Dyson Ruth: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Dyson Ruth: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:17693] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I certainly support the comments made by Hone Harawira in his contribution to the Committee in respect of the latter part of his speech. I am sure that he is as pleased as I am that our policies in the area under discussion social development mean that 130000 fewer children in our country are living in poverty now. We talk about poverty in New Zealand only now because the Labour-led Government for the first time ever in our history publishes an annual report on all the statistics which allows us to measure poverty and measure the success or failure of all our social policies right across the spectrum. Public accountability from central government for delivery of its policies is new and has been established only in the last 8 years so that we can see what areas we have made progress in and what areas we still need to continue to work on. 
Clearly in the area of poverty there is more work to be done but the work that has been done in the last 9 years has had a lot of success. From 2004 to 2007 median household incomes grew by 6 percent in real terms—in real terms not just in total. Over the same period income inequality in our nation reduced for the first time since it began to rise in the late 1980s when literally the rich were getting richer and the poor were getting poorer. From 2004 to 2007 that inequality reduced for the first time ever. Income for low to middle income families grew much more rapidly than it did for average-income households and much of that is attributable to our Working for Families package. 
Overall poverty fell from 19 percent in 2001 to 13 percent in 2007 and that represents 190000 fewer New Zealanders living in poverty. At the same time relative poverty fell. Over that same period—2004 to 2007—child poverty rates fell on all standard measures and that is something we can be proud of. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What about now? What about 2008? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: If Nick Smith knew anything about social reporting and measures he would know that those figures are not available yet. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You don’t want them to be either. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Oh yes we certainly do. We certainly do because for the first time our Government published those figures and every year they have got better. That member should hang his head in shame that under his watch under his Government and under his Cabinet child poverty increased every single year. Every single year that that member was in this House as a Cabinet Minister the number of children in our country living in poverty increased. That member should hang his head in shame. 
Benefit numbers have reduced dramatically since Labour has led the Government. If we add up all the benefits—invalids benefit sickness benefit domestic purposes benefit and unemployment benefit—the total number of working-age people on benefits has decreased from 1999 to June of this year by 36 percent. All main benefit numbers have reduced from 401415 when Nick Smith was a Cabinet Minister—I am sorry if I have just put anyone into the position of needing to be on a sickness benefit with that thought—to the current level of 258317. That is a reduction of 36 percent. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How much has it gone up on the sickness benefit? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I say to Mr Smith that there has been an increase of 41 percent and there has been an 89 percent reduction in the number of people on an unemployment benefit. The best way of giving people their self-esteem their confidence and their independence and of reducing poverty and giving them a brighter future is to support them into paid work. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You’ve just changed the label! 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: There has been not one single change in measure—not one single change in criteria. The only reason the figure between 1999 and now is looking good is that we had a change in Government. That is the difference between then and now. There has been no change in criteria no fiddling the books and no telling one story to one audience and another story to another audience. There has been a 36 percent reduction in the total number of people on a working-age benefit and the only change is that Mr Smith is no longer in Cabinet. That might now make people who previously thought about Nick Smith in Cabinet and needed to go on a sickness benefit feel a little better and be able to go out and get a paid job. Every week that Labour has led the Government there has been an increase of nearly 1000 jobs in our economy—an additional 1000 jobs in our economy—and we are supporting people to get into that work and off benefits. 
The other point that I want to make during this debate is that as well as moving people from a benefit into a paid job the other substantial contribution that we have made to eliminating poverty in society is the introduction of the Working for Families package. The reason I am keen to talk about it is that a lot of people in New Zealand have benefited from it. Thousands and thousands of people have benefited from Working for Families and those same people are now very nervous about the future because they have heard John Key and Bill English make completely contradictory statements about the future of Working for Families. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: They have not! 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I just happen to have quotes in case Nick Smith does not watch TV does not read the paper and never goes on to the Internet to see what is the favourite story on Stuff and Scoop most days—it is the contradictory statements from John Key and Bill English. 
Bill English put out a statement a little while ago saying that Working for Families would remain unchanged if National were the Government. Then over the weekend he decided that National cannot have a family of four going on the TV during the election campaign and saying “John Key will take money off us.” He is not stupid; he knows that that would not be a good look for National. People who are dependent on Working for Families to be able to afford the additional things in their life do not want to know that National will take that money off them. Bill English said “We can’t do that. Later on we’ll have to do a bit of a sort-out. We have to do something but we can’t do it now.” As David Henderson would say—and I would not quote him terribly often—be afraid;  
Be Very Afraid 
. The National Party has said that it will borrow money that it will privatise the services of our nation and that it will cut the Working for Families package. It has also hinted at hocking off Kiwibank and at getting rid of the employer contribution and the Government contribution in KiwiSaver. 
So who is affected by those changes of policies? Who feels the effects of no increases in the minimum wage of cuts in benefits of cuts to Working for Families of ensuring that the employer contribution and the Government contribution to KiwiSaver go and of hocking off Kiwibank to yet another Australian bank? Who feels the impact of those policies? We know who would feel it: the most vulnerable members of our society. These are the people whom Labour has put the strongest focus on to ensure that people who are on benefits Maori and Pacific Islanders people who are brought up in dysfunctional families and disabled people have the support that they need and deserve to be able to move from a benefit into a paid job or if they are not able to do that to receive the level of financial support that they need. That is the commitment that our Government made prior to 1999 and has delivered on year after year—increasing support and ensuring that people do get the support that they are entitled to. 
Those same people now are feeling very threatened not just because they can hear Nick Smith’s contribution in this House—he is chipping away—but because they have read the contradictory statements made by John Key and Bill English. They know that those members will say one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience and they know that if Bill English and John Key lead the National Party into Government in the future their lives will be significantly and negatively impacted upon.