Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I'm going to start where the Minister for Social Development ended with the Welfare Expert Advisory Group and say: is that it? Is that it? There were 42 recommendations—three recommendations accepted—to a welfare system that Labour have said for years was broken. All of their comments in Opposition were that it was urgent and that changes needed to happen desperately. Guess what—is that it?Of the three changes today that we are sitting here considering in urgency post-Budget in the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill in this first reading two of the three urgent things that the Government has introduced were their campaign promises but they've waited this long to do it. The other one actually quite frankly makes sense. But of the months and months and months of work with the Welfare Expert Advisory Group the Government accepted three of the recommendations—only three. So I say Minister again: is that it?If this is a silver bullet to solving child poverty guess what: it ain't going to happen any time soon. And I'll say this—Hon Andrew Little: You can't do it with a google search. What's the plan?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Oh a bit sensitive—a bit sensitive. Yeah great question Minister Little—what is the plan? What is the plan for the Government's promise to lift 80000 children out of poverty in 10 years? This side did it—85000 in five years. So if you want to have a conversation about results if you want to have a conversation about lifting children out of child poverty actually this side of the House have done it. But this—three changes. I want to talk about the three changes and I want to focus my time in this debate on one of the issues.The first is indexing. Indexing isn't new. Indexing main benefits has been around since the 1990s so it's not new. The change that's proposed by this piece of legislation—and this is where the rubber hits the road in terms of reality. This change in the indexing by 2023 on average will increase what a beneficiary household gets by $11—$11 in four years' time. I say to the Minister: is this it? If that is your answer to child poverty—because we know that the large number of children who live in benefit-dependent homes live in some of the most challenged circumstances. In four years' time $11 a week—is this it?In terms of abatement rates National agrees with the ability of every household to keep more of what they earn. It's no different for those on benefits. So as a principle we do support lifting abatement rates but we'll have more of a discussion on that. What I do want to spend most of my time on though is the lifting of obligations and consequences on the naming of parents because at the end of the day—and New Zealand First will be very interested in this—this in reality is a tax cut for deadbeat dads. This is a tax cut for deadbeat dads who aren't going to be held financially responsible for their children. That's at the end of the day $115 million. That's the price tag: $115 million. The deadbeat dads are let off the hook. They are let off the hook.A lot of those listening to this debate won't understand the history of this particular obligation so I did want to go back through it and explain the kind of size of what the problem has been in the past. I actually want to refer not to one of my own colleagues but to a former Labour Minister who in Budget 2004 also made changes around this particular obligation but what he did at the time was increase the sanction. So the obligation was there but the Labour Government were very concerned about—guess what—parents not being held financially and emotionally responsible for their kids and not contributing child support.So I'm fascinated that the Government actually now believes that dads shouldn't be responsible for their kids—they shouldn't be financially responsible for their own children. Just because somebody is on a benefit why is it that the Government thinks that the children in that household don't have a right for their parents—and it is usually the dad—to be responsible for them? I ask the Government why is it that you think just because somebody is on a benefit that the father of those children shouldn't be responsible—shouldn't be responsible? Because you know for the sparky in west Auckland who pays child support for his three kids he's responsible. He's accountable. So if their marriage breaks up if the mother of his children then goes on the sole parent benefit why all of a sudden shouldn't he be responsible for his children? It's a very simple question. It's a very simple question. Obligations and consequences: if you don't fulfil the obligations—guess what—there's a consequence. As I say in Budget 2004 Steve Maharey was very concerned. He said I think parents should contribute emotionally and financially to their children throughout their lives." He called it a financial incentive—a financial incentive. Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Live in the past.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Oh it suits the Government when they want to talk about things in the past. So let's never talk about the nine years that National was in office if you don't want to talk about the past. That's fine. So let's have a look at some of the numbers because here's what's happened. Here's what happens when there's not a consequence when there's not a sanction or in Steve Maharey's words "a financial incentive": the number of parents that were not named or who applied for child support increased by over 40 percent in seven years. So I asked the Government: how many more parents are you expecting not to be responsible for their children? A 40 percent increase—40 percent increase in seven years and this was referring to those on benefits.Now I was a solo mum. I was on the DPB. It was some of the hardest times of my life. So this is not about beneficiary bashing; this is about saying our side believes fundamentally that dads and parents should be responsible financially and emotionally for their children. Fletcher Tabuteau: So do we. This doesn't do it.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Great New Zealand First agrees—excellent. Because this is a tax cut for a deadbeat dad who gets to not pay for his own children. This side of the House thinks that's outrageous—outrageous. So this is major opposition from this side of the House because of the obligation that exists currently and should exist. What I do want to do because I know it's been raised in this House before is just talk about the fact that there are clear exemptions. In the current law we used to refer to it as section 70A; it is now section 192. I just want to put on record the exemptions that are already in place for not naming the liable parent: if there's insufficient evidence to establish who the parent is if the person receiving the benefit is taking active steps to identify them if the parent would be at risk of violence if the child was conceived as a result of incest or sexual violation and if there is other evidence that says there's no real likelihood of child support being collected. You know those are very practical sensible exemptions that are applied on a regular basis for those receiving the benefit who aren't able to for a variety of reasons including their own safety name the parent. But guess what: this is about a tax cut for deadbeat dads who the Government don't believe should be responsible for their own children. This side the National Party will oppose this bill because it is an absolute outrage not to hold or to have obligations on parents supporting their own children."