Rich Katherine: Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Rich Katherine: Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:619;Page:14980] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 The concern that member has for the National Party is touching to say the least but we do not need the concern of that member. For those who have just tuned in that was not the latest pastor of the Destiny Church. That was not the Labour Party’s answer to Tigger. That was Pete Hodgson member for Dunedin North. What an opportunity he had to talk about this Government’s Budget but if anybody doubted the relevance of the National Party they need only see how much of that member’s time was spent talking about the National Party and how much of a concern it was to him. 
I heard Steve Maharey the Minister for Social Development and Employment speak earlier today. It was very interesting to hear him take credit for everything from a greater life expectancy in this country to reduced unemployment—even Sarah Ulmer’s gold medal. This Government cannot continue to take credit for the good things that have happened in this country yet totally absolve itself of the responsibility for some of the bad things that have happened in this country as well. 
The social report that was released a couple of days ago was an absolute joke. It picked up on a few key statistics but failed to tell the real story about what is going on in this country. It did not make any mention of the fact that close to 35 percent of young women in Auckland who go on the domestic purposes benefit do not name the father of their child. It did not make any mention of the fact that many of the people who have come off the unemployment benefit have casually moved over to the invalids benefit or the sickness benefit. It certainly made no mention of the fact that the numbers on both those benefits have increased dramatically under Labour’s tenure. 
So rather than the Government having a lot of things to crow about there are a lot of things that it should have addressed in this Budget but were not touched on at all. Let us talk about a few things that have gone wrong for this Government. Let us talk about the disaster that is the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. Why in the last 6 months has it failed to answer 11000 calls from concerned New Zealanders who have phoned because they have been worried about a New Zealand child? People do not ring that department for fun. They ring because they have genuine concerns about children and to get nothing more than a dial tone and to have to hang up because they cannot get an answer is not fair to those people who ring nor is it fair to New Zealand children. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Absolute rubbish! 
KATHERINE RICH 
: There she goes! The “Minister of Champagne Flutes and Smoked Salmon Canapés” wakes up to make a comment. I ask that Minister what she says to New Zealanders who ring Child Youth and Family Services to raise a concern about a child and do not even get an answer. They do not even get someone on the other end of the phone to answer their call. It is a shambles and a disaster and it is no wonder that we see child after child on the 6 o’clock news as the latest headline. Ron Burrows rang. His call lasted more than 24 minutes and how was that call summarised under this Government? Two words. It did not even become a notification. It is an absolute shambles. 
Darren Hughes 
: What’s your policy? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: National does have some policies in the area of Child Youth and Family Services I say in answer to the translucent member for Otaki. We believe that a call centre is not the way to manage the thousands of calls to Child Youth and Family Services and that we need to go back to having local child protection teams so that local knowledge can play a part in making a judgment. 
Four years ago Judge Mick Brown put out a report that was a great piece of work. He told this Government that it needed to reduce the unallocated case list to zero within 6 months and the Government signed up to that. And what is the unallocated case list at the moment? It is over 4000. Somebody has phoned up to share a concern about those children. They have become a notification and their notes sit there in a file in an in tray unallocated to a social worker. It is an absolute disgrace. While this Government continues to put out blueprints and baseline reviews and workshop after study children wait for a social worker to pick up their file. We have also seen the absolute disgrace— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member has been interjecting right though this debate and then she made the comment “That was disgusting.” That was unparliamentary and I ask—[ 
Interruption 
] She has been interjecting and I draw your attention to the Standing Orders and ask that she apologise for those comments. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I was going to refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 56/1 which states that interjections must be rare reasonable and relevant. I ask the member to desist. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: It is interesting that that member is making a few comments because it is clear to me that she is more at ease sipping champagne at the latest arts function than talking about the hard issues about maltreatment of children in this country. It just goes to show what the priorities of this Government are. This Government’s priority is sipping champagne and eating smoked salmon rather than dealing with the maltreatment of children. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Prior to the dinner break we were discussing the Government’s latest Budget this legislation and the Working for Families package. Well this Budget did not work for families. If anything it will drive more families into welfare dependency and increase the queues. Since when has making families who earn up to $100000 a year dependent on the State been something to crow about? Since when has raising the effective marginal tax rate for families so that when they earn another $20000 they get to keep only $3000 of it been something to crow about? We will see a lot of people being put into the situation whereby they are motivated not to go out and do a bit of overtime and not to go out and get that second job because it is simply not worth it. The Government is going to keep the majority of the tax as it claws back some of the benefits that those families presently enjoy. 
What we have also seen recently is the Government crowing about its Jobs Jolts programme. We heard the Minister say he was going to get tough on people who moved to remote areas. Well that is all very interesting but in response to a parliamentary question the Minister told me that Work and Income is not currently collecting any data on how many people move to remote areas. So it cannot tell me whether anybody has been sanctioned as a result of moving into a remote area. Mr Maharey said the Government was going to get tough on people who failed drug tests and job opportunities and sabotaged job interviews. Well he tells me he is unsure whether anybody has faced a sanction as a result of failing a job drug test because Work and Income is not collecting any of that data. 
The Opposition has long believed that the Jobs Jolt programme is nothing more than a “Jobs Joke”. It is all smoke and mirrors and it is all designed to look as if the Government is doing something but very little information is being collected. So much for evidence-based research. Really the Government is looking at putting a political spin on things as opposed to doing something. 
One of the things the Government has glossed over of course is the number of women—they are mainly women—on the domestic purposes benefit. I think it is an absolute disgrace that in Auckland one-third of all young women going on to the domestic purposes benefit will not name the father of their child so that the taxpayer can collect child support. I understand there are sometimes some good reasons not to name the father but I do not believe that one in three young women who go on to that benefit does not know who fathered her child. Work and Income actually admits that 21 percent of those people who face a deduction on the domestic purposes benefit not only know the name of the father but that it is also on file at Work and Income. So Work and Income has the name of the father either on a birth certificate or on file somewhere but because the mother will not sign the appropriate form Work and Income cannot then pass it on to the Inland Revenue Department so that child support cannot be collected. 
Jill Pettis 
: National hates success. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: That member talks about success. I do not think that raising child support debt to nearly $1 billion is something to crow about. There is nearly $1 billion of unpaid child support debt and in the meantime while the member sits there and shouts children are not having their soccer boots paid for they are not getting their music lessons and they are not having their school camp fees paid for.