Bradford Sue: Budget Debate 
Bradford Sue: Budget Debate 
[Volume:618;Page:13572] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 As the Green Party stated 2½ weeks ago when the Budget was delivered although we are really disappointed that Dr Cullen and Labour are dedicating virtually no resources at all towards an environmentally sustainable future at the same time we cannot help but be pleased that we finally have a Government that acknowledges the reality of endemic child poverty and is planning to do something about it. The offer of up to a billion dollars to low and middle income families by 2007 increases in childcare support increases in the accommodation supplement and other changes like those to some abatement regimes are all to be welcomed. However though acknowledging that what the Government has put forward is 100 percent better for low-income workers and beneficiaries than anything a National or National-ACT Government would ever be likely to come up with the Green Party remains unavoidably critical of some of the social justice aspects of Labour’s 2004 Budget. 
First of all we are unhappy that the budgeted increases to families are due to take so long to come into effect. The first boost to family support does not happen until April 2005 the in-work payments and family tax credit increases start in April 2006 and the full impact of the new support does not really kick in until April 2007. I question whether Labour really had to wait as long as that to implement the full programme of support for families given that the Ministry of Social Development’s report to the incoming Government in 2002 advised then that nearly one-third of the country’s children are living in poverty and from all accounts that figure has not really improved despite the continuing fall in unemployment that we have seen. I think the dilatory approach Labour is taking towards boosting family incomes is unnecessary and uncalled for while we still have far too many families dependent on food banks and other forms of charity for survival. A Government that was really serious about ending child poverty would not have delayed full implementation of its programme by up to 4 years before it really began to kick in. I know a lot of people feel quite let down by hearing on Budget day that they will get a reasonably substantial increase in family income and then finding out a few hours later that they will have to wait for years—and through a whole election cycle—to receive much at all. When people need assistance to feed clothe and house their families at the most basic level they need it as soon as possible not in some far-off future. 
I would add here that I find it appalling that the Government is prepared to give nearly $34 million to the America’s Cup effort co-sponsored by the Emirates Airline instead of putting $34 million into the pockets of families who need it now. The argument that the Team New Zealand money is a good investment for the taxpayer because it will be spent mostly in New Zealand simply does not wash. If we were instead to put $34 million towards families on benefits and low wages it would be completely spent within New Zealand on the necessities of life not on an elite international yacht race. I do not believe that giving money to an elitist sport is appropriate as long as some New Zealand children and young people are growing up in poverty and while a number of the community and social service groups that so valiantly struggle to support them are on the brink of collapse because of chronic Government underfunding. 
The second major area of concern the Green Party has with this Budget is that it locks in systemic discrimination against beneficiaries and as well gets rid of the special benefit which is currently the benefit of last resort for all too many people. Although I understand and support Labour’s motivation in wanting to help beneficiaries to make the transition between benefits and work I do not think that creating a new poverty trap called the in-work payment of up to $60 per week to families where one or both parents are in the paid workforce is the way to go. The in-work payment locks in the concept that the children of beneficiaries do not need as much to live on as the children of a parent or parents who are in the paid workforce which is manifestly ridiculous. All the research shows that the most poverty-stricken families are most likely to be those headed by sole parents. I ask why we as a country are so determined both to punish such families including blameless children and to deny the fact that in reality pushing a single mother with two or three young children out to work will in many cases have a detrimental rather than a positive impact on all concerned. 
I would like one day to be part of a Government that finally recognises that all adults and children need enough money to buy food clothing and accommodation if they are to live anything approaching a decent and fulfilling life and that also recognises that the task of raising a family especially on one’s own is a full-time job worthy of respect and support from the rest of society not one for which one should be condemned as a person and then subjected to various financial penalties if one does not race back into the paid workforce quickly enough. Of course let us encourage and help people who are unemployed and/or who are on other benefits to move into work. But let us at the same time acknowledge the value of being a good parent and prioritise in the finding of jobs those whose main task in life at a particular moment is not the raising of young children. Let us focus on providing extra payments to people who are transitioning to paid work that are based directly on their work-related needs and costs rather than penalise the children of those who are still in the benefit system. 
In terms of the special benefit it was indeed alarming that the intention to remove that essential third-tier layer of assistance was brought in without warning or consultation on the day of the Budget with eventual savings of up to $91 million per year to be made through its removal. I would not be complaining about the loss of the special benefit if the Government had engaged in a wholesale reform of the benefit system at the same time in order to ensure that people had enough to live on without third-tier assistance but that has not happened. Meanwhile I fear the worst for many beneficiaries in the coming years unless we see a change of heart somewhere along the way. The new temporary additional support allowance manifestly will not fill the gap that the special benefit will leave. 
A third major area of concern for the Green Party in this Budget is housing. Although I am not knocking the increases in the accommodation supplement because I know they meet a real and an urgent need I am very aware that this Budget has not adequately addressed at all the housing crisis that is currently faced by low and middle income earners in this country. The Green Party believes that stable affordable healthy housing is a fundamental need and right of all people. We acknowledge the efforts that Labour has made in this area since 1999 in beginning to turn back the clock on the inequities of the 1990s when National sold off so much of our State housing stock and established a rental regime that combined with the benefit cuts and the effects of the Employment Contracts Act pushed so many families and others into the margins. However just continuing to focus on increasing the availability of the accommodation supplement rather than prioritising the building of more social housing simply increases the massive taxpayer subsidy we are currently offering landlords and behind them employers as well. That is how the Government gets away with having such a low minimum wage. With such a low-wage low-benefit economy only broadly expanded income-related rents and a more accessible homeownership regime will in the end together enable the bulk of lower-income people to access stable affordable housing. At the moment a decreasing proportion of householders own their own homes while a larger proportion is renting. At the same time the private rental market is naturally expanding to meet that need fuelled by the accommodation supplement. 
Social housing provided by the State local government and the third sector simply is not keeping pace with that need in the slightest. As a proportion of the total housing rental stock social housing is in a precipitous decline. In 1991 total social housing—State and local government—stood at around one-third of the entire rental market. That has dropped dramatically over the last 10 years and in 2001 made up just 19 percent of the rental market. When social housing as a proportion of total rental housing drops as low as that it means firstly that many people who need income-related rents simply miss out—witness the 12000-plus households on the Housing New Zealand Corporation waiting list at the moment—and secondly it means that social housing has very little impact on subduing rents in the overall market. When social housing becomes so irrelevant to the rental market all the other renters end up paying more rent and that is what is happening now. This Budget announced that the Government will build or acquire just over 1000 new State houses or flats in the next year but given that the total rental market has been growing at around 10000 households per year it means that State housing will decrease markedly as an overall percentage and its slide towards irrelevancy will continue. The demand on the accommodation supplement will rise unabated. The accommodation supplement is a short-term not a long-term solution to the housing crisis as it acts only as a landlord subsidy and fuels—or props up depending on the state of the market—house prices and rents in the private sector. 
However overall and in conclusion I should like to say that the Budget does take a major step in the right direction in terms of redistributing at least a little of our country’s wealth to some of those who need it most. Tax cuts as proposed by National and ACT are not the answer. All that they would do is make the rich richer and the poor poorer.