3. Child Poverty—Efficacy of Government Measures to Address and Hardship-related HospitalisationsANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime MinisterChild Poverty—Efficacy of Government Measures to Address and Hardship-related Hospitalisations3. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Is the Government doing a good job at ensuring the health and well-being of every New Zealand child?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): I believe the Government is doing a good job of ensuring the health and well-being of most New Zealand children but there are children for whom we should be—and are—doing more. No Government has spent more time understanding in gritty detail the persistent deprivation and hardship of some New Zealand children and that is why we took two steps. One was the extra $25 a week for all beneficiary families with children starting on 1 April last year. That is also why the Government from 1 April will have a new children's agency to revamp the care of the children who come into the care of the State.Andrew Little: Is he concerned that the Salvation Army and now today the Children's Commissioner say there is no evidence his Government's policies have had any impact on reducing child poverty?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I disagree with them for two reasons—for two reasons. One is that the Salvation Army measures published do not take into account the first increase in welfare benefits in 40 years over and above Consumers Price Index inflation—[Interruption] Well it just did not count it because it has not covered that period yet. The second reason is this: there are now 40000 fewer children in benefit-dependent households than 3 years ago—40000 fewer children in benefit-dependent households than 3 years ago. The Children's Commissioner and the Salvation Army may not regard that as progress; we certainly do and so do the families who work so hard to get themselves off benefit and into work.Andrew Little: Does he agree with the Children's Commissioner that the current level of child poverty is unacceptable and is he concerned that the Children's Commissioner found no evidence his policies are making a difference?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said I do not actually agree with the Children's Commissioner. I do not believe he is taking into account actual changes for children and the change in approach that the Government is taking which is twofold: first to increase incomes where that is possible in a number of ways including lifting benefit levels and lifting the minimum wage; and alongside that to dig into the multigenerational cycles of criminal offending child abuse and welfare dependency which afflict the lives of far too many children. That is why we are changing the way the Government does business ranging from family violence policy to the new children's agency to break those cycles.Andrew Little: Why does he continue to say that the increase in benefit levels implemented by his Government and increases in the minimum wage which have now been completely wiped out by increases in housing costs according to the Salvation Army are somehow this panacea to child poverty when every other element of evidence says it clearly is not?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Unlike the member we do not think there is a simple panacea to child poverty because a lot of it is to do with deeply ingrained patterns which the Government has actually reinforced in some cases and now we are trying to change that. But if the member thinks that $25 a week is worth nothing to those households then he ought to get a bit more realistic about what their lives are like. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The interchange here—[Interruption] Order!Hon Annette King: Sorry Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate that.Andrew Little: I am obliged Mr Speaker. How can he say—the Prime Minister that is—that his Government is doing well for New Zealand's children when we have more homeless children than ever before and including now children living under tarpaulins?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I mentioned when I think the member or someone else raised the case yesterday that apparently there were some children living under a tarpaulin somewhere this is a country that has the resources to be able to meet that kind of very serious housing need. Of course a rise in house prices has put some pressure on housing costs in families. That is why we look forward to the Labour Party's support for the changes in the Resource Management Act and other changes in local government to make sure we can get more houses on the ground faster because that is what those families need.Andrew Little: Is he satisfied that in National's 9th year in Government more than 41000 children are admitted to hospital with diseases linked to hardship and when will he accept that his cuts to health services are causing this problem?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. In fact a feature of this Government's pursuit of social policy is relentless dissatisfaction. There is always more that can be done particularly for our most complex and vulnerable families. So for instance in the case of hospital admissions the rheumatic fever project has been pretty successful. We have cut rheumatic fever rates by around 40 percent over 3 years with a pretty complex set of solutions and we are going to continue down that path with that particular problem and cut hospital admissions.Andrew Little: When we have 90000 children in New Zealand living in the worst kind of poverty is it not time that he showed some leadership put politics aside and picked up the Children's Commissioner's call to lead a cross-party plan to reduce child poverty in New Zealand?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the last thing those families are waiting for is a cross-party plan that includes the participation of one party that is pulling itself apart over picking one mediocre candidate. I do not think they will be able to contribute that much to a child poverty plan. What those children need is more of what the Government is doing and that is raising their incomes and working with those families to break the cycles of dependency.