Roche Denise: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roche Denise: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 23 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2329. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENISE ROCHE (Green) 
: 
 I am predicting that tomorrow’s Budget will deliver much hardship for many sectors of our community. In the last 3½ years over 5000 jobs have gone from the Public Service. Jobs have been cut and jobs have simply not been filled. The Government may call this efficiency but what it is is a massive reduction in the services that New Zealanders expect and we can list them: cuts to biosecurity services which put our primary production exports industry at risk; cuts to embassies which put our international reputation at risk; and replacing real people with call centres at Housing New Zealand Corporation and tax centres. What happens when those jobs are cut? We know that our Public Service staff are working harder than ever before. Last year a survey of women in the Public Service showed that around 2.5 million hours of extra work were completed by those women. It was not paid for. That amounts to $54.5 million worth or 1360 full-time jobs that were all gifted for free to the State.  
Tomorrow’s Budget is likely to result in more job cuts. This is a false economy. Cutting jobs means a reduction in taxes. It means less spent in the economy too. In last year’s Budget we also saw a reduction in the amount of money that was allocated to the community and voluntary sector. It dropped by around $11 million. How this reduction plays out for the social service providers is that they get squeezed to supply more for less. The not-for-profit sector frequently picks up the slack when the Government pulls back from providing those services directly. We already know that community organisations deliver amazing value. For every dollar they get from the Government they provide at least $5 more. At the Christian Council of Social Services conference last month we heard from the Minister of Finance that the Government does not really care how those services are provided as long as they are cheap. We also heard from the deputy chief executive of the family and community services group that it wants to deal with big players—cheap is good and large-scale providers are better. So how do you keep it cheap? You keep the wages low. On average workers in the community and voluntary sector earn around 15 percent less than those in the general job market earn. We recently heard that there is a discrepancy between what caregivers in the public sector earn compared with those in the private sector which amounts to discrimination—but hey it is cheap. Cheap is not good enough. It is not good for the economy it is not good for public services it is not good for communities and it is certainly not good for families. 
 Today over 60 organisations have formed a broad coalition to launch the Living Wage campaign. These organisations are at the coalface of the impact of the Government’s austerity moves and they are calling for a decent standard of living for all workers. Forty hours a week on the minimum wage brings in $540 per week before tax and workers earning this are usually subsidised by the Government with Working for Families. That means employers are being subsidised to keep wages low. But even then thousands of families are struggling to cover the basics like housing food electricity transport and school costs and many are working several low-paid jobs up to 70 hours a week to make ends meet. The difference between the minimum wage and a living wage is that one is really stressful and people are just getting by while the other is about getting by with dignity. It is about the ability to provide for your children to provide for their children and to provide for their families to contribute to our communities. This Government and our Government agencies will be called upon to pay a living wage and not just for those who are directly employed either but for those who are contracted to provide services such as cleaners security guards caregivers and the community and voluntary sector. Lifting pay rates in New Zealand for our lowest paid workers will reduce inequality and poverty and we need to do that or face the fact that we are condemning New Zealand to becoming a society of the haves and have-nots. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.