Maharey Steve: Social Security (Child Benefit) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Maharey Steve: Social Security (Child Benefit) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12695] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I want to begin my short contribution by complimenting the previous speaker Sue Bradford from the Greens. One of the things I have enjoyed doing over the last few years is working with someone who has the dedication that Sue Bradford has to these issues. She not only talks about them but she has lived them. She comes into this House with a track record that tells us she knows what she is talking about because she has been there and worked with people in those situations. So any comments I make this evening I certainly want to preface with those remarks which show I understand the sincerity of what Sue Bradford is bringing before us in the Social Security (Child Benefit) Amendment Bill. 
But to cut to the chase in terms of where the Government will stand on this bill I say that we will vote against it. Let me explain why we will do that. We will do it for a number of reasons. The first is that Ms Bradford is right. Later on this month we will introduce another Budget from the Labour Government. That Budget has been signalled as one in which we will be dealing with many of the issues that Ms Bradford is raising in her bill in the sense that we want to do some things that will be very helpful for families children beneficiaries and working families within that middle ground of income within New Zealand. We have chosen to target our resources to those families in this Budget. It will not be heaps in the sense that the member described it but it will certainly be a decisive step forward for families that are in that middle group. 
But what we have had to do is make some decisions about priorities in this Budget as we have in others and as I will come back to. We have had to ask ourselves how we can get something that is meaningful into the hands of modest and low-income New Zealand households so that they can see a sizeable difference in what is happening to their incomes. The member pointed out before—and I have not done the figures so I will just take Ms Bradford’s figures and work on those—that this policy was costed by the Greens at $650 million. That has actually been the sum for the Budget for a number of years until now. So if we were to do that we would work our way along the front bench of this Government starting with Mr Hodgson and asking what he needed for energy and for science research and technology moving to Mrs King and asking how to get the orthopaedic waiting lines down moving on to Mr Goff and talking about the fact that he is trying to get our trade and foreign affairs going and then getting to me and talking about tertiary students. 
Rod Donald 
: The eco tax the super fund. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I know that Mr Donald would like to see a 48c in the dollar tax rate which would have to go on to the middle-income New Zealanders we are trying to give money to right now—[ 
Interruption 
] I am afraid it would. 
So we are in the situation where I am sitting here arguing about what I would do for students and how I would invest in tertiary education and then we move to Jim Anderton who would talk about what he would do for regional New Zealand and on it would go. What I am saying is that it is about priorities. 
I guess I would say to Ms Bradford that in other words we agree but what I would like to do is use the money we do have available to us in a way that can make a real difference to the people we are aiming for. I am sure that those people the Greens are not too worried about right now are high-income New Zealanders who may have a child. They are not too worried about them. The Greens may make the argument that it is good to have the benefit right across the whole community because that binds us together as a collective into the policy but I am sure the Greens do not go to bed each night worrying about people with $150000 a year and their children. They are talking about the same people we are. They are saying they would really like to see those middle-income and low-income New Zealanders get something that would make a difference to their lives. 
So that is the other issue: not only are we going to try to do something in this Budget but we are going to try to prioritise our spending and that means that $650 million on one policy is not really a runner. We have to spend some time thinking about how we can maximise it and that is the second point I want to make. 
The third broad point is that often when we get into these debates there is a sense that nothing has happened. Well a lot has happened over the last 4 years. I know that both the Green members in the House and the Labour and Progressive members share a view that there was a major social deficit in 1999. There had been major cuts to the income of beneficiaries during that 1990s period. For example when Ruth Richardson delivered her Budget up to 31 percent of the income of beneficiaries disappeared overnight. In fact the food bank industry was created by that. We know that in the area of health to go to the market model simply did not work. We know that 13000 houses were sold in the State sector area and on and on it went. So we arrived at 1999 and we all shared the view that there was a major issue: poverty had become a reality for New Zealanders and things had to be done about it. 
Well we have not been sitting here waiting for this coming Budget. We have introduced things like income-related rents which cost a lot of money. That means 56000 households in New Zealand are now in stable houses with rents they can afford. We have introduced primary health organisations which means that the cost of health care is dropping. We had already lowered the costs to families who take their kids to the doctor. Every single year that we have been in power we have introduced the lifting of the minimum wage for youth and adult workers. We have introduced the Employment Relations Act and I heard today that even people on the other side of the House such as Peter Brown are saying that the Act is working extremely well—after it was once claimed that it would cause a lack of growth and so on. It is working fine and there is a more civilised arrangement growing between employers and employees as they try to share good wages. We have seen wages go up over this period of time. 
Sue Bradford would know that one of the key policies of this Government has been to give the full entitlement to people who are on a benefit so we are on our way to paying out $60 million in special benefits at the present time. We started at $7 million. That means many more households are getting their entitlement—an entitlement they should get. We are not a Government that just gives away money but we said that if people were entitled to a part of the benefit system the previous Government would not let them access we would give it to them. And we have been doing that. We know that right across the benefit system there have been changes that have put $5 here into a household $40 there into a household. There have been income-related rents lower costs for going to the doctors more money going into State houses money going into low decile schools to ensure that the quality of education is there for kids—and on and on it goes. 
I say to the member that one of the most important things we have done on this side of the House is that we have measured what we have done. No other Government in this country has done that. We have run living standards research and we have held ourselves accountable as to whether we have moved forward. We know we have—unlike previous Governments who have not spent the time on asking whether they have made a difference with their social policies. This Government has made it transparent. Anybody can go to the website of the Ministry of Social Development and Employment and ask how we are doing on poverty measures and on key issues like housing and ask whether we are making a difference. Yes we are. After 4 years we are about to release the second of our social reports and it will be seen once again that we are healthier and better educated. We are dealing with poverty and with all the kinds of issues I know that that member wants to see dealt with. So I just want to say to the member that is my third major point. 
I would encourage her to know that we have not just been sitting around—as she pointed out herself—saying the rhetoric. People are very keen on just saying: “Here’s the next piece of rhetoric about children and families.” We have not done that. We have tried to work our way steadily through an agenda over the past 4 years with limited resources. They are always limited resources and we always have to prioritise we know—but we have made a genuine difference. 
I want to mention two things in the minute or so I have left. One is the change in the behaviour of the Department of Work and Income. The member will know that when we came into Government there were large caseloads. My own caseload in Palmerston North often ran to six or seven pages of people who were with the department; I now have a half page of people from that department. Those six or seven pages were all people who were in desperate circumstances and who could not access things from the department. We now have a group of people case managers who are proactively seeking to do their best for people in real need. 
Most important they have put people into work. I do not believe as Donna Awatere Huata has often said that any job will do and neither does Sue Bradford. We want living wages for people—real jobs living wages. Over the last little while we have seen more and more people getting into those jobs because we have a good strong economy. We have seen 176000 people get jobs—more people than 5 years ago when Labour came into Government. We are at a 16-year low for unemployment. People are earning an income and that is why in regions like mine and like her own we are beginning to see that real sense of optimism around our communities. Yes there is a long way to go but if any Government has made a difference it is this one. It has steadily chipped away at those issues. 
So in opposing this legislation and in saying that Labour cannot support it I want to reassure the member that we respect her stand on those issues and assure her we are doing things about them. We are making a difference and I look forward to being able to sit down and talk with her at Budget time. I am sure she will say: “Even more please.” but I hope she will be at least satisfied we once again have made a major contribution. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The remaining speakers have 5 minutes with a bell at 5 minutes.