Ardern Jacinda: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 01 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8423. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I want to make a short contribution on this part of the Support for Children in Hardship Bill because clauses 1 and 2 have been controversial particularly clause 2 which is obviously the commencement date for this bill. For those who may only just be tuning in to this debate we are actually debating a policy that was announced at the last Budget—so some months ago now—and we are debating a commencement date for this piece of legislation that means that this benefit increase will not kick in for those who are in the most significant hardship until April 2016. Obviously the point of contention for members on this side of the Chamber has been that yes we support an increase in benefit rates for those in hardship—absolutely. Our argument has been around the adequacy and perhaps the way that that increase has been designed. But what was not in question for us was that the need was immediate—the need was immediate. In fact it has been in place for some time now.Again—I have to come back to this because it has been raised continually in this House—it has been lauded as the first benefit increase in 40 years but that is not correct. Working for Families increased benefit rates when it was introduced under the last Labour Government—Jono Naylor: Your deputy leader agreed with us.JACINDA ARDERN: —via the family tax credit. What was that Jono Naylor?Jono Naylor: Your deputy leader agreed with us in her speech on Part 2.JACINDA ARDERN: But am I getting a concession from the Government yet that benefit rates were increased? Because the one thing that I will add as a caveat to that is that we always said—and this was said first by Annette King when she was the spokesperson in this area—that we had unfinished business. No one on this side of the Chamber is claiming that Working for Families was the beginning and the end of everything that we had to say on poverty and inequality issues in this country. It was not but it was a damn good start and it was a necessary start and a concession that it was a necessary start is the fact that the Government has not repealed it. In fact it continues to play with elements of it in this bill.Our contention has been when it comes to clause 2 that we needed it right away. We needed it absolutely right away. In fact as we have always argued in debating this bill if you were really genuinely looking at hardship then you would look at some of the real catalysts for that hardship. Since Working for Families was implemented one of the massive contributing factors to that growth in hardship—if you look at the income measures around median income and the before and after-housing costs it tells you exactly what some of the problem is. Some of that problem is the after housing costs because of course in our most populated city in the country and in the South Island in Christchurch we have had a significant increase in housing costs. That has taken a disproportionate amount of income out of those low-income families trying to put a roof over their heads which has exacerbated the issue of income inadequacy. So that is a contributing factor.The reason I raise that is that Working for Families obviously was dealing with income inadequacy across the board but that has been exacerbated by an increase in housing costs and that is now a new challenge that we need to continue to address. So these things are never static; they are dynamic and we need to keep addressing them. What is not dynamic is simply the fact that the need exists and we need to do something about it with immediate attention. That is why we have a problem with this commencement date. It should not have been delayed. As has been raised in the debate as well the idea that the Consumers Price Index adjustment will kick in first then the base increase and the base increase of $25 will not be Consumers Price Index - adjusted—well that seems unfair. We are waiting a year for it to be introduced. Why not Consumers Price Index adjust it at the same time?Speaking briefly then to the title clause this is the Support for Children in Hardship Bill. What undermines the notion of support for children is that actually income is one thing; parental support is another. Fundamental to a child’s well-being and their success in life is the support from and the attachment they have to their caregivers. We are increasingly becoming aware of the impact and the importance of that relationship between a child and their caregiver. It is known as attachment; it is also known as attachment disorder when it is a poor relationship. The flow-on effects of a poor relationship in that regard are costly to us as taxpayers. It may seem like it is just a relational issue but actually when it comes to things like conduct disorder and behavioural issues which we as taxpayers end up putting money into from a remedial perspective we all end up paying for a poor bond between a child and a caregiver. I use the word “caregiver” loosely because we do know that it is not specific as to who that individual needs to be. It just needs to be a trusting relationship and a consistent relationship between a child at a very young age and an adult. In fact I think it was David Fergusson who estimated that the costs of a poor attachment and potentially later on conduct disorder generally can be up to a million dollars per child so it pays to invest early.That idea of support is not just monetary; it is about that physical connection with and presence of a caregiver. What this bill does is it gives with the one hand on the income side and it takes away with the other in the sense that we are now putting in a requirement for that potentially single caregiver to be in work when that child is at a younger age. What we do not seem to factor in is the detriment and the undoing of any positive effect we might have with that income boost caused by the negative impact of that change in threshold.The use of the word “support” does need to be taken more broadly. As a Labour Party we have always talked about income inadequacy as one issue when it comes to the deprivation that children in poverty experience across the board. But it is not just about money—it never has been—it is about the wider support network that sits around that family and that child. Again we would have liked there to be more analysis of the evidence that tells us where that support is most needed because we also know as I mentioned in one of my contributions around where that persistence in severe poverty exists that it is predominantly in sole parent households. So if you are looking for support for children in hardship as a bill actually the support also needs to go specifically to those single-parent households. We know in those cases that obviously care arrangements are difficult. They are more restricted. You cannot simply just take in those extra 20 hours of work without thinking about your care arrangements. Again this is supporting with one hand with the increase of the 25 bucks but taking away on the other by increasing those hours of work and potentially again restricting what that caregiver is able to manage in terms of their relationship with that child.So I think the title is disingenuous. It is singular in the sense that it is simply about income and not about that broader support network.We would also highlight again I think—because as I have said it is not just about income from our perspective when we are talking about those families in most need. We make an assumption in our society that a family particularly maybe a sole parent who is raising a child has a support network. That is not a given. It is no longer the case in New Zealand that you have that village that community or even necessarily that whānau around you but this bill is based on that premise. It assumes someone else can pick up caregiver roles when that individual is unable to do it because of work obligations.All of the policies we have always looked at around income inadequacy and poverty and deprivation have also included what we can do to improve that support mechanism—what role Well Child / Tāmariki Ora can play what role Plunket can play and what role can those networks play universally by being in the home providing that contact with the family to other support agencies to bring in the village that used to exist in raising children but has ebbed away. That is what true support looks like and if we were genuinely considering a bill that was true to the name true to the title of “Support for Children in Hardship” there would be elements of support that went beyond a single child and that would look to the network that exists around that child’s family as well.