2. Child Poverty Reduction—Government Measures to AddressHon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime MinisterChild Poverty Reduction—Government Measures to Address2. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government's policies?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.Hon Paula Bennett: Why is her Government being less ambitious than the previous National Government with her target to reduce material hardship particularly given her statement on Tuesday that material hardship has been one of the most consistent drivers of poor outcomes for children?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In response the Government has not reduced its targets. It's increased its ambition massively under the change of Government and how can you possibly talk of having a target when on 22 January this year the New Zealand Herald was carrying a report that goes to the core of poverty where the richest 1 percent of Kiwis got 28 percent of all wealth created last year while the poorest 30 percent of the population—the very people we're speaking about and addressing in our policies—got just 1 percent of that wealth.Hon Paula Bennett: Can she confirm that her Government's targeted total reduction in the number of children in material hardship over the next 10 years is 70000 like announced yesterday and that over the last five years of the National Government the number of children in material hardship fell by 85000?SPEAKER: The member can choose which of the questions he answers.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well let's address the second question because—Hon Simon Bridges: Let's"—the royal "we".Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Pardon?Hon Simon Bridges: Your Majesty. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well you're talking about the state of the nation; I'm talking about the state of her leadership. Hon Grant Robertson: He'd know all about that.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: All right? And you'd know all about that. First of all the previous Government's so-called measurements have been also called into question by improper Treasury measurements and we're waiting round to find out what they really meant by that as they relate to our improper advice from them as well which they're currently working on. When we know that we'll be able to speak with exactitude about what our targets and numbers will be.Hon Paula Bennett: The numbers of 70000 that the Government has announced that they want to reduce material hardship over the next 10 years by 70000; National's record over the last five years—SPEAKER: Order! We'll go right back to the beginning. Two of my very good predecessors indicated that questions start with a question word. So that would be a good way to start. The member hasn't got close yet.Hon Paula Bennett: Sorry sir. I'm just trying to clarify because the Minister is mistaken on a question so I'm just trying to get a clarification here. So in light of the Minister's answer can he please explain how the reduction made over the last five years of the National Government of the number of children in material hardship falling by 85000 was not a prediction by Treasury but actually it was in the Ministry of Social Development's household income survey which has been used? So we've seen a reduction of 85000—SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That's enough.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: First of all I do not believe for a moment what that member is saying—Hon Members: Oh!Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well I don't because there's great doubt as to the veracity of what she's saying already.SPEAKER: No. Order! The member will resume his seat. I was listening and I did hear the member say that he doubted the member's veracity and that is something that has been—Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No what she was saying—not her.SPEAKER: Well I think if he doubted the member's veracity in the House it might even be worse. So I will ask the Deputy Prime Minister to withdraw that comment.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I withdraw and apologise and say this: I think there is an enormous—not a grain of salt but a bag of salt that's got to be laid around the comments by that member. More particularly I do not think this is the right place to litigate the National Party leadership challenges at this point in time.Hon Paula Bennett: Keep deflecting old man. I raise a point of order.SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No I'm going to deal with it first. What I would like is silence in the House while I indicate that that was very unacceptable. The member knows it and as a result of it four questions will be deducted from the National Party.Hon Paula Bennett: I seek leave to actually table the household income survey which yes is publicly available but I feel that since actually my character is being called into question in this House for my lack of honesty—and that is actually why I made that comment—SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat. I took action to require the withdrawal of the reflection on the member's character. I dealt with it. The member should have left it at that.Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The issue is that directly after the Deputy Prime Minister withdrew the remark he launched into a political attack on the member around party politics and that's what led to this. So I can understand that what then followed wasn't acceptable but four supplementary questions it seems to me given the behaviour of the Deputy Prime Minister is a very harsh call.SPEAKER: Yes it might well be but it's been made. Further supplementary—Paula Bennett.Hon Paula Bennett: Well actually I sought leave Mr Speaker to table the household income survey.SPEAKER: Yes and I'm declining to put that leave.Hon Paula Bennett: OK. Is she committed to reducing the number of children in low-income households by 100000 in three years like the National Government committed to or 100000 over 10 years like she announced last night?