Davidson Reuben; Watts SimonREUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to make a contribution on the in-work tax credit and to really pick up on content specifically around what the Minister was just answering in the child poverty space. On page 3 of the regulatory impact statement there is a paragraph headed There will be reductions to child poverty". It goes on to say "The impact on child poverty of option 2 (increase the IWTC by $25 per week from 31 July 2024) has not been modelled independently to of the other Tax Package changes due to time constraints." There appears to be a missing word here. And there's some thoughts on that.One is: what is that referencing—"to" something "of". What should the missing word be? But more than that—more than that—the concern is that this work has been rushed potentially done too fast and that the matter of child poverty hasn't been given the serious weight and consideration that it deserves. It also begs the question: if such a glaring omission is made already by page 3 is there the possibility that on deeper reading of this we will find further errors further omissions further concerns? I'm really interested to know from the Minister what word should be in there. Any word just about could be inserted in there and this paragraph and this statement would start to mean completely different things.Now if the target is to reduce child poverty—and the Minister has just given us some numbers albeit with a rather large margin of error around what those child poverty reductions should be—surely the task of reporting and measuring child poverty becomes all the more critical given that the Living in Aotearoa survey was developed because it was determined probably by leadership at Stats New Zealand at the time when the legislation was being drafted that New Zealand did not have the appropriate data either in our existing surveys or collected through administrative records to measure persistent poverty or persistent hardship.I realise the Minister doesn't have responsibility for statistics but given the context of yesterday's Budget showing significant cuts to Statistics New Zealand and already the cut and cancellation to the Living in Aotearoa survey—Carl Bates: It was your idea.REUBEN DAVIDSON: Sir if you wish to take a call we've just discussed the procedure for that. I'm happy to yield.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Order! Please do not debate across the Chamber.REUBEN DAVIDSON: Sorry Madam Chair. If the member on the other side of the Chamber wishes to take a call I would be happy to yield on the provision that he is going to deliver a proper speech—James Meager: Point of order. Speaker's ruling 62/4: "… it is not for the member with the call to invite another member to intervene"—so I'd ask you to reflect on that Speaker's ruling please.REUBEN DAVIDSON: Thank you. I'll reflect on it deeply! But I will get back to what I was discussing and I'm concerned that I may run out of time in my allotment to actually raise this issue. And it is a serious issue.To refresh on what I was saying for us to know if people are persistently in income poverty or material hardship we need to collect longitudinal data—that is we need to go back to individual households families children multiple times across time to ask their income the age and relationship profile of the people that are living in a household and their material hardship. Now a set of 17 questions collected on surveys can never be obtained through administrative data. At a minimum we need longitudinal surveys that follow families for five to six years. And that's exactly what we saw confirmed as cancelled in yesterday's Budget. That's a real shame and it makes a mockery in my opinion of claiming that there is any meaningful intention on this part of the Budget or on the actions in the in-work tax credit to reduce child poverty. So my questions to the Minister are—[Time expired]CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I'll call Reuben Davidson to finish his contribution.REUBEN DAVIDSON: Thank you Madam Chair. Just to recap before we ended there the loss of a longitudinal survey that followed families for five to six years is a huge loss. And in the regulatory impact statement—CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I'm sorry to interrupt the member. I extended your call so you could complete your contribution—the questions you were asking.REUBEN DAVIDSON: Sure. Thank you Madam Chair. My questions to the Minister are: what engagement has the Minister had with the Minister of Statistics to ensure meaningful longitudinal—and that's the really important part here; not admin data longitudinal—research and surveys to measure the real and enduring effects and impacts of child poverty?Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I'd direct the member Reuben Davidson to the Child Poverty Report 2024 that's been released this morning. That will outline a number of aspects in regards to the member's question not necessarily directly related to this bill."