Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTurei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 29 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10482. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]3.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “I am deeply concerned about every child in New Zealand who is in poverty”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Metiria Turei: Given that 21 percent of New Zealand children are currently living in material deprivation by which date does the Prime Minister expect that that number will reduce to just 15 percent?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have any modelling to be able to answer the member’s question.Metiria Turei: Which of the 78 recommendations from the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty has his Government implemented to date?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have an exact timetable of how many we have implemented to date but I know that we have adopted or broadly supported two-thirds of the 78 recommendations.Metiria Turei: How can the public take the Prime Minister seriously regarding his comment that he is deeply concerned about every New Zealand child who is in poverty when he has no information as to how to measure that rate of poverty or a target for its reduction and cannot name the specific recommendations that his Government is implementing from theSolutions to Child Poverty in New Zealand report produced by the Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member will notice that the Ministerial Committee on Poverty issued its recommendations in relation to the expert advisory group’s report. In that it summarises what the Government has been doing. I think if the member is genuinely interested in what the Government is actually doing to help vulnerable children she will read it. I do not expect her to understand or to have at the tip of her fingers every single thing the Government has been doing but let me just run through a few. I do have them so let me just run through them. Given the member has asked I will be more fulsome in my answer.For rheumatic fever we put $21.3 million in over the last 4 years. In Budget 2013 we doubled that by another $24 million. In home insulation in Budget 2013 alone we put $100 million in over the next 3 years and that will be targeting low-income families in need. That will add on to the 215000 homes that we insulated at a cost of over $300 million. We are looking at a warrant of fitness for rental properties. We are trialling it on Housing New Zealand properties. The member will be aware that when it comes to Housing New Zealand the Government is not only building more State houses but will add 3000 additional bedrooms to try to give relief to the issue of overcrowding. The Government is targeting early childhood education for low-income families. The member will be aware that the Government has a stated target of getting that to 98 percent for all New Zealand families and is doing pretty well. We are going into exploring the options for low-interest or no-interest loans through microfinancing. The member will be aware that that is one of the issues these families do face. The member will be aware that yesterday we—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is quite a sufficiently long answer.Metiria Turei: Is the Government implementing the recommendation of the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty that it set targets to reduce child poverty covering both the short term and the longer term to be reviewed at least every 3 years; if not why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think it is the Government’s view that we should set a target. I think the Government’s view is that we should address the issue of poverty through a series of measures. That includes amongst other things trying to ensure that as many New Zealanders who want jobs can get jobs. One of the biggest issues that comes through on this issue is that if a family is on a benefit then it is highly likely that those children will be in the deprivation that the member talks about. We know that about 60 percent of those vulnerable children are in benefit-based households. On that basis then it is worth mentioning these two facts—if we were to look at Working for Families and the way that that works in relation to people on a benefit someone who was a sole parent with three children and not working would get $517 a week from the benefit and from Working for Families. In addition to that they would get an accommodation supplement of up to $225 a week. So it could be expected that their weekly income would be $742 a week from the Government or $38584. Equally it is worth looking at if that family was a very low-income family—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Surely the Prime Minister is just dragging on the answer to this question. All it needs is a succinct statement of a number of facts not a long tedious answer that would put Mogadon out of business.Mr SPEAKER: I think—Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Mr Speaker very often we come to the House and the honourable member gets on his feet to tell the House that the Ministers have not been—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am hearing a point of order.Hon Annette King: What is it?Mr SPEAKER: That is what I am trying to find out.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —addressing the question fully or providing the facts and information. In no way have I attempted in answering the member’s question to be facetious or smart or in any way political. I was simply giving her the facts of what has been going on with the Government.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am ruling on the first point made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I think on this occasion in response to a supplementary question the answer was quite sufficiently long enough. On that basis are there further—Hon Gerry Brownlee: The question was therefore unreasonable.Mr SPEAKER: The question was accepted as reasonable. I am now accepting a further supplementary question from Metiria Turei.Metiria Turei: Is the Government implementing the recommendation of the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty to review all child-related benefits and to implement a universal child payment; if not why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No the Government will not be adopting that recommendation. The Government does not believe that it is either currently affordable or the right approach.Metiria Turei: Is the Government implementing the recommendation of the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty that the remaining 700000 uninsulated or poorly insulated homes are properly insulated given that he plans to insulate less than 10 percent of that number over the next 3 years and if he does not intend to insulate the full number why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If this Government is in office for a very long period of time it is eminently possible we will actually get to the point where we insulate every home. If you look at it on the basis that we have been operating under we insulated 215000 homes in the first 3 years and we have indicated we will be insulating another 46000 homes for very low-income New Zealanders through this Budget. We have also indicated that we will be insulating every State house that can actually be insulated. That is a very impressive record. I say to the member that she should look at the partners that she is cuddling up to—that is the only way that she will get warmth because they did not insulate any homes when they were in office.Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Ministry of Health that incomes are so inadequate that nearly a quarter of Kiwi families run out of money for food and is it his view that dropping off milk and Weet-Bix at the school gate is a sufficient solution to income inadequacy?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No I do not think that providing breakfast for children across New Zealand is the sole answer to income issues. I do think though that it is a comprehensive response inasmuch as every single New Zealand child will be offered breakfast in school. Let me make this point about income inadequacy and what the Government is doing in very difficult times. Let us take someone who is a full-time worker with a family of three children—one full-time earner and that person earns the minimum wage which is $13.75 an hour. The member would argue strongly that that is not enough. We would all agree that it would be great over time to see the minimum wage go up. That person would earn $28600 from their wages. Actually they would pay about $4000 in tax leaving them a net $24024. We would all agree that that is not nearly enough. This Government through Working for Families then supports them with $282 a week. It continues to support them with an income-related accommodation supplement of $225 a week. So what is the net effect? The net effect is that someone earning $28600 a year gross even before tax takes home over $46000. That is the system that provides a lot of support relative to the OECD for low-income families.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member. The Prime Minister appeared to be quoting from an official document and therefore I ask that he table it.Mr SPEAKER: Is the Prime Minister quoting from an official document?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister says he is not quoting from an official document.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: These are my briefing notes but I am more than happy to give the member the documents about—Grant Robertson: Just table the whole thing. That’d be great. Thanks.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Not the whole document; I am more than happy to give him the bit about how they earn $46000.Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is not an official document. If the Prime Minister wants to table it he can seek leave to table it.Metiria Turei: If the Prime Minister is so deeply concerned about the children in New Zealand who live in poverty why has his Government been prepared to give the elite Wanganui Collegiate School $3 million a year but will not even budget $2 million a year to feed the thousands of New Zealand children who go to school hungry?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly the Government yesterday rolled out a comprehensive solution. Every New Zealand child who wants breakfast will by 2014 have that breakfast in a New Zealand school that accepts the programme. Just because a programme is very efficient to run—run with the private sector run with the generosity of communities—does not mean that it is not a good programme. If the judging is just on spending the most amount of money which seems to be the way the Greens do things then of course it is not a winner. But if it comes to maximising taxpayers’ returns for very good results for young New Zealand children then actually it is a very good programme.