Smith Stuart: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSmith Stuart: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 01 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8420. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to rise and speak to Part 3 in this Committee of the whole House stage which relates to the inland revenue Acts. I have listened with interest to some of the contributions coming from across the Committee this evening. I think it has been quite interesting. I note one of the speakers pointed out that submitters were grateful for the increases but did not feel that they had gone far enough. I think that that actually lines up with quite a few of the Opposition’s contributions this evening. I think that is quite ironic because that particular party had 9 years in Government and chose not to do anything about it. [Interruption] They may well yawn but really it must be a real source of embarrassment for them when we come to Part 3.Part 3 deals very much with how people receive their abatements and so on. We have also heard quite a number of contributions about what is the best way to deal with raising these particular benefits for those people and saying that it does not go far enough because it does not get up close to the wages of people working. But that is the point. Really benefits are there as a safety net and the benefit to families and children living in a family where their parent or parents or caregivers are working—that example that they see every day is worth lots and lots to those people which cannot be measured in dollar terms. I think that that has been completely forgotten by the other side.It is very easy to complain. One person alluded to a bill that would have added $50 a week to the abatement rate. That is all very well if you do not have to balance the books. And what about the people who are out there working and showing that great example to their families about what the benefit of a day’s work is? When you have earned the money yourself it is worth far more to you and you will spend it more carefully than something that is given to you which actually tends to have not much value at all.I really was quite interested in the arguments about the vehicle for increasing benefits because you can go backwards and forwards across it but Ministers considered this very carefully. The Minister herself has spent a lot of time on this bill. She has talked to officials who have done a lot of work on this and I was very impressed when we had them in to the Social Services Committee by the breadth and depth of their knowledge on this particular issue. When we had some thoughts from them rebutting some of the evidence given in the select committee it was pretty clear that the solution that was chosen was the one that is most appropriate and delivers the best solution given what is the aim of that—that is not to take it right up to the wages that people are earning because actually that is not the right incentive that we should be sending. I support that and I think that is brave and that is leadership but that is exactly what people elect Governments to do—to lead and make tough decisions. I commend the Minister for taking that stand and for going to such a wide net and then pulling it back into what is actually going to give an elegant solution to raising benefits. First time in 43 years—I think that deserves a round of applause almost but I am sure we will not get it from members on the other side of the Chamber.I also am quite interested that the Greens were quite adamant about how these things keep missing out and how they were not quite enough. All of these submitters who came in seeking more increases and greater solutions in that area—that is their job to do that to advocate for as much as they can get and to go past what is actually needed to try to get more. That is their job. I am very happy to commend this bill to the Committee. Thank you.