Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Mr Chair. It is a great opportunity to speak in this annual review debate. It is actually the 2017-18 year that we are referring to here and although I would love to traverse some of the housing issues that that member talked about—and to say that the progress of building houses is a little slower than anticipated would have to be the greatest understatement not only of the day but probably of the year—I want to focus my efforts in this contribution into the review of the Ministry of Social Development. This is the agency that has the greatest level of expenditure across any Government agency so it is important to traverse and spend some time on scrutiny of their annual review. I want to start with one particular area and that is what we heard in the annual review process from the chief executive and others unfortunately about the increase in the number of people on jobseeker benefits. In the report as we heard there was an increase of nearly 9000 and it was somewhat interesting that they were forecasting that the number of people receiving jobseeker support would decrease. Unfortunately that is not the case. The number of people on jobseeker benefits has increased. It is now over 11000 more than there were a year ago. That is an absolute travesty that this Government who supposedly is about kindness and wellbeing is overseeing a significant increase in the number of people on the jobseeker benefit. Now why is that important? Well this side of the House believes and understands that families are better off in work. If you look at many of these households there are children involved and we know—we know from the data we know from the evidence—that the children in those households are generally worse off. So yes the Prime Minister may talk about children in poverty. Where the attention wasn't focused and we heard about it in this annual review was the zero plan—zero plan—for reducing the number of people on the jobseeker benefit. What we've also seen is that the number of people 18 to 24 a critical age bracket—that has actually gone up. There are more people now between the age of 18 to 24 not in employment education or training. So the member may have talked about places for 4000. Actually in the annual review the officials weren't able to tell us how many of the NEETs were engaged in that programme how many were entering the programme what the capacity was what the outcomes were—zero. I want to talk about outcomes because that was another element of the discussion in the annual review. If you think back some of where the focus is in areas like jobseeker benefits through what used to be in place but the Prime Minister cancelled is around inter-agency work. Now we've heard quite a lot about this in the last few weeks because supposedly this is the first wellbeing Budget where agencies have worked together. Well we know that's absolute rubbish and I want to talk about that in the context of family violence shortly. But just sticking on benefit numbers for a moment and talking specifically about those on jobseeker benefits we've seen a significant increase and the focus previously—because we know how important it is for families to be in work for families to be in charge of their lives to be independent to be able to provide greater opportunities for their children and not to have children living in poverty. The opportunity to a better future is through work. So the previous Government measured those things because actually those outcomes are important. It wasn't just a job for social development; it was a job for other agencies as well. So cross-agency work and inter-agency targets aren't new. So it was interesting in this annual review to have a discussion about outcomes measuring outcomes and developing impact indicators. The ministry hadn't actually set any new ones so actually I think in the meantime we may as well talk about the Better Public Services targets because they're ones that we understand and know about. The other side groan. Actually I don't think they realise that one of them was about reducing assaults on children. I would have thought that the other side had an interest in reducing the number of assaults on children. Oh but no they don't want to count that sort of thing because that might demonstrate that their words are just hot air and they're actually not delivering results for New Zealanders. At the end of the day annual reviews are about the select committee being able to scrutinise the performance of an entity in this case the Ministry of Social Development. We saw a number of areas where actually they weren't delivering for the most vulnerable New Zealanders. I've talked about it in the area of benefit numbers. I want to shift to the area of family violence because as I said we had targets around reducing the number of assaults on children which we see as absolutely critical. We were actually quite pleased in the Budget last year let alone what's been announced for this year's Budget to see increased funding for family violence—actually in fact the inter-agency work that was started when Amy Adams was the Minister of Justice where 12 Ministers sat in a room and came up with a significant family violence system reform as well as legislation that's now being passed in this House and the integrated safety response which we're pleased to see that this Government has seen the merit and seen the value and continued to fund. We actually did think for a period of time that they might not. As for the supposed success of the Families Package well not so long ago in this House we talked about 25000 New Zealanders that were paid the winter energy payment unlawfully. They were paid unlawfully.Andrew Bayly: And how did that happen?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: So yeah I wonder how that happened. That kind of occurs when you have work that's put in place that is absolutely rushed not thought through and it means the Auditor-General has had to criticise not just the Minister for Social Development and the department for unlawful spending—and actually even the fix now means that taxpayers are paying twice. There is a group of taxpayers—a group of recipients I should say—who are getting their housing costs paid for and they get a winter energy payment as well. But actually you know the Government doesn't seem to worry about that. They don't worry about the fact that they are getting paid twice by taxpayers but actually taxpayers do care. They care about the fact that their funds their hard-earned tax is making a difference which is why we want to see from the Ministry of Social Development what those outcomes are—so of the $28 billion that they spend a year of Kiwis' hard-earned money who's getting the support what support are they getting where are those people that are being supported and what is the impact that that spend is having? Unfortunately in too many of the areas that were scrutinised—and this is only one of 25—those answers weren't able to be provided.So yes the Social Investment Agency still exists—long may it last. Long may the Government see the use of data and evidence to solve very very complex intergenerational challenges—and no this is not the first Government to talk about wellbeing. No this is not the first Government to talk about inter-agency cross-Ministers cross-department—actually delivering of outcomes is the key. So whether it's reducing the number of people on benefit so that there are 60000 fewer children living in poverty and actually when it comes to—and I'm sure my colleagues will talk about children living in poverty because far too many of them are in benefit-dependent homes. That's the unfortunate reality. There's nothing unkind about it; it's called the truth. Actually in five years we lifted 85000 children out of poverty. The Prime Minister's new target is for 80000—less than that—in 10 years.So don't talk to this side about not being ambitious. Don't talk to this side about not being aspirational for New Zealanders. This is a side who will hold the Government to account who will hold the Government to account for delivering value for taxpayers ensuring whether it's family violence or getting people off benefit into jobs into opportunities we will hold the Government to account for every dollar spent to make sure that lives are improved as a result of what is spent in the Ministry of Social Development amongst others. So whether it's reducing the number of people on benefit whether it's reducing the number of children in poverty—that side may laugh; actually we think it's a serious business to reduce the number of assaults on children and to reduce the number of children living in poverty so it's sad to see that that side don't.