Turei Metiria: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTurei Metiria: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 19 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3363. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]6.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Metiria Turei: How poor does a child need to be under his “definitional difference” which he told Paul Henry about yesterday when he claimed that there were only 60000 to 100000 children living in poverty?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The advice I have from the Ministry of Social Development material deprivation index is that there are indeed between 60000 and 100000 children who are living in more severe material hardship. They are children who based on that index lack nine to 11 items from that deprivation index.Metiria Turei: Under his “definitional difference” is a child living in poverty if their parents cannot afford to buy them fresh food if they do not have two pairs of shoes if they cannot afford a school uniform and if they do not have their own bed?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I refer the member to the Ministry of Social Development’s material deprivation index.Metiria Turei: Is the Children’s Commissioner wrong and are his experts who worked on the solutions to child poverty wrong when they state that there are between 180000 and 200000 children who are materially deprived—that is they go without three or more essential items such as fresh food warm clothes their own bed and good shoes?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It seems to me that the member picks and chooses her index depending on what suits her argument but all I can tell the member is that if one looks at the number of children who are deemed to be at the most significant level of deprivation in New Zealand based on the Ministry of Social Development index it is 60000 to 100000. But I would say that this Government is very focused on all children particularly those who are less well off and there are degrees of how less well off they are. That is why the Government introduced free GP visits. That is why the Government has put more money into providers like KidsCan. That is why this Government has worked alongside Fonterra and Sanitarium to provide free breakfasts. That is why the Government has supported having social workers in all low-decile schools. It is why the Government has introduced Children’s Teams to work with at-risk children and families. That is why the Government has insulated every State house and it is why the Government has worked to insulate 240000 other homes and has given them clean heating. This is a Government that in the very worst of times in New Zealand has maintained benefits and entitlements that provide support for the very children whom that member is talking about.Metiria Turei: Did the Ministry of Social Development fail to give him the 2014 Bryan Perry report that showed that there are 260000 children in poverty and that 205000 of them are living in severe poverty where their parents earn less than half the median income?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member will note—if she wants to refer to that particular report that she is talking about—how consistently the numbers that she is talking about have been at that level of deprivation. In fact there were about 240000 to 260000 children living in poverty under Labour at the height of what was theoretically an economic boom. But what I can say is that Bryan Perry’s new annual report—and the new edition will be out very soon—will make it quite clear that in terms of what they define as severe material hardship there are between 60000 and 100000 children and they have between nine and 11 conditions on the deprivation index.Metiria Turei: Would the Prime Minister agree that by promising to tackle child poverty and then changing the definition of poverty to exclude most of the children who are actually poor he is breaking yet another Budget promise?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member is being extremely selective with the comments I have made. If she actually goes back and looks at the interviews that I have done on this topic ever since the last election she will see that I have consistently said that there is a disagreement between ourselves and those who claim that there are 260000 children in that category. We have made it quite clear that we see a group of 60000 to 100000 as our priority. It does not mean that we do not provide either services or support for the wider group; we actually do. I listed a great many and I will not repeat them now. But our primary area of focus and attention is on those who are most in need. I think most New Zealanders actually would say that the Government having a focus on those who are in the worst of conditions is putting our resources in the right place.Jacinda Ardern: Does he stand by his previous statements in this House that there are many measures of child poverty in light of his position now that there is just one material deprivation which just so happens to be the smallest of all the measures that are used by the Children’s Commissioner?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I stand by the view that there is no one single measure but I am simply saying that the material deprivation index according to the advice that we have had from the Ministry of Social Development is the best. That is one measure but there is no one single measure of poverty in New Zealand and I do not think there should be.Metiria Turei: Will the Prime Minister just admit that he has made up an Oliver Twist definition of poverty so that he can ignore some 200000 New Zealand children who suffer from poverty every day?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member risks being a little bit silly. I listed a few moments ago a very wide range of support that we provide for all New Zealand children and in some cases obviously the support is much more focused on those who are in need. I have made it quite clear that I think there is a group who are in worse hardship than others and that is supported by the material deprivation index which evolved actually from the European equivalent. It is a very thoughtful process that Bryan Perry goes through and it looks at very detailed analysis. I am more than happy to have the debate with the New Zealand public but I think you might find that the New Zealand public supports the view that those who are most in need deserve the most support. That does not mean that other children do not get support; they actually do. But this Government is very focused on that group and I think most New Zealanders would say that is the right thing to do. The member shakes her head but if we followed her economic policies a whole million of New Zealand children would be in hardship because none of their parents would be in work.