Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5039. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
5. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement “I don’t think that [universal child payment] is at all likely; we went away from that some years ago. In New Zealand we have a very targeted system through Working for Families.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Metiria Turei 
: How does the very targeted in-work tax credit child payment system which he claims is better than a universal payment for children help the children of New Zealand’s poorest families whose parents do not work enough hours to qualify for that child payment? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Those families the member is referring to are of course on benefits or are the recipients of the guaranteed minimum family income. The in-work tax credit was designed by the previous Labour Government as a payment for those who were in what was then defined as full-time work. So by definition those who are not in full-time work do not qualify for it. 
Metiria Turei 
: If as the Prime Minister claims very targeted assistance is better than a universal child payment will he then support my bill which specifically targets a child payment to New Zealand’s poorest children whose parents cannot find enough work because unemployment is so high? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The answer is that the Government will not be supporting the member’s bill. But she is giving a misleading impression that children in households where the parents are not working are not the recipients of a child payment. Of course they are as part of the benefit payment. The member can argue about whether that payment should be larger—I suspect she thinks it should be—but there are child payments per child to beneficiary households. 
Metiria Turei 
: How is it fair to the children of families in Christchurch for example who lost their jobs due to the earthquake that they lose both their employment income and their in-work tax credit child payment? How does that give those kids who need it the most a good life and a fair future? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: For families in Christchurch it is difficult when they lose their jobs as it is for many other families where a job is lost. There is income support in place for those families which includes child payments. As I said before the member can argue whether they should be larger but child payments are incorporated. The in-work tax credit was designed on the principle of “work first”—a principle that I see has recently been endorsed by the Children’s Commissioner’s expert group. It is designed as a payment to families to encourage full-time work and appears to have been successful in doing that. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister not agree that the in-work tax credit child payment has failed to provide sufficient support to those families who need it the most and the children who need it the most because parents who might work but do not qualify for enough hours do not get access to that payment leaving more than 200000 children in families who do not qualify and who live well below the poverty line? Is that not a failure? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is not a failure of the in-work tax credit because the in-work tax credit was designed by the previous Government—supported by the National Party at the time—as an incentive to work. That appears to have been successful. If the member is concerned about the absolute level of income of those on benefit then she is quite free to advocate that there should be larger payments. But the in-work tax credit is there for a particular purpose and we do not intend to change that purpose. 
Metiria Turei 
: Why is the Prime Minister opposing all the options for a child payment that will reach the poorest of New Zealand’s children including the universal child payment that has been proposed by the Children’s Commissioner for those children zero to 6 years old and a targeted child payment as proposed in my bill that will go to the children of the poorest families when he knows that 270000 children are living in poverty—a situation that his Government is making worse? When will he step out of la-la land and do something for the poorest kids? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I will not deal with each of the member’s propositions but the universal payment proposed by the Children’s Commissioner’s expert group is I have to say a bit unspecified. The group itself recognises that it would have to be paid for and I think it believes it could be paid for by reducing assistance to families a bit further up the income scale. When the expert group reports to the commissioner who then reports to the Government then of course we can consider all its propositions. The Government’s focus for low-income families is on dealing with those factors that would lead to persistent poverty and vulnerability. So for instance the Minister for Social Development has announced the social obligations which are part of the encouragement for those who are on benefit with children to get their children into early childhood education and part of the encouragement for them to look for appropriate part-time work and to get the kinds of skills that will help them lift income. So we have a strong focus on those families being able to get work as a top priority. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: What advice has the Minister received about the impact on low-income working families of a shift away from the current targeted arrangement to a more universal payment in respect of children? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have not asked for particular advice on that but I think I could guess what it would say. It would say that a move from a targeted programme to a lower universal payment would leave many low-income working families worse off to start with and secondly would leave them in a less beneficial position relevant to being on the benefit. It has been a focus of social policy regardless of party in New Zealand in the last 20 years to ensure that the reward for work is significantly greater than the income that one can receive on benefit. We intend to maintain that policy. 
Metiria Turei 
: Why on earth is the Prime Minister opposing any solution whether it is increasing the minimum wage food in schools a universal child payment for some kids or a targeted payment for the poorest kids? Why is he refusing to support any solution that will help the children he knows are in the worst poverty in this country? What did those kids do to deserve his Government’s neglect and derision? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I find those comments offensive actually. The Government is actually dealing with a wide range of complex issues to ensure that people have the opportunity to lift themselves out of the position they are in where they are on low income. The real danger to children is persistent deprivation that goes with low income. That is a relatively smaller proportion of the 200000 she refers to and the Government’s measures particularly in welfare reform which is a very comprehensive programme are designed to promote mobility for those families. But again I would deny the member’s assertion that the Government is treating these children with neglect and derision. That is typical of the kinds of exaggerated claims she makes to try to get into the political debate.