Ball Darroch: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBall Darroch: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7778. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DARROCH BALL (NZ First): It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in the second reading of the Support for Children in Hardship Bill. We will be supporting this bill during this stage but I believe that the title of the bill is a bit of a misnomer when it is concentrating on children because in fact it is not and a very fundamental reason why is that the benefit increase is not being directed at children at all. It is being directed at the families or the individuals within those families and that opens itself up to a massive flaw from the get-go. If you have got a larger family the children themselves individually get less of a benefit. That is to start off with.It seems to me like this Government brought in this legislation more for the point of wanting to hang its hat on the fact that it is the first Government to increase the benefits for 43-odd years because every time a National member stands up that is exactly what they say. But what they do not mention is the fact that in 1991 a National-led Government slashed the benefits by around 25 percent or a third. And if we are looking at the most vulnerable children in this country right now it is not only those children who are in benefit income families but also in fact those children in sole-parent benefit families. If you actually have a look at the statistics in 1990 a sole parent benefit was around 77 percent of the average wage and if you have a look at year by year going down through to this year this year it is only around 50 or 51 percent of the average wage. So when you have got the Government saying that it is the first Government in 43 years to increase the benefit—Todd Muller: It’s because we are.DARROCH BALL: Yes but how much was it cut in 1991 and how much of the gap has spread since then? It is a token gesture at best.The Minister actually said in her speech that the vast majority of submissions and people who came in actually agreed with the bill and the intent of the bill and of course they did because it is not necessarily that they agreed with the legislation or the intent; it is that they agreed that there is a need there and they are desperate for that need. And of course they are going to take anything that they can because that gap that they are in is really forced poverty or supported poverty like I said in my first reading speech. It is supported poverty. This Government is currently supporting people on the benefit especially sole parent benefits to be in poverty.This is actually an opportunity that the Government has squandered to address child poverty directly. When we hear the term “child poverty” it actually is a little bit more than that because every child who is in poverty is in a family that is in poverty. On a bigger scale if a family is in poverty then so is the community itself so it gets even bigger to a nationwide level of poverty. That does not mean that every single individual within that nation is in poverty but the policies that are implemented at the national level do affect the poverty down at the other end. At the moment this legislation is just tapping at the symptoms of the issues of poverty that we have in this country.At the very bottom are the sole parents as I mentioned. This should not really be a discussion or a justification of giving a handout to beneficiaries but unfortunately this is what it has become. We have got a justification for increasing benefits and why we need to increase benefits or why we should not increase benefits and that we are doing a good thing by doing that in the first place. If it was actually about lifting children out of poverty it would be a lot more comprehensive. The amount that the benefit is increased would be a lot more than just $25—and of course as we have heard it is not actually $25; it is a lot less than that and it is not per child. It is not for the individual children; it is for the families.I would just like to read a couple of points that I would like to make out of the minority report that was submitted. It states in there that families with more than one child is where the hardship is likely to be more significant. The Children’s Commissioner himself actually said that the amount of about $12.50—for example if there were two parents both on benefits they will be getting $12.50 each—will not incentivise a parent to leave a benefit given the high cost of quality childcare being a barrier. One of those main barriers is that childcare cost.We have actually heard recently—I think there was an article within the last sort of week or two where an individual on the benefit did a calculation and in fact they would be better off technically on a benefit rather than going and finding work because of all those hidden costs; because of the childcare because of the petrol costs. So this legislation although we agree with the intent—just like every other submitter agrees with the intent of the bill—it is the lack of robustness in the legislation that we disagree with. It lends itself to having flaws. We support the recommended change by the officials to amend the proposed definition of “part-time work” being that it is retained at 15 hours for job seekers with sickness injury or disability.Alfred Ngaro looked at the regulatory impact statement. I will do the same. There are a couple of things that I would like to highlight out of it in the components of the final package itself. It says that there are 108000 beneficiaries who on average would gain around $23.10. Of course that is not beneficiaries themselves—it is actually the entire family who would gain that. But hidden right down the bottom in small print—in fine print literally—it says that there is actually an increase in the rent that social housing tenants receiving a benefit will pay so “The Income Related Rent charged to social housing tenants is set at 25% of their income” and their rent will actually increase by over $6. That was in the fine print. So if this legislation was actually a robust piece of legislation and wanting to fulfil the intent then those sorts of things would not occur.Across the page in the net impacts of the package it states concerningly that “As a result of the benefit rate change around 4000 non-beneficiary households will see a small decrease in weekly income from the Accommodation Supplement …”. In fact it goes on to say “that sole parent families will benefit more than couples from the benefit increase”. So that actually proves a couple of things. One is that although some individuals will have the increase and it is much needed there are also families that will have a decrease because of this legislation—not only that but some families will benefit more or less depending on how many children they have. That actually points to the fact that this is not legislation that is aimed directly at the children. It is actually aimed at the main beneficiary themselves.Just looking very quickly at a couple of the submitters the Every Child Counts campaign submitted a two-page submission. I have highlighted one of the main points. It highlights the fact that this is not a child poverty issue; this is a community and a family issue. It recommended that along with this legislation there should be a sustained programme of work across a range of areas. It noted that Māori and Pasifika are disproportionally represented in child poverty that resources and support for community-led development needed to be included and that there needed to be adequate income affordable housing support for parents and accessible and quality early childhood education. So there are a number of things that have been left out of this legislation.Right at the start I said that the Government had the potential here to actually really have a good go at addressing child poverty but it has been squandered a bit. New Zealand First will support this legislation at this stage of the process. I will be looking forward to having a go during the Committee stage. Thank you.