3. Question No. 3—Child Poverty ReductionHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Child Poverty ReductionQuestion No. 3—Child Poverty Reduction3. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: What advice has she received on the likely impact on child poverty of the Government's policies?Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Child Poverty Reduction): Thank you Mr Speaker. The Government receives a wide range of advice on the impact on child poverty of policies it implements across the board.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How many children will be lifted out of poverty due to the Government's changes to the indexation of benefits?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There's not one policy that will have a single impact on child poverty. Our Government is directly focused as the previous Government was on lifting the number of children out of poverty.Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order Mr Speaker. The supplementary question that the member asked was very specific and the primary also was on notice. I don't believe the Minister addressed the specific question that the member asked.Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order the Opposition might not like the answer but the Minister did address it. She talked about how there is not one way of lifting children out of poverty which directly addresses the question from the member.Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to that the point is that the member asked a question about a specific legislative amendment that the Government is making. There is some obligation surely on the Minister to answer about that. You know we've been urged consistently by previous Speakers on both sides of the House to ask specific questions—ones that are not political in nature. That was what my colleague did and the answer she got was a generic response that did not in my opinion address that question.SPEAKER: That might be your opinion but if you think about it the question was about the specific policy; the answer was—perhaps the Minister could've put the words in that's a wrong assumption" or some other such but it was about the fact that in the Minister's view just like the questioner has a view there isn't one policy that answers it.Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order. Sorry Mr Speaker to belabour the point but that wasn't the question. The question wasn't "Is there one policy?"; it was "What does this particular policy contribute?" Those are actually materially two different questions and the question that the member asked has not been answered.SPEAKER: OK good—would the Minister like to answer in a different way?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The member asks a question about child poverty and there will be a number of policies including indexation that our Government will put in place to reduce child poverty.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Did she receive the preliminary modelling showing that indexing main benefits to inflation leads to an estimated increase in the number of children in poverty over the forecast period?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There will be a number of forecasts that we look at around policies in a range of portfolios across the Government that we are absolutely focused on in reducing child poverty including reducing the cost of living growing the economy improving attendance at school and preventing preventable hospitalisations for children.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order Mr Speaker. Given that the bill I'm referring to is currently going through the House in urgency and the preliminary modelling is attached to that bill in the supplementary analysis I expect a straight answer and I do not feel like that Minister has responded adequately to the question.SPEAKER: Yes well the difference between your expectations and what you feel about an answer doesn't necessarily mean that the answer hasn't been given. The question has been certainly addressed.Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order Mr Speaker. The difficulty with that approach is that there is not an unlimited pool of supplementary questions. In the House we're allocated a certain number of supplementary questions and therefore we have to use them in a way to extract the information. When a member asks a question "Did a Minister receive a particular piece of advice?" that is an attempt to ask a specific enough question that it will get a specific enough answer. If we had an unlimited number of supplementaries we could go down the path we're going—SPEAKER: I'll tell you what I fully understand your point of order. I'm not saying I'd be the original author of it but it's certainly been used in this House before. To move us on would the Minister like to answer the question in another way again.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The one individual piece of legislation that is before the Parliament at the moment—the figure is 7000. Our Government is absolutely focused on reducing the number of children living in poverty and one of the areas we'll focus on is reducing the number of children in benefit-dependant homes that blew out under that Government—SPEAKER: Yes before we go any further the question was about receiving some advice. Did you receive some advice? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Yes and I told her the figure.SPEAKER: OK. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What advice has she received on her Government's broader policies' ability to mitigate the forecasted risk of an estimated increase of 7000 children under the AHC 50 poverty measure and an estimated increase of 7000 children under the BHC 50 poverty measure due to the change in indexation? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I'm trying to make it simple to get an answer. So one piece of legislation one policy of multiple that this side of the House will be focused on in terms of improving child poverty reduction—and this is one measure that has an impact of a suite of policies around the cost of living crisis that we are focusing on. So this is one of many.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What advice has she received about her Government's intention to set targets for the number of beneficiaries with respect to perverse intentions that may be created in the system and the possible impact on child poverty? SPEAKER: I think we might have that question again a little more slowly.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Maybe I'll cut it back. What advice has she received about her Government's intention to set targets for the number of beneficiaries and the possible impact on child poverty? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I've been clear about my priority about reducing the number of children in benefit-dependant homes and there will be a range of advice that's coming to support that end. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is her Government committed to the child poverty reduction targets enshrined in legislation and if yes is she expecting to meet the targets?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Just to put on record the previous Government was not on track to meet the targets. We supported the legislation when it was introduced we're not making changes to the legislation and our Government will work incredibly hard to lift children out of poverty. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order. I didn't ask about the Government's track record; it was a very straight question about commitment to the enshrined targets in legislation and whether she expects to meet them—that her Government expects to meet them.SPEAKER: Well look that explanation probably explains what the question was about but I asked you to repeat it because I couldn't quite follow what you were asking either. So I think we'll move on; if you've got another supplementary try that. Well I'll give you an extra one so you feel better. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: An extra question?SPEAKER: Yeah.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she agree with the member Paulo Garcia that there is dignity in poverty? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This side of the House is very clear that we need to lift children out of benefit-dependant homes to give them the shot at a great future that they deserve in New Zealand. Currently 60 percent of the children in material hardship are in benefit-dependant homes. There is no dignity in them having poor or worse outcomes because of the family circumstances they were born in."