Ngaro Alfred: Social Security Amendment Bill Education Amendment Bill Taxation (Support for Children in Hardship) Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNgaro Alfred: Social Security Amendment Bill Education Amendment Bill Taxation (Support for Children in Hardship) Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 03 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8581. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the third reading of the legislation arising from the Support for Children in Hardship Bill. I just want to first of all apologise as the chairperson of the Social Services Committee that the member Carmel Sepuloni did not get the evidence because I think she is absolutely right. When we do enact a part of legislation that wants to direct parents into some form of work—especially when their child turns 3—there should be some evidence and I do apologise if the evidence was not made available. It is in the regulatory impact statement and I think I have made that clear also in a previous speech. It does talk about the fact that Statistics New Zealand does say that there is an increasing number of solo parents—in fact it is 25.1 percent; it is actually higher than what you call “partnered mothers” which is at only 14 percent—which does indicate the fact that there is evidence that shows that it is important as well. The other thing too is that there is also international evidence to show that this is the trend. So I do apologise to the member if she did not receive the evidence that is in the regulatory impact statement that is there as well.I just do want to make my comments in regard to when we think about the direction that we are taking and the importance of it. There have been some comments in regard to the measurement of poverty or the measurement of hardship. I want to direct members to the fact that in 2012 Statistics New Zealand published a report called Measuring child poverty in New Zealand: Issues and practicalities and on page 4 of that report it talks about the aspect of—both internationally and also in New Zealand—if we were to measure what would that look like and what would be the important parameters around that? And on page 4 in the fourth paragraph it says this: “International experience shows that the measurement of child poverty is complex. In addition to conceptual and practical difficulties it entails making arbitrary judgements and choices that require a process of public consultation and political consensus.” That is not to say that we should not take some direction towards understanding what the issues are and I think that is really important. It also too goes on to comment that in other jurisdictions—in fact internationally—the US is the only one that actually has an indicator of poverty but according to this one—Jacinda Ardern: That’s not true.ALFRED NGARO: That may have changed. The member may direct me to that; I am happy to receive that information.But going from the report here it talks about the fact that “Unlike the US Canada has no official definition of poverty and no official method of measuring poverty.” But what it does do is look at household incomes. It looks at the characteristics of that as well. If we go to Australia for instance just across the Ditch Australia has no official definition nor an official measurement of poverty. But what it does do is it measures the characteristics of household incomes and other issues that are important. Though we have been talking about the measurement of poverty this Government has taken what I believe is a measured approach a common-sense approach to addressing these issues that are important.When we talk about the legislation arising from the Support for Children in Hardship Bill it is talking about supporting parents. The member Carmel Sepuloni talked in the previous speech about the importance of supporting parents and we would agree with that. That is important. They are the caregivers of the children who are in their care at the moment. So I just want to make a couple of comments. I want to acknowledge the NGO sector which works with our Government departments and out of that there have been a number of commentaries. I refer to 1000 days to get it right for every child which was a report from 2009 by Every Child Counts. It says this: “Let’s be clear. This is not a call by Every Child Counts for immediate increases in the public spend on children. It is a call for a fundamental look at what’s happening for children the communities they live in the supports they receive from government and how New Zealanders work together to grow healthy children.” In other words what it is indicating—these are the NGOs that are working in the sector—is that it has to be a multi-systemic approach with both the Government and the community working together so that there is a consensus around that.I also refer to—and at times it is controversial—the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty. I want to be careful because when I quote from this I do not want to take it out of context just to confirm the direction we are taking. There are elements of this where I imagine that we would agree to disagree but there are elements where we have commonality. I refer to page 14 of the report Solutions to Child Poverty in New Zealand from 2012 which said: “Work expectations for parents on income support: Ensure that parents of young children are appropriately work-tested if they are on a benefit. Clarity of expectations about work accompanied by support for appropriate childcare are characteristic of systems which generate high employment rates of sole-parents and lower rates of child poverty.” On this point in particular I am sure that we would absolutely agree with this report as well.Lastly I just want to read from A Mountain All Can Climb which is from the social policy parliamentary unit of the Salvation Army. It indicates on page 53 of its report where it talks about “Work & Incomes”—these are social indicators that it is commenting on around employment and unemployment. It says: “Labour force participation reached new levels toward the end of 2014.” In fact it was at 69.9 percent in the December quarter. It can see and it comments on this that there is an increasing opportunity—in fact it is one of the highest in the OECD world where more Kiwis are participating in work. It is around 2.5 million people. We can see that the direction that we are taking which is not—as in the eyes and the words of members of the Opposition—forcing people into work. In fact a Kiwi work ethic is what we are taking.I want to round my comments up by saying in a sense that the direction of this legislation is about supporting children and it is about supporting families. That is the reason why the initial bill was entitled Support for Children in Hardship Bill. If we go to the explanatory note this is what it clearly says: “The Government believes all New Zealand families and children should have the opportunity to live fulfilling lives. While most families do well some struggle and their children may face a higher risk of poor outcomes.”This is about the intent of the direction and the vision of this legislation. It does not have an intent to be a beast of burden or to bring despair upon those families. Regarding the comments that were made on the other side that there may be a way of forcing people into work and so forth it clearly indicates in the legislation “to be available” for work that is accessible and affordable—childcare and so forth. If that member or any other member over there has a constituent who comes to them who makes a complaint about the system and who clearly indicates that actually it is going against the policy and the direction then I would be more than happy to advocate with that constituent and even with that member if it was found that the system was not acting appropriately and there were not the entitlements that it was obligated to deliver. If that is the case then that is what we will do.Grant Robertson: I want you to come into my office any day of the week and I have got a list this long for you Alfred. I have got a list this long.ALFRED NGARO: Although we hear the talk of anecdotal stories of constituents who are being treated unfairly I put this challenge out. I too as an MP who has had constituents come to me who have talked about injustices that they have found—that they have not been able to have their entitlements. I too have advocated for them.That is the intent of this legislation—to be fair and just. It does four key things. It strengthens work obligations for beneficiary parents. Benefit rates for families—for children—will rise by $25 a week after tax the first time since 1972 that core benefit rates have increased more than inflation. It increases Working for Families payments for lower-income working families. It increases childcare assistance.I commend this legislation to the House. I commend the work by the Minister for Social Development. I commend the work by the hard-working Social Services Committee members who worked collaboratively together so that the legislation can be part of a range of measures to address the issues of hardship for our families our children and our communities of Aotearoa. Thank you.