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: First of all this Government came to power very aware of the problem and it didn't take nine years to get around to thinking about it. More particularly we are setting out to put together a political consensus to reduce poverty in this country as fast as we possibly can. We know it's not going to be easy. Long-term targets are good but the difference is that in the terms of family incomes—and poor incomes in particular—and the quality of homes in which they—Hon Anne Tolley: Answer the question.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am answering the question. I know that the facts are remote from that member. That's why she's at the backbench now. My point is we are addressing the incomes and the accommodation levels and when we put those together you will see sound Treasury measurements that show we're making great progress. As for Anne Tolley if I were her I would just keep quiet because she's on her way out.Jo Hayes: Will her Government commit to continuing to spend $130 million on Whānau Ora to help reduce child poverty particularly in Māori and Pasifika whānau?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Could I just say we will take the best policies—if there are some sound policies from the previous administration—with us. We're prepared to look with open minds as we always have given where we stand when it comes to sound thinking and collegiality and if there are sound policies in Whānau Ora we'll take them forward. But you know you cannot possibly mean to be sincere—how should I say it generically?—on that issue when Māori housing ownership declined by 38 percent under their administration.Hon Paula Bennett: Is she planning to do another families incomes package over the next three years which could lift another 50000 children out of child poverty as National plan to do or has she spent all the money on fees-free tertiary education which hasn't seen any increase in tertiary enrolments.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Could I just say that the Government's working on its current package and we're not going to be forecasting the next package until we've got this one well under way. That is a possibility but not at this point in time. However the turn-around in the economy is such that we could be quite confident of possibly doing what the member says given that Mr Rutherford in today's New Zealand Herald says that our opponents are concerned that the economy is going so well that they need a turn-around to help themselves in the future.Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do just want to confirm—I may have missed it—that those answers were on behalf of the Prime Minister by the Deputy Prime Minister or is it the case that the Deputy Prime Minister has already assumed the role in his head of Prime Minister.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Point of order. SPEAKER: Well no. Well I really don't think that I need the member—Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well can I correct that then. It's important for the public out there—SPEAKER: Well I think I can rule on it and I just want to give a bit of a warning to the National Party shadow Leader of the House that we've had one example of quite disorderly behaviour resulting in a loss of questions and frivolous points of order could well be treated the same way. That was a frivolous point of order.Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Look I appreciate the point the Speaker's making but I genuinely do want to understand that the answers are on behalf of the Prime Minister and I haven't heard that.SPEAKER: I will make it clear to the House: at any time the Deputy Prime Minister becomes the Acting Prime Minister that will be made clear to the House. As the member is aware that could happen for a substantial period of time later in the year but also when the Prime Minister is overseas on official business. I really think that the member is not very serious in the comments that he makes and it's a bit dangerous. I think what he's going to see is that when he does that he causes other problems.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I made it very clear in the answer to my primary question that I was speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister. You see over here we try and make a Prime Minister successful not try and depose them.Rt Hon David Carter: Is that not frivolous?SPEAKER: Well I think given the fact that we had two frivolous interjections from my left and one from the right we'll just call it all square and we'll go on to question—Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. So I completely accept that my comments were out of order and your ruling sir of course as you expect in this House. But as I put something in front of my question and was punished it seems that it's quite acceptable for extra bits to be put on unnecessarily that are inciting the politicising of the answers to the questions that we're getting in this House today and that's acceptable at some level to you.SPEAKER: I think the member is absolutely aware—and yes yes people are evening it up pretty quickly—that the question she asked even after the totally unacceptable piece at the beginning was dealt with was still highly political. The rulings that a number of my predecessors have made are that when people ask those questions in a political way they should expect a political answer. With straight questions short questions I will be more interested in protecting members. We now go on to the Hon Steven Joyce. Do you want to have a go?"