Williams Poto: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliams Poto: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7784. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I do want to start off on a positive note and say that yes we acknowledge on this side of the House that this bill will provide more money to low-income families. We acknowledge that and this bill is a step in the right direction. But it is almost like taking one step forward and three steps back because in other ways the Government’s policies have really impacted to make our families more vulnerable. But as I say I acknowledge that this bill is a step in the right directionI just want to quote from many many documents including from the general policy statement in the commentary on the bill. It 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.” To quote my colleague it should be about the outcomes that are delivered at the end of the day not the intent of the bill. We know from the technical report from the Child Poverty Monitor that somewhere in the region of 17 percent of children are in poverty and that about 10 percent of kids—one in 10—are in severe poverty. We know that they are going without the things they need and the low incomes that their families receive mean that they do not have any opportunity to change this. So I want to echo what people have said: this is not just about putting a little bit more money into the pockets of low-income families; it is actually about a systemic complete package and approach to dealing with the issues that these families and these children suffer.This bill looks at changing the definition of part-time work from 15 hours to 20 hours a week. That is going to impact on the ability for mostly our mums to actually find part-time work. I know that from one of the submitters the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions I think—and I have to say that we had a broad range of submitters; they were not from just the usual groups—which told us that there are over 100000 part-time workers currently looking for more hours. So we have put some families under pressure. They are looking for more hours. As people know people want to work and they want to be able to take care of their own families but this is going to impact on the ability of the families that are captured by this bill to actually find sufficient hours of work.We also know that the work test takes effect from when your youngest child is aged 3. I know from the Children’s Commissioner’s report that on average working families generally get back to work when the child is about aged 3. That does not make it right. That does not mean it is in the best interests of children and it does apply extra pressure to families to find the resources to then be able to go out to seek work. Not only is it difficult to find work and not only are they in competition with other part-time workers looking for more hours but they are looking for work when their children are at the age of 3. Generally they will be people who have lower skills and usually they will be in low-paid jobs. The jobs will generally be minimum wage jobs. They could have zero-hour contracts precarious working situations often with shift work. What do we do about childcare when the work that they are offered is actually in the evenings and at inappropriate times so that it is not a good opportunity for a family? That has not been explored in this bill.We talk about work testing parents. I would actually like the Government to be work tested. I think what we should be doing is testing the Government on the appropriateness of doing this. The work-test obligations now extend to spouses and partners. I find it extraordinary that we would require that. As I have said many times people on low incomes have to jump through more and more and more hoops in order just to attract what they need to take care of their families. In fact this bill will give on average somewhere in the region of an extra $22 or $23 a week to families. They may find part-time work which will add to their income but the Government is saying that 20-something dollars to families is adequate. It is important to note that that payment is not per child per family—it is per family. It is important to note that many of the lowest-income families are larger families of two three or four children. So when this payment is per family it means that the effect of that payment is dissipating across the numbers of children.It will have limited effect.I want to quote from some of the submitters. The New ZealandChristian Council of Social Services when we asked it questions said as I have just said that it does not factor in the number of kids in a family and that there is more regulation around emergency benefits and increasing the work obligations without actually offering job training for the Work and Income New Zealand staff who are going to have to make the decisions about the appropriateness of work. Given the concerns that I have about the ability to have appropriate childcare at times that may be difficult for these part-time workers to attain does this mean that sanctions could be applied to these families if the Work and Income caseworker decides that it is appropriate work but actually it is not appropriate for that family? And let us face it: there have been 80000 sanctions in the last 14 months imposed by Work and Income and that has impacted 44000 children. Every time a family is sanctioned it impacts those kids.Let us look at the opportunities for childcare according to the New Zealand Christian Council of Social Services saying that commercial early childhood education providers potentially diminish the quality of care for our children. So not only are we forced potentially into precarious work situations around zero-hours but we are also worried about the quality of care our children are receiving. People are being encouraged to move off benefits but it does not mean that this Government has actually created any work for them to do. I could go on for ages.Let us look at the New Zealand Nurses Organisation. It talks about readmission rates for children from low-income families and how the readmission rate a month after being discharged is much higher with low-income families. So we are talking about a population who are also impacted by mostly the poor living conditions that they have and their children do experience higher levels of engagement with our health services. These families are also indebted to GP practices because parents cannot access health care for their kids. The New Zealand Nurses Organisation was very concerned about dropping the age of work testing to the age of 3 years—when your youngest child is 3.The Council of Trade Unions came up with a statistic that 100000 part-time workers are currently looking for more hours. There is just not enough part-time work in this country to satisfy what is being required in this bill. There was another select committee submission that suggested that in order for beneficiaries to be able to work in paid employment there would need to be much greater availability of inexpensive childcare.I finish where I began. This bill does take us a step in the right direction but there are many many aspects of the system that need to be fixed in order for this to work and for our low-income families to actually have the right opportunities to get ahead. Tēnā koe.