key areas shortly—is to hold the Government to account. The Government has set some targets. One of the targets that the Opposition was a little concerned about was the level of aspiration in terms of the targets set around the number of children that would be lifted out of material hardship.And we've actually just heard with the speaker prior Carmel Sepuloni a bit of a contradiction in terms of ambition. In a five-year period when National was in Government we lifted 85000 children out of material hardship. And this Government has committed to lifting only 70000 children out of material hardship over a 10-year period. But what the Minister for Social Development has just said is by 2021 the Families Package would lift 64000 children out of material hardship so it's a little confusing that there would be then only 6000 children from the period 2021 to 2028. So this side of the House is concerned about the level of aspiration—when 85000 children were lifted out of material hardship over a five-year period 70000 in 10 years doesn't seem high enough. But it's the Government of the day; the legislation is drafted in a way that the Government of the day sets their targets. They've done that. So as the Opposition we will hold the Government to account for the outcomes for those children and the New Zealand public can rely on us for doing that.As everybody knows—and only too well those who work and listen to their constituents across the electorates—poverty isn't just about lifting incomes. Again the member who spoke before me talked about two of the three targets that were related to incomes. And what this side of the House is clear about are the other significant challenges that families face and the fact that it's got to be a broader perspective than just about income. My colleague the Hon Alfred Ngaro also very clearly made the point which I think is important to repeat that we don't confuse the issue of households on low income—them kind of being in poverty—and being unable to provide a family environment as many Kiwi families do. We want to ensure that those families are supported.I want to talk about the vulnerable families that are actually trapped in deprivation. Some of the things that trap them in deprivation include long-term benefit dependencies low educational achievement and also recidivist crime. That's why one of the areas that we wanted to improve the legislation by was including child poverty - related indicators. And those who followed the work of the previous Government around the Better Public Service targets will recognise areas around housing areas around health and education child abuse and crime that are all really indicators of a broader picture of poverty.So what the Government of the day is able to do with these child poverty - related indicators being incorporated into this legislation is to choose which of those indicators—I'm optimistic that the Government will choose multiple indicators not just one. As I said housing quality of housing health and education because those are the areas that if Government policy reflects on having an impact on that will absolutely change the life course of the children that live in that household.So it was a pity that close to the time that the Child Poverty Reduction Bill was introduced the Government got rid of the Better Public Service targets. And one of the things as well as covering those child poverty - related indicator areas was the Better Public Service targets had greater levels of accountability on the Government departments. This has been one of the debates that was had through the legislative process that it's one thing to have accountability on a Minister—and in this case it's the Prime Minister who's the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction—but actually where the work happens each and every day is the Government departments. And if you don't have measures and accountability clearly and squarely on them then the ability to produce the outcome as opposed to just an intention is watered down.So as I said this legislation gives the Opposition and the New Zealand public the opportunity to measure the progress of the Government of the day. As I said it's not just about incomes. It's got to be about improving health improving education improving our record on child abuse as well as improving the number of households that rely on benefits.The other area that I think is really important in terms of the way this legislation has been improved was the incorporation of social investment. So what we saw in the previous Government was quite a radical way of using data to drive innovation and tackle real problems for real families—very very complex and hard-to-solve challenges but social investment created absolutely the best tool kit to be able to understand both the context and the culture in which the poverty and hardship and dysfunction was occurring. The fact that that has been incorporated into this legislation as a Supplementary Order Paper that was initially lodged by my colleague the Hon Alfred Ngaro is important. And again he used the word pioneering" in his speech—actually the approach using social investment was also pioneering and so I'm pleased that some of that has been incorporated into this bill because like the Government the Opposition absolutely does want to ensure that every New Zealand child grows up happy healthy and with wonderful opportunities in front of them.The other piece I want to just reiterate is that the family is absolutely the best form of welfare. Another area that the Opposition will be holding the Government to account on is the supposed welfare overhaul. As a Government that increased benefits in 2015 I was somewhat shocked that the Minister of Finance has come out and said that increases to benefits are off the table. So the Welfare Expert Advisory Group hasn't even reported back. He said it's off the table and that was somewhat surprising because what we saw in 2015 was a marked increase in the ability of those families who were dependent on benefits to do better than they were. It's also somewhat puzzling given that those on the lowest incomes I would have thought would have been a priority and this Government's well-being Budget which of course it has spoken a lot about.I want to finish my final comments on those that submitted on the legislation but also they are often the same people that are working with our most vulnerable children and families on the front line. As we go into the Christmas season I want to give a particular word of thanks to them and their organisations. Some of their workers are volunteers; some of them are paid. They do critically important work in our communities with our families. So I want to thank them for the work they do and to say that National is proud to support legislation that improves the lives of our most vulnerable children and we won't shy away from holding the Government to account for their targets."