Tolley Anne: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTolley Anne: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 01 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8390. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I thought I would take a call in this debate to answer a few of the issues that have been raised to date by the Opposition in particular. First of all quite early on in the debate a number of people talked about no evidence being used to support the changes that we were making around the social obligation but I refer those members to the very compelling evidence of the effects on families and particularly on children of long-term dependence on benefits. That evidence is very clear. It is accepted evidence both nationally and internationally. Right across the OECD countries are working in the best interests to make sure that they get the best life outcomes for children and getting their parents back into paid work is one of the best ways to ensure that children are able to live successful lives. The evidence is very clear and that has been the basis on which this Government has supported getting parents back into work as quickly as we possibly can for their benefit and for the benefit of their children.Secondly there were some issues raised around the requirements that Work and Income will have for mothers of children by reducing the age to 3 and there have been some outrageous claims made. I can say with absolute confidence having talked to people all over New Zealand in Work and Income which is working with these families that it does not have hard and fast rules. Each case is considered individually. The circumstances the job the work that is available the childcare arrangements—all of those are taken into account because the Work and Income staff are just as concerned to make sure that the children are safe. They really want to help those parents into sustainable work. Those two points I think are important.That brings us to this talk about reducing the age from 5 to 3. In fact the statistics support the direction that this Government is going in. By the time their youngest child reaches 3 half of all sole parents—half of all the existing sole parents—and two-thirds of partnered mothers are in paid employment in New Zealand. That is the reality that we have now. In fact over the last 20 years the largest gain in employment for all mothers has been in the group where their youngest child is aged 3 to 4.I was interested to hear the member Poto Williams who has just resumed her seat talk about the Children’s Commissioner during the select committee consideration. In fact his very words and I quote them were: “I can’t see a good reason for the age of return to the workforce being different to people”—I would have said “from people” but however—“who are currently working than parents who are going into work for the first time from a benefit. And so 3 is a reasonable choice and 20 hours of work will increase that connection to work. So I think that those are appropriate so along as obviously the work is child friendly and the Early Childhood Education and care is accessible and high quality.”So that was the Children’s Commissioner’s comments to the select committee.I asked for a bit more information because people are asking “Where’s the evidence? Where’s the evidence?” and actually when you look internationally work obligations for parents do vary. But it was quite interesting. The Opposition often talks about Norway and how they do things in Norway. It was interesting to see that France Germany Norway and Switzerland have a work expectation for people receiving a benefit when their youngest child is 3 years of age. A range of other countries have work expectations at an earlier age including Sweden Japan and Denmark which is another country that is often quoted to us as one that we should take notice of. In Belgium Denmark Finland Japan and Sweden all sole parents are subject to a work test regardless of the child’s age. So actually what we are doing here in New Zealand is consistent with international practice.Finally I refer to the Welfare Working Group from 2011 which recommended that sole parent beneficiaries should be required to seek part-time paid work of at least 20 hours per week once their youngest child is 3 years of age. Of course we did not implement that—we did not go as far as that. But having seen then the success and the number of sole parents with children younger than 5 going into part-time work we are very confident that the obligations we are placing in this bill will have a great long-term effect for those families—for both the mothers and for their children long term. So I think the evidence has been well presented. It is very clear. It is well supported.I refer the Opposition to the comments of Dr Lance O’Sullivan who was last year’s New Zealander of the Year who supported the proposals from the Government at the time they were announced. He stated—and again we have good evidence that shows it—that children from vulnerable families at risk which we know many of those children in sole parent benefit-dependent homes are will benefit the most from having access to early childhood education. So the 20 hours’ early childhood education will provide those children with learning opportunities and with socialisation and we think that that has good long-term benefits for those children.So I repeat that I think the evidence is very clear that the direction that this Government is taking with this bill is consistent with international practice and evidence. It will have good long-term outcomes for the children.