King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKing Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 04 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20330. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1.Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to theMinister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement that “There is a common misconception that people in need can’t get help from Work and Income but these figures clearly demonstrate that this is not the case”?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes I do.Hon Annette King: If people are getting the help they need why are they now waiting up to 3 months before they can access necessary budget advice which has been caused by the 70 percent increase in referrals to budget advisers by Work and Income as required by her policy?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have been keeping in close contact with the budgeting organisations over the last 3 years but specifically over the last year. That waiting time is not the norm as far as I see it. I am sure it is happening in some cases but budgeting services are also coping with 40 percent no-shows for appointments they make with people. Budgeting services have quite a few problems with setting up appointments and seeing those people who genuinely need help.Hon Annette King: If people are getting the help they need why has the demand for food parcels around New Zealand reached an all-time high with the number of families requiring their first-ever food parcel having gone up fourfold just this last year and does she believe that these people are making poor lifestyle choices as was suggested by the Prime Minister?Hon PAULA BENNETT: We have also seen an increase in people wanting and requiring special-needs grants. Last month alone we paid out over $6 million for 42779 receipts for special-needs grants through Work and Income. There is no doubt at all that people who at the moment are doing it hard are in need but I think Work and Income is doing an outstanding job and is stepping up and helping those people how it can.Hon Annette King: If people are getting the help they need why does theHousehold incomes in New Zealand report state that in 2010 two in five poor children were from households where at least one parent was working and does that not indicate that the hardship New Zealanders are facing is spreading from beneficiaries and older New Zealanders to those on low and middle incomes?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think it has always been true that those who are on low incomes do it harder than those who are not. We also have evidence of the social outcomes education outcomes and everything else for families who are in work as opposed to those who are on benefits. What is often not pointed out to people is that those on low incomes can still get assistance from Work and Income. They might getaccommodation assistance. Their family tax credits help them. People on a low income can get other assistance from Work and Income to top it up.Jacinda Ardern: Is she satisfied with assistance provided from Work and Income for 15 to 19-year-olds who are seeking work when 27.6 percent are now unemployed which is the highest rate on record?Hon PAULA BENNETT: What I am pleased to see for 15 to 19-year-olds is that more of them are in education and we certainly have had a push to keep those young people in school and gaining their education qualifications so that they can go on to have other choices. I am extremely satisfied to see that more young people are staying in school for longer but we certainly have work to do as far as making sure that they have that pathway out.Jacinda Ardern: On what did she base her statement in relation to the household labour force survey that “those aged 15 or over who would like to have an hour a week’s work or more for example a young person at school who would like to have a paper run” when there are 35800 under-19-year-olds who are not in work not in training and not in education?Hon PAULA BENNETT: This side of the House certainly does stand by keeping young people in school longer so I certainly advocate for them to finish their education and stay through to year 13 whenever possible. We are seeing those numbers increase which is really pleasing and we are really thrilled to see that but as we say some of them are certainly falling out of the system. We have had a huge backlog that we have had to catch up on after 9 years of neglect in this area so we are catching up and doing the best that we can to make sure that those services are provided.Phil Twyford: Does she believe that sole parents should be supported by the Government to adequately care for their children while they are training to get back in the workforce; if so why did she cut the training incentive allowance for those in tertiary education?Hon PAULA BENNETT: This Government is actually—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Excuse me a moment. The member’s colleague has asked a serious question and I need to be able to hear the answer. It is very difficult when interjections are so loud.Hon PAULA BENNETT: This Government is actually spending more on support and training for sole parents than has been spent certainly in the last 12 years alone. What we needed to look at is that unfortunately a very high percentage of those who are sole parents are not even achieving school qualifications or getting to that first step on the rung of the ladder. So I am absolutely thrilled that we are putting the funding where it is really needed and making sure that we are assisting those sole parents to get the kind of training that helps them then take those next steps ahead.Phil Twyford: Is she aware that the $8.7 million over 5 years cut from the training incentive allowance will affect 4500 people every year—people who are training to get more skills so they can get off the benefit?Hon PAULA BENNETT: We have not cut the money from the training incentive allowance. What we have done instead is to change the qualification level that they can actually get it for.Carmel Sepuloni: That is a lie!Hon PAULA BENNETT: Look I understand that Labour is having a bad day today and its members are feeling a bit angry. It is all right.Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hate to interrupt the Minister but there is a member from across the Chamber shouting out the word “liar”. It is unnecessary it is totally untrue and she should not be saying that. Can you ask her to withdraw please.Mr SPEAKER: All I heard was a totally unacceptable barrage of noise. It just sounds awful. I do not know how members think it sounds to the public or how it looks on television but it does us no service in this place at all. I did not hear the particular offence but a member has taken offence to it. If a member owns up to having said that I would ask the member to stand withdraw and apologise for having made that interjection. If a member does not then I cannot do anything about it because I did not hear that particular interjection—the overall noise level was so high. [Interruption] I am dealing with the matter and if a member does not feel the need to do that then I am going to let the matter lie there.Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being dealt with and I say to the National back bench that if they want the matter dealt with they will not carry on like that.Chris Tremain: The member who shouted that across the floor was Carmel Sepuloni not once but on a number of occasions and I ask you to deal with this matter because I certainly took offence to it.Mr SPEAKER: Offence has been taken. I ask Carmel Sepuloni to stand withdraw and apologise for accusing a member of being a liar. If the member says she did not say that I will accept her word. Is the member claiming she did not say that?Carmel Sepuloni: I said it Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Well if the member said it she will in all seriousness apologise now to this House and withdraw that remark.Carmel Sepuloni: I would rather leave the House than withdraw and apologise for that statement.Mr SPEAKER: The member will do what the Speaker requires. Either the member will get to her feet withdraw her comment and apologise or I will name her.Carmel Sepuloni: Reluctantly I withdraw and apologise—Mr SPEAKER: The member is running the grave danger of being named. The member will now get to her feet with dignity as required in this House. I will not have this place treated with contempt by that member. She will get to her feet withdraw her comment and apologise with no other words or I will name her.Carmel Sepuloni: I withdraw and apologise.Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member.Hon Trevor Mallard: How can the Minister possibly tell this House that she has cut for a large group of young people and some older people the training incentive allowance but that that is not a cut?Hon PAULA BENNETT: What has happened is that we have changed the criteria. We had huge concerns—[Interruption] Well wake up! It was done more than 2 years ago. We changed the criteria because we had so many concerns for those women in particular who were not achieving even to level 2 in educational attainment. I am proud to say that we are putting more money into supporting those people and those women into work and into training and I am proud of that record.Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member I tell members there is no way I can assist them if the Minister does not answer the question because I cannot possibly hear it. I just say to members that one of their colleagues is asking these questions and it is discourteous to their own colleague to make such a high level of interjection.Hon Trevor Mallard: How can she justify cutting the very benefit that allowed her to get her qualifications and how can that not be characterised as hypocritical?Mr SPEAKER: No no. There is a long practice in this place that members cannot be accused of being hypocritical and to allude to it that way I think is an unreasonable construction. I accept that it is a little different from directly accusing the member ofbeing hypocritical but I invite the member to reword that question to avoid that possible slight on the Minister. I invite the member to reword his question.Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of the fact that the member used the training incentive allowance to get her qualification can she elucidate to the House whether in the same circumstances she would be eligible now or is it just another case of pulling the ladder up after she has climbed up and off the benefit?Hon Christopher Finlayson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister is not responsible for the policies of an earlier administration which is a fundamental limb of the first part of that inept question.Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to that—Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard briefly.Hon Trevor Mallard: She is absolutely responsible for the policy change that changed the criteria for the allowance that she took advantage of in the past.Mr SPEAKER: If I recollect the question correctly it asked whether the Minister would have qualified given the criteria she changed. So it is not a matter of whether she would have qualified under a previous Government’s administration; it is whether she would have qualified given the changes made by the Minister herself. On that basis I believe that the question should not be ruled out on the grounds that the acting Leader of the House has raised. I believe that I should allow the question.Hon PAULA BENNETT: We are looking at a very different education system and tertiary system now than we were in 1994. Members on the opposite side may not think that things have changed—Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Minister. Either the Labour Party takes the questions of its colleague seriously or it does not. I have just treated the question with some seriousness. The acting Leader of the House argued that it was out of order. I did not take that advice; I allowed the question. Maybe I made a mistake. If Labour thinks the question is so worthless as to keep interjecting like that maybe I did make a mistake. But I made the decision and I have asked the Minister to answer the question and I think it should be treated with some respect.Hon PAULA BENNETT: My point is that things have changed since 1994. The education system and the tertiary system have changed. Those young women and men have more access to interest-free student loans they get more childcare assistance than they ever had and they are certainly far better off if they are in tertiary study now than they were in the early 1990s when I was there. That member may not think that times have changed in the 30 years or however long it is since he was in tertiary training but actually they have. If one went back 40 years and said they would never ever make a change to a system as a Minister because of something they did or did not get then what a ridiculous position to be in. That is the situation as it stands.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a long answer and it was commendable for the information it gave but it did not tell us the answer to the question. The Minister said that things have changed but she did not indicate to the House whether under the circumstances—Mr SPEAKER: It was my understanding from the Minister’s answer that she was indicating that she may not qualify under the current criteria. If I am wrong on that then the Minister will certainly correct me.Hon PAULA BENNETT: My point was that we cannot compare now with what it was like in 1994. It is a completely different system both in tertiary education and in the welfare system. I will not take a hypothetical situation. My point was that if Trevor Mallard was going to study right now at university—Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet and we will not go any further with this question.