Grigg NicolaNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): I'm not sure where to start but that was quite an extraordinary delivery from the good doctor on the other side of the House. I think in my view this is a classic example of good intentions having unintended consequences and in this case long-lasting damaging consequences. Now we've heard some very very different ideological arguments from either side of the House this evening and the word dignity" has been mentioned several times. But we on this side of the House will argue that the intrinsic value of work and the dignity that that brings you cannot put a value on. On this side of the House we are the first to agree that the safety net of social support is vital to the wellbeing of any society and we are proudly the party that was the first in decades to raise the main benefit when we were last in Government. But this Government is unwinding what was an important change that was made to the welfare system in 2012. It's disappointing to have heard comments from that side of the House which I thought were quite disparaging regarding the submission that my colleague Harete Hipango made in relaying a conversation that she had had with none other than Dame Tariana Turia on this very subject. Now I would suggest to that side of the House that when Dame Tariana speaks up boy you should listen. Despite what the Labour Party will have the public believe the subsequent child policy in 2012 was about reducing long-term welfare dependency. The impacts of long-term welfare dependency particularly on children are deeply harmful—not even Dr Webb can argue that away. Of the thousands of children in New Zealand who live in material hardship 60 percent of them are in benefit-dependent households so to put measures in place to keep their parents dependent on benefits is a retrograde step. The social problems that we have seen emerge under this Government are enormous and the consequences of them are going to be long-lasting and deeply impactful. This Government has created a culture of dependency. There are almost 200000 more New Zealanders on a benefit than in 2017. That is one in nine working-age Kiwis—one in nine—and before that side of the House runs and hides behind COVID those numbers were ratcheting up long before we'd even heard of the word. But the ripple effect of those numbers of people who are sole parents on their children is deeply concerning. Already more children than ever are living in material deprivation. The safety net is in place for those who need it. We on this side of the House will never disagree that juggling parenting and work is incredibly difficult. Transitioning from being a sole parent on a benefit into work is incredibly difficult but the core of this issue is about the wellbeing of children in the long term. We know that if you go on to a benefit under the age of 20 you are likely to be on it for about 14 years. Repealing this provision will impact on about 11000 people but I couldn't quite find the data to illustrate just how many kids that it will impact on. But what a worry that so many of them would be destined to a life of dependence from a Government that proclaims to be kind. The Labour Party in repealing this provision of subsequent children is destining more Kiwi kids to a life of poverty and a life of hardship poorer health and social outcomes and because of that we oppose it in its entirety."