Ball DarrochDARROCH BALL (NZ First): This whole entire Budget was based around—the Prime Minister said and a lot of the different Ministers said it before the Budget—the social investment approach. What the National Government has done is made quite a nice sound bite for the media and it has done quite a good job selling what the apparent definition of the social investment approach is.I had a lot of hope for this Budget. I did have a lot of hope for this Budget because after 8 years of Bill English saying one thing and not delivering on the social investment approach I had hoped for Steven Joyce to come out and actually start delivering on what the Government's promise of the social investment approach was.Hon Anne Tolley: Come on Darroch. You can do better than this.DARROCH BALL: And I have been listening—yeah well the Minister of Social Development says it is ridiculous but I want to get through to the evidence that we have here which the Government continues to deny and the Government continues to not look at and read. It says it uses robust and evidential-based approach but it does not do that.Actually I have been listening to all of the speeches from National over the last couple of days and a quote from Mark Twain pops into my mind: It ain't the stuff you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's the stuff you know for sure that just ain't so." And what that means is that the members on the backbench of the National Government need to stop reading the bullet points and the one-liners and the rhetoric and the hot air that the Ministers give them to say and actually understand that what they are saying just ain't so.I would like to say one thing that I heard Marama Fox say actually earlier on today which was that she was proud to stand up and back this Budget because this was the Budget for whānau. Well I would like to ask Marama Fox and National how on earth after 9 years of this Government—that is a better part of a decade the better part of a decade under the social investment approach under Bill English who was the Minister of Finance and is now the Prime Minister and the social investment approach is Bill English's baby—why after 9 years all of those key indicators that make up the social fabric of our country all of those statistics are going in the wrong direction.I have got a little list here. Youth unemployment and disengagement is going up and always has been higher than—Hon Anne Tolley: Down. Down. Down.DARROCH BALL: —the 2008 levels—always. Youth crime is increasing. Child abuse numbers—up. Domestic violence cases—up. Rental costs for people in our country—up. Housing inaffordability for the people in our country—up. Living costs—up. Numbers of children in poverty—Hon Anne Tolley: Down.DARROCH BALL: —up. But you do not want to ask the National Government or the Minister of Social Development about children living in poverty. There are 16 different measures and they do not want to pick one. They do not want to pick one because if they did if they had to pick one that means they would have to acknowledge that there was a problem because all the statistics are going up and if they have to acknowledge there is a problem they have to do something about it. They do not want to do anything about it because it is in the too-hard basket. All that that Minister needs to do is pick one definition of child poverty. It just does not happen.The last one that I have got on my list is the gap between the rich and poor. That is going in the wrong direction too. It is increasing. So how on earth in the last 9 years the better part of a decade under the guidance of Bill English and a social investment approach—if the social investment approach is working then how come all of those statistics are in the bad column?But what is it saying? You see the point is this: the Government says one thing—what the social investment approach is what the meaning is and how it uses it—and the reality is another. What the results are is another and I have got a pile of evidence here that I am going to go through and I hope I have got enough time. But this is what it says that it is. The Government repeats this day in and day out: "Social investment is about applying rigorous and evidence-based investment practices"—it is important to understand that Government members repeat that all the time—"to develop purchase and deliver social services so decisions can be made that improve the lives of New Zealanders." Hey that sounds great. That sounds good and it sells it to me and it sells it to the media and it sells it to all of the other voters of New Zealand who just listen to that one sound bite. But if you dig a little bit deeper if you look at the evidence and the information and the data that this Government has—and that it bases the social investment approach on—it does not make sense.Here is the question from the quote I gave from Marama Fox earlier on. Here is some evidence for Marama Fox to have a look at and then come back out here and say that this is a Budget for whānau. This report is by Growing up in New Zealand. It is a report by the social policy evaluation and research unit. This was published in 2017 funnily enough. Here are just a couple of points that it highlights. This was actually a study about growing up in New Zealand providing a contemporary population-relevant picture of what it is like to be a child growing up in New Zealand in the 21st century and this is from 2010 onwards. So it is very relevant and it was published this year. Here are a couple of points that it highlights: "At four years of age one in seven … of the cohort children were living in the most deprived decile of the NZDep scale."—one in seven at 4 years of age. Is that something to be proud of Minister? Is that something to be proud of? Or do you not want to acknowledge it? Is this the social investment approach working? One in seven—one in seven. What other points have I highlighted in this report? "When the cohort children were nine months old fewer than four in ten mothers experienced no material hardships." Fewer than four in 10 fewer than 40 percent actually had no material hardships. But that is just one report.Now this is a report from Treasury on the Government's programmes to deal with "neets" to deal with young unemployed disengaged "neets". What did it have to say about the "neets" programme bearing in mind that this is being invested in in this Budget that has just been passed? This is the same programme that the Government is going to reinvest in. Thinking about the social investment which the Government has said needs rigorous evidence-based research to base it on—here is the evidence. Here is the research. Here is the data about educational participation and about the "neets" programme: "We did not find any significant change in the likelihood of staying in school." through that programme.What about time spent on benefits? Surely even a little bit—that would improve on a little bit. "Participation in [this programme] was associated with a higher rather than lower benefit receipt in the following two years …" after the programme—a higher receipt. It is going in the wrong direction. But this Government is standing up and saying that this is the result of the great social investment approach. What else did it say? Employment rates—surely you want to get the young people who are disengaged and unemployed back into employment. "The limited impact of [this programme] on qualification attainment is mostly likely a reason for the programme's lack of labour market benefits." There are no labour market benefits. There is no improvement in employment rates. There is no improvement on getting off the benefit and yet this Government continues to use the same old tired rhetoric that is absolutely wrong.I have got a few reports here. Let us go into one that is on the Family Start home visiting programme. I know that was an announcement by the Minister. She said that they were going to reinvest in it. Let us look at the evidence that was produced just last year about the very programme that the Government is going to reinvest in for the social investment approach: This report says: "We find no statistically measurable impact … on participation in the B4 School Check. A concerning finding is an estimated reduction in enrolment with a primary health organisation at age 1 … By the nature of our data"—is that not a word that I used before that the Government uses all the time which it says backs up its approach—"we are restricted to examining outcomes that are captured in administrative records."But here is the best bit: "Administrative data currently offer few direct measures of children's cognition parenting behaviours and attitudes or the home environment. This means that our study captures only a subset of programme impacts that are of interest." But this Government is standing up—and it has this data: this is all from Treasury; this is all from the Ministry of Social Development itself. I mean I could go on about the iwi panels but I would like to challenge anyone from the National Government to stand up and firstly deny that this is true—deny that everything that I have read out and the things that I have not are true. The second thing that I challenge the National Government backbenchers to do is stand up and table or point out or read out from one study—one study—that backs up the social investment approach and shows that it actually works. All the bad statistics all the bad things—the measurements and measuring sticks about our social fabric and our social well-being in our country are all going in the wrong direction and it is because of this blind ideology of the social investment approach which is the baby of Bill English. It is ridiculous and what it does is highlight that when the National Government members stand up and talk about the things they know the fact is it just ain't so. Thank you."