Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Mr Speaker. Well in this first reading in yet another piece of legislation that the majority Government is ramming through this House in urgency with no public consultation I'm going to talk about some things that clearly this bill isn't rather than what it is.Because if you talk to people in our communities what do they want? So for the first half of the bill you talk to businesses. What do they want? They want certainty. They want clarity. Do they get this in the bill? No. They want to know with this confusing change to the traffic light system which National doesn't even think is necessary: what support would be available due to the restrictions still in place? There'll be some over the other side that are saying Well actually businesses are free to operate in the traffic light system." Well I'm sorry but for many businesses in my electorate where hospitality and tourism are the key element of the town's success we heard from my colleague the Hon Todd McClay who is our tourism spokesperson that they won't be coming any time soon.So where in this bill do we hear about specific targeted assistance to the sectors who will need it most? Oh no we don't. We don't see that at all in the bill in this taxation—supposedly—COVID-19 support payments bill. It is not there. What do businesses desperately need? They want certainty. They want clarity. They want to be able to get on and plan.The other thing—because this bill also purports to support workers. There are thousands and thousands of Kiwi workers who are locked out of their jobs today because of restrictions who also want certainty who also want clarity. What we've seen in this House earlier today is potentially thousands of New Zealanders who will be locked out of employment and their ability to earn an income because of a divisive toxic piece of legislation around vaccinations. But oh no they're very quiet on that side of the House now—they're very very quiet. New Zealanders want to get back to normal.So the other side have also said this bill is about low-income New Zealanders because COVID has been really tough. Well my question is this: if COVID has been so tough on those households—because of COVID—why hasn't the Government instead provided temporary support to ease the burden now? Oh no no. They haven't done that. They haven't put the thought in. Haven't put the effort in. Haven't looked at how to target support to those who need it most. Let me give you an example: so of the thousands of families who have struggled because they've been in lockdown and their children have been at home rather than at school at school they would have been supported either with breakfast in schools or the Fonterra programme for milk in schools fruit in schools lunch in schools. So those families what would have been far more helpful to them would have been to have given a direct credit to each one of those households that was struggling at the time during lockdown. And Auckland will be 100 days tomorrow. That's the support that families needed but instead what do they do? They put out a headline that says "Incomes lifted for 346000 families". Well guess what! Most of it was the Consumers Price Index (CPI) adjustment that happens every year on 1 April. I'll say that again: CPI adjustments happen every year which are reflected in increases to Working for Families tax credits Best Start payments and guess what! They're going up anyway other than $5 a week. So yet another flashy headline that is actually pretty meaningless—doesn't come until April. Yet here we are debating under urgency with no ability for the public to have their say yet another piece of legislation. Oh but they put the COVID banner on it and they just slip this particular bill in so that it looks like it's COVID support. Well it's not. So at least be honest about what this bill does and what it doesn't do.The other thing that is really not upfront about this legislation is this—and different members have talked about different numbers so they haven't even got their facts straight: 3000 children out of poverty 6000 children out of poverty 10000 children out of poverty. Well guess what! You're starting from behind—you're starting from behind. Here's why: Ardern promised in 2017 that 100000 fewer children would live in households earning less than 50 percent of the median income—2017 remember that? Remember that? That was a key debate. Guess what! Fifteen hundred more children in poverty on that measure. So whether it's 3000 6000 or 10000 you're not even getting back to where it was in 2017. So the reality is if that side was seriously interested in the wellbeing of those children and lifting children out of poverty instead they would be focused on those who are without work. They would be focused on the 190000 New Zealanders who are currently on the job seeker benefit. Just about any business you go into they're looking for workers. They are looking for people to fill roles in their organisations and there are a wide range of what those jobs are.But what's worse than that what we are seeing under this Labour Government is the crisis of benefit dependency because what we are seeing is people going on to benefit and staying there longer. So if we want to have an honest conversation in this House about children in poverty where are they? They are in the households where there isn't a parent in work. So the single focus if this Government is serious about lifting children out of poverty should be on those households—it should be on those households. Yet they're all quiet now—they're all quiet because it hurts. The truth hurts.Actually what we do want to do you know if we're serious about supporting children is support their families. Actually this side of the House our clear solution is actually allow them to keep more of what they earn. It's their own money in the first place. So rather than take it off them in tax and then churn it and give it back and spit it out in different labels actually why not just let them keep it in the first place? That was what we put in our Back in Business plan because we do believe fundamentally if you've worked for your income—and this bill is about Working for Families tax credits so we are talking about people in work—then actually why can't they? Why can't they just keep more of what they've earned in the first place rather than churning taxpayers' dollars spitting out less by the time it's been swallowed in the tax administration system and giving it back to people and making them feel incredibly grateful and desperate that they've got another $5 a week from the Government.But no what is clear—what is clear—in calling this support for COVID—it's not—what it is doing is growing the amount of money and the amount of people and households that are reliant on getting some form of income from the Government or other taxpayers to pay their bills every single week. Hon Member: Cruel. Hon LOUISE UPSTON: It is cruel—it is absolutely cruel and unnecessary. Instead the focus should be: supporting businesses to get back up and running actually opening up rather than pretending to; allow our businesses to function and function well and actually give them some credit for the tough times they've already got through. They're chomping at the bit to open up serve their customers and allow their workers to get back to work and for everybody to get on and earn an honest living. So instead if that side was going to jam some legislation through under urgency perhaps something along that vein would have been more satisfactory. But no we're here debating under urgency all stages.Actually I think since this Minister has been the Minister for Social Development we've had more pieces of legislation slammed through under urgency or with shortened curtailed report-backs than I've ever seen before. So they clearly don't care; they only pretend to. Let's be very clear about what this bill does and what it doesn't do: $5 a week is what it really is and it won't lift any children out of poverty."