Ngaro Alfred: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNgaro Alfred: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7772. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALFRED NGARO (National): There was a time when in the Labour Party its strength was actually being able to talk and being able to plan and to initiate social policy that was in much need by the New Zealand community and New Zealand society as a whole. After that last speech it is no wonder that there has been a struggle because that member Sue Moroney was not part of the Social Services Committee to read the 31 submissions and hear the 17 oral submissions.Sue Moroney: I still know what’s right and what’s wrong Alfred.ALFRED NGARO: That member did not speak on the bill and when that member began to turn round and attack this bill let me remind that member about this thing. I remind the member not to worry; the people at home can hear only my voice and not hers so good for them. The thing is this: this member here should have been at the poverty debate that I was at where Ms Jacinda Ardern got up and spoke. When she was challenged about the children in poverty during the 9 years of a Labour Government and when she was challenged about the fact that the state of the nation reports by the Salvation Army condemned and criticised the Labour Government for not doing enough and criticised it for the so-called wealth that it had available to it saying that it did not make a difference to the issues of poverty here was the response that Mrs Moroney might want to listen to—Ms Ardern’s reply to those questions. This was her response: “Well it was a job unfinished. It was a job that we did not complete.” Those were her exact words. In other words in 9 years—when you had plenty when you had enough when you could have gone and you could have reduced the amount of poverty of children—that previous speaker did nothing. So it is with arrogance that that member stands up and uses the word “shame”.We know that there are children in hardship. We know that is important. Those members over there—if they stop if they do their homework and if they look back into their own past—will realise that they had also failed in addressing this issue.I want to talk about what this Government is doing to address the issue of children in hardship. I must say though that as a select committee hearing those submissions we came to a point where there was unanimous support for the bill heading into a second reading and third reading back in the House. Why? Yes we know that the fact is that for some it did not go quite the way they wanted. However the intention was right. The direction that this Government was moving in to increase the base benefit rate which had not been increased since 1972 was the right one. So we got the support that we believe is important to this bill.This is part of the Government’s Budget package in 2015 addressing the issues of children in hardship—$790 million over 4 years. It is a significant investment. It is an investment in which we want to get to a point where we cannot say that it is a job unfinished but we also know that poverty is a difficult issue and it is a challenging issue for all Governments right throughout the world as well.I want to return to the regulatory impact statement—[Interruption] The member may not have read that. I do not think that previous member that previous speaker had read the regulatory impact statement. It talks about the meaning of “poverty” the definition of “poverty”. But it also talks—because that member also talked about 305000 kids in poverty. Well if that member bothered to read the regulatory impact statement here is what it says. But that member does not—it says this. So what do we know about child poverty and material hardship? How many children are in poverty or in hardship? There are no simple or single-figure answers to that question that would command respect or support. That is right—this is from the regulatory impact statement which clearly defines it. Why? Because you can bandy about 305000 as a figure that you can cite and leverage support for out there in the community but the question you have to ask is this: how many are really in that continuum of poverty and hardship that we need to address and who do we need to provide that support to? That is what this Government is doing. It is targeting its support in the right place in the right way because we know there is need for that.Here are the key elements in this bill as it returns to the House that we know are important in addressing the issues of poverty. In fact when it defines “poverty” it defines it in three ways. It talks particularly about the issues of hardship and difficulty in a home. There are three things—firstly low household incomes; secondly it talks about the demands to meet the needs of budgeting in that house; and thirdly which is probably the most challenging is this: the ability to use your household income in appropriate ways. In other words it often has to deal with people’s attitudes towards the household income. We do not often talk about that but that has come into the regulatory impact statement.What this Government is doing in this bill is important to address those issues and here is what the Government is doing: it is strengthening work availability obligations for beneficiary parents. We know—the research has shown—that those who stayed longer on benefits would often come to a point where actually it becomes more difficult for them to provide a better future and better incomes for their children. We think that is important. Lowering the age of the youngest dependent child at which part-time work search obligations are work-tested for beneficiaries will go from 5 years to 3 years. Changing the target hours of part-time work from 15 to 20 hours—we know that the intention of this is important. We can see that this is a way of actually helping those families. It is targeted at those who are in need—sole parents. We have wrapped round support we have raised the benefit levels and we have also increased the abatement levels in there.This package is not the answer to all things but it is definitely as in the words of the Opposition support in the right direction. So I commend this bill in its second reading to the House.