Mahuta Nanaia: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMahuta Nanaia: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7773. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I am a bit concerned about the way this debate is going based on the contribution of the previous member Alfred Ngaro. The member failed to admit that when Labour was last in Government we recognised that poverty was not an easy issue to address. It was systemic but there was a whole range of other initiatives that Labour addressed to help alleviate some of the biggest pressures facing vulnerable families.Let us look at some of them. Income-related rentals—we ensured that in the State housing sector those families that were on low incomes and were the most vulnerable had access to income-related rentals paying no more than 25 percent in some instances. It made a huge difference in communities and we certainly did not sell the houses off. The other thing that we did was we introduced 20 hours’ free early childhood education so that parents had access to quality early childhood education and had the guarantee of a qualified early childhood education teacher. If that is not investing in the future I do not know what is.But we also reinstated the training incentive allowance. I campaigned in 1996 when National was in Government and it did away with it. Labour promised it would bring it back because it knew that by investing in women and ensuring that they had pathways back into education it was going to help lift opportunities for the most vulnerable families and get them on a pathway to sustainable employment.Hon David Parker: Working for Families.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Labour also introduced Working for Families and we ensured that those people who were on the pathway to sustainable employment could also get the type of support that would guarantee a lift up and a hand up not a handout. We know the importance of getting people into employment and we had in our region alone—myself and Sue Moroney in the region of the Waikato—unemployment at its lowest. Unemployment was down to 3.2 percent—at its lowest—and that is where the rubber hits the road for us because we know what the benefits of Labour’s contribution in the last 9 years of our Government looked like for families in need.Statistics do matter and the numbers tell a very serious truth. Here is where the rubber hits the road for me: 97000 Māori aged 18 to 64 years and their household whānau are welfare-reliant right now. Right now 26 percent of Māori adults are welfare-reliant and that is a shame because in the last quarter there has been no movement right to this minute. Today in question time we challenged the Government because Māori unemployment currently sits at 12.9 percent. That is a shame because when we look at this bill the Support the Children in Hardship Bill which looks at work provisions we cannot deny that the Government has failed to address the issue of job creation because unemployment is going up certainly for Māori.The previous speaker spoke about being more conscious of household income. Well here is where the rubber hits the road for Māori. The median Māori household income is $28000 15 percent lower than any other group. So there is not a heck of a lot of disposable income and if this bill is going to help those most vulnerable I know where the great majority of the whānau that he is talking about are and that is in many of the communities that we represent. More important—and the member Sue Moroney made this very significant point—more children are living in poverty. Let us look at the numbers. Around 33 percent of Māori are living in poverty—around about 215000 people 94000 of whom are Māori. It is unbelievable.When the Government talks about “material hardship” I think it is a convenient term. It cannot get away from the fact that there are a number of families in our communities who want work. So when they look at the 20 hours’ work provision in this bill where are the jobs? For those mothers who have children who want to work where are the jobs? And if they do not have access to a car and have to travel 30 kilometres away on public transport to get that 20-hour job what childcare provisions are available in their small town to get that job?Then we have got to ask ourselves: is this the best way in and of itself to alleviate poverty? The simple answer is no. It is something but in and of itself it is not the best way. There are far too many things happening that negate the benefits that the Government is promoting around the Support for Children in Hardship Bill. The insecurity of work for a lot of vulnerable families makes them more prone to the whim of their employer and this is really difficult. I come up against this a lot. In fact I visited a school and I talked to a mother who had four children. She is working and she is very proud of the fact that she is working but she does not consider it a stable job. She believes that at any minute her employer could just tell her to walk. She has got four mouths to feed. Her and her husband’s combined income does not earn them more than $40000 a year. They consider themselves proud people who will work but that kind of environment makes it very difficult.This bill as I said has made a number of considerations and as the Minister for Social Development has pointed to a number of changes to the definition of “part-time work”. I can only say that in reading it—and I am not a member of the Social Services Committee—I have to ask the serious question: is this a part of a systemic approach to addressing the issues of poverty? Because the chair of the select committee Alfred Ngaro himself said that these are big issues. There is no single answer and if there is no single answer we cannot debate this issue in isolation from all the other aspects of poverty that impact on how families are feeling the struggle. And the struggle is real today—the struggle is real today.I read with interest some of the submissions but also some of the comments and it would seem to me that by investing in other aspects of those raising vulnerable children there could be other ways to improve circumstances. Again I would make comment about the training incentive allowance. What greater investment could be done than to ensure that women raising children had access to the training incentive allowance to lift their skills and lift their opportunities? They have got a Cabinet Minister who has had this very direct experience yet that is not a reality for a number of families who the Government purports to support.The other thing is the value of volunteer contribution. Again I come across a lot of young mums who try to help out at the local kōhanga or the local early childhood education centre and they believe that contributing there getting their confidence up and being able to learn the parenting skills from that type of environment is about contributing not only to that community of children but also more important fundamentally to their own raising of their child. These are the types of unseen investments that the country or even the Government could recognise make an equal satisfactory contribution to the raising of children who can reach their potential—not just simply a $25 increase. Yes it is a start but is it everything? No it is not.Will Labour support it? Yes we will recognising that the issues around poverty are systemic. This is not a blame game but this is a very serious challenge if the Government really believes in what it is saying to set targets to eliminate and reduce child poverty now. Do not wait—do not wait and then just sit there glibly and blame Labour when we were last in Government. Let us do something about it. Let us across Parliament agree that targets are necessary. Let us look at the range of policies that will alleviate poverty so that we are not debating this issue in another 3 years’ time but are actually tracking on how policies are fundamentally reducing poverty and fundamentally improving the lives of young people. That is what the children’s policy under Labour attempts to do: look at the issue systemically and try to ensure that we can track progress.This is a second reading. No doubt the Committee stage will be robust. I look forward to ensuring that we have a fruitful debate around the broader issues of poverty and where in context this bill actually will or will not make a difference. Kia ora.