Sepuloni Carmel: Estimates Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSepuloni Carmel: Estimates Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5632. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak to this. I sat through what was actually a really painful estimates hearing in the Social Services Committee with the Minister for Social Development present. I want to talk to a little bit of what was discussed in that meeting and challenge a little bit of what the former speaker Alfred Ngaro spoke about.There are three issues that came up in the estimates hearing that I really want to discuss today. First was that child hardship package so let us talk a little bit about that today. Second was from benefit to employment—is that really happening? Does the Government have an emphasis on that or not? Third are the Ministry of Social Development dealings with Relationships Aotearoa—it fronted at that hearing so I will speak to that as well.Firstly the member Alfred Ngaro touched on this the Government’s child hardship package. It made this announcement that an additional $25 will be going into the pockets of families who are on benefits. What it did not give when it made that announcement was the detail. So let us look at this Support for Children in Hardship Bill what that entails and what it really will mean for families. The Government said $25 per family—not per child; per family. But actually there are going to be a lot of families who do not get that entire $25 because they are getting access to a disability allowance temporary additional support and a whole lot of other things. So they may not get the $25. They may not get anything. They may get $12.50.The Government is looking to extend the work obligations alongside this additional $25 a week expecting parents or sole parents to go back to work when their youngest turns 3 rather than 5. We asked the ministry for documentation or evidence to support why it might make that call. All of the reports that we got back did not support that move at all. In fact there was no New Zealand evidence to support what it was doing. All of the evidence was overseas evidence and the overseas evidence said that when you impose these types of work obligations on sole parents then you are likely to have the adverse effect where you drive them further into poverty. Was any of that advice or research taken on board? The Minister and the ministry chose to ignore that.We have seen recently that there are real issues in New Zealand with early childhood education in terms of access to quality early childhood education yet with the extension of these work obligations these—primarily—women are going to be expected to go back into part-time work and put their children into early childhood education. The standard of early childhood education available has been questioned recently by experts by New Zealanders and by the general public. It is something that the National Government still refuses to address.I want to bring up the fact that we have been told that with the legislation the Government is introducing there will be an extension of childcare subsidies. Well there is a problem there too because where is there a serious overspend every year? It is in the accessing of childcare subsidies. So the Government is saying that it is going to extend it. The Government is saying that it is pushing people into work and that it is providing more opportunities in terms of childcare subsidies. Well then why are there 1800 fewer people in the most recent year compared with the last who are accessing childcare subsidies? Why has the number of people accessing childcare subsidies over the last 5 years dropped by 2500 people? They are not accessing it because the Government is making it difficult.This Government is not aspirational for people and I want to make that point. It is pushing primarily women these women out into jobs that are any job. I just talked to a woman yesterday who has taught for the last 13 years in Samoa and has come back. She is a qualified teacher. She did her training here. She thought: “OK. Yes I will do this Ministry of Social Development course.” Sixteen weeks she has to do this course for. She goes along. She is a qualified teacher. She is sitting next to a woman who ran an airfield for goodness sake and the person taking the course that they have to attend for 16 weeks is saying: “And at the end of this you might get a job at McDonald’s.” How aspirational is that for these women?I want to move from that over to whether or not people are going from benefits into jobs. When asked in the select committee whether or not it was a primary concern that people were coming off benefits and going into jobs the Minister said: “It is not necessarily about employment; it is about independence.” How independent can you be if not only are you not getting an income from work but you are not getting any support from the State? When we continued down that line of questioning her Ministry of Social Development chief executive said “Well those people who are not in work and are not getting a benefit have other means.” and the Minister sat there nodding her head.