Logie Jan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Logie Jan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 16 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:488. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
5. 
JAN LOGIE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: Does she have concerns that changes to the eligibility for the Training Incentive Allowance are causing single parent beneficiaries to consider working in the sex industry? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Social Development) 
 on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: No. 
Jan Logie 
: Does she think it is fair that single-parent beneficiary Tania Wysocki is reluctantly considering sex work to cover the cost of travel and childcare associated with her high-level veterinary nursing degree whereas these costs would be covered by the training incentive allowance were she studying for a lower-level course? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: I find it very difficult to accept that somebody is forced into prostitution in order to study. People may have to choose between earning an income through work and studying. There are no easy options for a solo parent but there is considerable support available as outlined in answer to the previous question. 
Jan Logie 
: Does she accept that the childcare subsidy offered to Tania Wysocki does not cover the full costs of childcare whereas the training incentive allowance would meet the additional costs beyond the subsidy? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: Ms Wysocki was quoted in an article from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and the subsidies available to Ms Wysocki are not those quoted in the  
New Zealand Herald 
. The reporter was given an indication of those subsidies orally; he chose not to write them. It is important to note that Ms Wysocki receives the equivalent of a salary of $43000 a year plus her entitlement to 20 hours’ early childhood education. I think most New Zealanders would find that an equivalent salary of $43000 is sufficient or at least reasonable. 
Jan Logie 
: Does it concern her that it took a visit with Tania’s local MP Paul Hutchison; a letter to John Key; unanswered correspondence with the Minister’s own office; multiple conversations with Work and Income; and finally media attention for Tania to receive her full benefit entitlements and that even then this offer of assistance is not enough to keep her from considering sex work as a way to make ends meet while studying? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: I refer to my answer to the previous supplementary question as to the level of assistance Ms Wysocki is getting. I also need to indicate that a Work and Income employee in giving out advice as to what level of assistance an applicant can be given is constrained by the information given by that applicant. We understand that once the full details were known as to the hours of study that she needed to do her ability to obtain childcare was raised from the 9 hours originally offered. 
Jan Logie 
: Do you accept— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! No no questions do not ask “do you accept”; they— 
Jan Logie 
: Oh OK—sorry. [ 
Interruption 
] No I am just—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Be reasonable. 
Jan Logie 
: Does the Minister accept that Tania is financially worse off studying without receiving the training incentive allowance? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: The training incentive allowance has been redirected to those people most in need. What we do know is that half the women on the domestic purposes benefit have not achieved a level of education of National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 1 or foundation course skills. So we have redirected the training incentive allowance to those people to get the best results for the investment of the taxpayers’ money. 
Jan Logie 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a direct question: is she financially worse off without receiving the training incentive allowance—a yes or no question. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order I say to members! Please I am on my feet. If I heard correctly the member asked whether or not the Minister believed the person in question was worse off without the training incentive allowance. That is seeking an opinion. But it would be helpful if the Minister did refer to the difference between someone in her position having in theory a training incentive allowance and not having a training incentive allowance rather than giving the reasons why. The Minister is giving the reasons why the Government chose it seemed to me to redirect the training incentive allowance; that was not what the question asked. It is seeking an opinion there is no precise answer and we will not insist on yes or no. But it would be helpful if the answer did refer to the question asked which is to do with whether the person is better off or not. It was even hypothetical—whether they would be better off or not with the training incentive allowance. Some reference to that would be helpful. 
Jan Logie 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just to clarify that my wording was “to accept”—and I do think there is a differentiation between “believe” and “accept”—and it is around a point of fact. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise. But it is still seeking an opinion. The member asked whether the member accepts that someone is worse off. That is not what she said when she repeated her question. When she repeated her question she said: “Is such-and-such worse off?” whereas she acknowledges now that her original question was: “Does the Minister accept …” and that is seeking an opinion. But it would be helpful if the opinion did bear some relationship to the question asked. 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: The Minister does not accept that this particular applicant is worse off under the new rules in respect of the training incentive allowance. The Minister believes that the Government assistance she receives and the assistance she could apply for leave her in a very healthy position in terms of extending her own education.