Moroney Sue: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMoroney Sue: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3531. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SUE MORONEY (Labour): I rise to support the Support for Children in Hardship Bill because something is better than nothing. Still I think in this context we can see once again just how little value this National Government puts on parenting. I think that this bill more than any other bill really demonstrates this. Work in the Government’s view is not the very important and valuable work of raising children. That is seen as being not nearly as valuable as maybe a zero-hour contract for 20 hours a week. Let us be honest: for anyone who really knows or who is in touch with what is going on out in the community these types of provisions where people who are in receipt of a benefit are forced out to work—and this bill forces them to go out and seek part-time jobs from the time that their child is 3 years old—are driving a sort of employment market that actually most New Zealanders are embarrassed and ashamed about. It is forcing the type of labour market that sees the growth of zero-hour contracts and that sees the growth of our low-wage economy.I come from Hamilton and the sort of growth in jobs that we are seeing in Hamilton is that a new Wendy’s or a new Carl’s Jr has gone up—at the same time scientists are being made redundant from Ruakura Research Centre. So we are getting rid of our high-value jobs and we are getting these minimum wage zero-hour contract - type jobs. And these are exactly the sorts of jobs that the Government is now forcing parents into when many of these parents have made the decision that they would rather spend the time—or that they need to spend their time—with their young children. This bill does not make any differentiation for parents in receipt of a benefit who are raising children with disabilities or with special needs. They too when their child is the age of 3 years need to go out and pound the streets and look for zero-hour contract work up to—now—20 hours. I am not sure why the Government when it required 15 hours of part-time work before now suddenly thinks that this can just leap to 20 hours’ work without it doing anything to grow jobs in our economy—because that is the other area where this Budget fails miserably.It is of some merit that the Government has increased benefits for families with childrenby $25 a week but—and here is the but—it is a bit of a swings and roundabouts thing because it is requiring these same parents to go out and seek these part-time jobs when their child turns 3 years old. They are going to have to pay more than $25 a week in childcare fees to enable them to do that. So there is the $25—and some—gone straightaway. So I think that although it is always good to see families with children get some more support from the Budget in this instance I think that we will find that this money disappears very quickly. It will evaporate with the other mean approaches that this Government is taking to cut spending in various areas.I am speaking on this bill because I am Labour’s spokesperson on women’s affairs and this Budget will have quite a severe impact on women and their role in parenting. I just want to make sure that the House notes that although the $25 a week in this bill is good—and we certainly support that—we have some real concerns about some of the other measures. At the same time the Ministry for Women has taken a budget cut in this Budget. It has a tiny little budget to start off with and there it is: women again not being taken seriously by this Government and having their hopes dreams and aspirations dashed by a miserable approach from this Government. Labour supports this bill but we think it does not go nearly far enough.