Ardern Jacinda: Budget DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Budget Debate[Sitting date: 29 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10498. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): Just because Steven Joyce says it it does not make it true. That was an absolute load of rot. He had to spend a quarter of his speech trying to tell the rest of the country what Labour thinks. I want to pick out one example of where he was completely misleading the public and that was around the International Convention Centre. Labour has never said that it was opposed to the idea of a convention centre. But we were never willing to make a trade-off that meant we would increase harm against our most vulnerable communities in order to develop it. It did not have to be an either/or. There were other options on the table. All we asked as a party was that we look at the options that do not harm those who can least afford the harm of problem gambling.Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That member knows that in 2001 Helen Clark and her Government—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No no. That is not a point of order and we will not have interjections like that.JACINDA ARDERN: The chair of the Social Services Committee clearly is still upset from the committee meeting today. Whatever this Budget was it was not a Budget that acknowledged the struggle and the hard times that Kiwi families are having in this country right now. This Budget was not a Budget for the most vulnerable and it was not a Budget for our low-income New Zealanders. Sure there were some sticking plasters in there. Some of them we will not begrudge. Some of them we acknowledge that in the short term they were absolutely necessary. But it is absolutely foolish and negligent to refuse to acknowledge that programmes like food in schools are just that a sticking plaster.We need to acknowledge that currently we are living in a low-wage economy that currently things like Working for Families—which the Prime Minister holds up as the one great bastion that is stopping the recession from hurting our families the most; the thing that he actually originally called communism by stealth—is actually a subsidy for the fact that we have a low-wage economy. We are subsidising the fact that employers are not paying enough in sufficient wages for families to survive. We have no qualms though about continuing to support those families in the way that they need but we have to do something about the low-wage economy that members like Mr Joyce have made even worse since he has taken office. Things like food in schools the $1.9 million per annum that the Government announced yesterday—somewhat begrudgingly it must be acknowledged—yes we are pleased to see they are there. Yes we are pleased to seethat the Government has handed over 18c per week for every child in poverty to feed them—I should note that $40 million in this Budget went to private schools. Yes we are glad that that happened. But let us not be naive that this is somehow going to magically change the overall outcomes for those children.What we needed was a plan. We needed a plan to reduce what is a complex situation and that is a plan to reduce child poverty. But what did we get instead? Well if you asked Paula Bennett what it was that was in her portfolio she probably would have claimed that although we have not cut benefits—well actually that is debatable as 50 percent of the people rocking up at the Wellington City Mission 50 percent of them had been turned away from Work and Income for support—50 percent. We have seen a tripling of sanctions under this Government for families who are on Government support.But what did she put into this Budget? Well she said we are going to procure whiteware en masse so it is cheaper for families who need to get a grant to purchase a new system of some description. We have no problem with that. We are pleased that we are acknowledging that actually some families end up buying second-hand kit that breaks down and they have to purchase it again anyway so great. But again this is only ever going to be a sticking plaster on a wider problem. A shiny new fridge that you cannot afford to put food in or indeed afford to plug into a socket and run is not overall going to lift a family out of a state of poverty. That is what we need to start asking the big questions about.Our community organisations that are working with these families they did not even get just crumbs; they got less than crumbs. The Community Response Fund ends in this Budget. That means that over 290 organisations will be worse off after this Budget. One of the issues with that is that although this Government claims that the Community Response Fund gave those organisations more money a lot of them were in line for Pathways to Partnership—sustainable long-term funding. The Community Response Fund was a short-term plug that they then had to lose and now they are told by the Government they are meant to be thankful for that.The only organisation that was saved was budget advisory services. This Budget gives them an extra $1.5 million but again that is the equivalent of about $9000 per service and 80 percent of the increase in demand that some of those services have seen is a direct consequence of changes to Government policy. Again this is a Government that is claiming it is rescuing these organisations when in fact it is causing their demand in the first place.What has happened in health—particularly what has happened in health according to our most vulnerable? Well we saw more money go into swabbing for rheumatic fever but as we have constantly pointed out cold damp overcrowded housing—factors related to child poverty—are the causes the precursors of rheumatic fever. Although the Government has put some extra money into Healthy Housing checks it actually equates to roughly $42 per child per annum and for kids in Auckland only. No matter which way you cut it $42 per annum per child is not going to fix an overcrowded damp house. While that side of the House starts talking about its insulation scheme functionally what the Government announced in this Budget was a cut to the insulation scheme programme. And the only other thing—Hon Trevor Mallard: Half.JACINDA ARDERN: The Government has halved the insulation programme in this country compared with what it was putting in in previous years. It also claims that the warrant of fitness was somehow not only a response to the expert advisory group but is one way that we are going to ensure that children in poverty are in warm dry houses. The warrant of fitness applies according to that Government to only State houses. But80 percent of children in poverty do not live in State houses. They will not be affected by that Government’s trialled warrant of fitness programme while on this side of the House—Hon Annette King: It is only considering a trial.JACINDA ARDERN: It is considering a trial—“We are considering the idea of whether or not cold damp State houses are a good or bad thing.” It is absolutely outrageous. On this side of the House we have committed to warrants of fitness across all rental properties—across all rental properties—and that is exactly as it should be. But we must—we must as I have said—go beyond stopgap measures because not only have we seen the Government pull out a cork and stick it in the dam but it has put it in the wrong part of the dam. We need much much more than this if we are truly going to make a difference to this situation.The Government does not have to look far for ideas. The Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty produced 24 working papers. These are summary documents of the work that it did. It produced 78 detailed recommendations. This was not a partisan group; these were members of the community who were experts in their field. It included Phil O’Reilly from Business New Zealand. The group spent over 10 months coming up with ideas for that Government to adopt—10 months—and what did the Government do? After it received that report it took 5 months to produce a 13-page double-spaced report which it shoved into a folder when it released the food in schools programme. The Government barely announced it was even responding. And what did it say in that report? It said: “Significant investments made over the past four years are testimony to the Government’s commitment to preventing child poverty and alleviating its impacts.” and “Low interest rates are helping New Zealand families save more.” Low interest rates—what to get into the non-existent homes? And: “For low-income families the Government’s 2010 tax cuts have made a difference.” They have made a difference all right. We are now the most unequal we have ever been and those tax cuts were a significant part of us reaching that record.The Government’s response to the expert advisory group was I think quite frankly shameful. There was much that could have been said. Even if the Government developed a longer-term plan setting out what it would do on child poverty that would have been a start. But instead we have sticking plasters swabbing and corks none of which will help our most vulnerable.