Mahuta Nanaia: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMahuta Nanaia: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7865. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I want to take a call on Part 1 of this bill. I am concerned that despite the intent of the bill which we can see in its title the Support for Children in Hardship Bill it will actually have the reverse effect. I think that Minister in the chair the Hon Paula Bennett should take a couple of moments to reflect on many of the statements that have been made so far but I would like her to answer a few questions because the parents of the children this bill purports to help require some answers.One of the questions I have is around the reduction of age for work readiness from 5 to 3. What evidence did the Minister rely on to support a uniform measure such as this? In fact the member Jan Logie made a comment about attachment issues for children. Usually between 2 to 3—and I am sure the Minister will know because she understands this as a woman—there are attachment issues and it is difficult for women particularly to leave the home if there are not some strong key relationships within the household. So what was the evidence to show that reducing the age from 5 to 3 in terms of a mother being tested for work readiness would actually be in the best interests of the child? That is question No. 1. I think it is a fair question that should be asked.The other thing about the reduction in age is that we know from practical experience—and I know that members throughout the House will relate to this—that often between the age of 1 to 5 is when you are experiencing a number of challenges with the general health of your child. There are numerous situations where unexpectedly you are taking your child to the doctor because of a cough that developed in the night or because they have got eczema. There are all sorts of medical issues that will require you to actually understand your child as they are growing in the most critical stages of their lives. This is often from the age of 1 to 3 but more likely you are getting a grip on it from age 1 to 5. Again this comes back to the evidence that the Minister relied on that it was in the best interests of the child to drop the age from 5 years to 3 in terms of parents being work-ready and tested for that.The other part of that question is that even if a parent was able to be work-tested when their child is at age 3 if they are living in small communities there are often scarce pickings for jobs. That is a reality. It is not just a statement; it is a reality. So in that instance people might need to travel further afield from their own local community for the prospect of a job. I have heard time and time again—and it is funny that when you are a mother of young children you tend to hear types of stories about children of the same ages as yours—that the demoralising part of going into Work and Income for your work-readiness test is having to tell your story again and again and again and being told that there are no jobs available for a particular period of time. That does not do anything for your self-esteem.One story I heard was of a young mother who wanted to do the best by her child and was helping out at the local kōhanga doing things like driving the van helping to make the kai and things like that. Then she got notified by her Work and Income case worker that she had to go in for a test and then she had to really start being active around looking for a job. She saw me at her kōhanga and she asked me: “Isn’t helping my child at the kōhanga and helping the kōhanga out a better thing for me and my child and my community?”. I looked her straight in the eye and I said: “Yes it is. In fact 15 more hours spent with your child is much better for your child and that kōhanga community than you going out to work and constantly worrying—constantly worrying—about the care of your child. ”There are other circumstances that put her own views about the safety of her child in another category but the point Minister is that often there are not jobs and the whole process of going to Work and Income can be demoralising if you are constantly being told that there are no jobs. The issues of travel are very real especially when you are in a small community. But again what evidence did you Minister rely on to give you an assurance that it was in the best interests of the child to reduce the age from 5 to 3 for work readiness?The other aspect of this is that in terms of the travel components if the parent does not have access to their own transport and public transport is not available the very real challenges of getting to and from a place of work become stressful. If you are a sole parent looking after your children and you get called at your part-time job and told that you have to come to pick up your child because of an illness or something that has happened at your early childhood centre it may not be that simple to just go back and get your child. There could be costs. There could be again public transport issues that prevent that and that creates more stress for the parent. It does not help either the parent or the child have a positive environment for the child’s upbringing.Here is another question Minister. If the reality was that the best that a parent could do is find maybe 10 hours of cleaning and then maybe 5 hours making up for it by driving the kōhanga van—but they are doing something purposeful—is there enough flexibility in the system for that type of situation to be accommodated? I suspect not but the question needs to be asked because we are talking about real people real kids and opportunities that are actually the only opportunities available.I know that the Minister is dying to get on to her feet and answer some of these very valid questions because they are important but here is the final point that I would like to make. It is really around the voluntary contribution of parents in respect of assisting in the child’s environment especially in early childhood education. What we know specifically for Māori and Pacific families is that lifting the rate of participation in early childhood education is a challenge in and of itself. If there is broader scope to ensure that the contribution of parents in this voluntary way to support their early childhood centre or their kōhanga or puna reo will this ever be recognised as a valuable contribution to the raising of children and the building of community?I think it is about time that we did do that because for far too long we have negated the importance of children’s early years and the value of the contribution of the parent. I agree with most of the sentiments that have been made on this side of the House. Lifting household incomes will make a fundamental difference to alleviating the pressure on some of the most vulnerable families.The question that I have around this bill is about the fact that it does not take account of some of the realities that families are living with on a day-to-day basis or the valuable contribution that parents can make in those early years by being with their children and not being forced out to work. But more important if there is no work let us get real Minister. There has to be enough flexibility and scope within the intent of this bill to account for the voluntary contribution that parents can make to raising their child in their community and spending time with their child so that there is actually a stronger and more resilient individual coming through the “pipeline” in terms of bureau-speak.I am concerned about one other aspect and that is the way in which poverty is being referred to as “material hardship”. You know poverty is poverty. There is no gradient about it. It is unacceptable in New Zealand that we do not have a target to actually try to assure ourselves that across all policy areas reducing poverty can be measured in a very consistent way across a range of policies. Minister I know that you know that these are difficult and challenging issues. What the Ministry of Social Development does cannot be divorced from what happens in housing what happens in health and what happens in employment. But if we had a consistent measure around child poverty and how the combination of policies actually impacts on alleviating the pressures for the most vulnerable—our children—in our society then we would be going a long way towards making a difference.I fear that this bill will not achieve its intent. It will not support children in hardship; it will actually make things much more difficult. That is the concern. I support the amendments that have been proposed by my colleague Carmel Sepuloni in terms of ensuring that the age reverts back to 5. It needs to happen