Ball Darroch: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBall Darroch: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3531. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DARROCH BALL (NZ First): It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to address this bill. We will be opposing the bill for a couple of very good reasons. Before I get into the reasons why I would like to go back to the actual speech that the Minister of Finance gave today.Delivering Better Public Services: put aside for a second the actual Public Service targets that this Government has which it established in 2008 which have never been independently reviewed and which I have asked both Minister Tolley and the Minister of Finance about having reviewed and have been refused. Put that aside. There is a quotation here from a speech given earlier today which I would like to share. I think it gives a definite perspective to the priority that this Government has. It goes like this: “We’re willing to pay a bit more upfront to get real sustainable change and in doing so we can generate significant long-term savings for the Crown.” In the same sentence in the same breath we have Mr English purporting that the intent of his bill is to have some real sustainable change for the future but in the same breath he is mentioning the long-term savings for the Crown. And that set up the theme of his speech today under delivering Better Public Services for this country. Because in every single sentence he said in every single paragraph the Budget was about cost-cutting it was about saving it was about dressing up the real needs and the real changes that need to happen to solve child poverty—one of the major priorities that he said the Government was going to have—into cost-cutting measures and long-term savings for the Crown.I would also like to give a little bit of perspective to this bill and to the speech that Mr English gave today by using a little bit of a measuring stick. In regard to the child hardship package which recognises lower-income working parents the total package is around $240 million in each full year. The measuring stick that I would like to use is the flag referendum which will cost just under $30 million. That is more than 10 percent of the total that this package is going to cost each year. Where is the priority of this Government? He goes on to say that the Budget also provides a new operating fund of $36 million. We have got a flag referendum of just under $30 million: where is the priority of this Government in dealing seriously with child hardship? We have new funding for the existing Children’s Team that he was talking about. It gives an extra $23 million. That is even less than what is going towards the flag referendum. So where is the priority that Mr English purported he had for solving child poverty for giving more to the needy in our country? New Zealand First says that it evaporated as soon as he opened his mouth.The questions that came out of both the bill and the speech that was delivered today were first of all: why have these changes occurred? Was it because there was a need for them to occur? Was it because the Government can now afford for them to occur? Or was it because the Government really has no choice but to make those changes now? What rolls out of that is: why has it taken 7 years in Government for these changes to occur? Increasing the minimum benefit levels is a step in the right direction as we have heard from a couple of my colleagues in the House already. But the step that has been taken—is it enough? Of course it is not. New Zealand First believes that there should be a minimum social floor that no one should fall below. It should not be a reward. It should not be a punishment. That is what is happening at the moment. That is what this Government delivered in the Budget speech today. The benefit should be a safety net. It should be strong it should have integrity and it should have the ability to not allow people to slip through and live in poverty. That is what is happening right now and that is what will happen even after these Budget changes occur. The Government has the absolute responsibility to not allow supported poverty to occur. That is what has been happening and that is why it will continue to happen with this Budget.The Minister also talked about investment in the front end and I would like to quote: “We’re willing to pay”—like I said before—“a bit more upfront to get real sustainable change”. But what this is is plugging the gap. We have heard about a plaster over a wound but this is plugging a gap with the minimum amount of financial assistance. This is addressing the symptoms; it is not addressing the causes. New Zealand First believes that the major priority should be investing in the front end before individuals need to end up being caught by that safety net. The priorities should be investing in our youth and our young people especially unemployed youth and young people. That is the front-end investment. The KiwiSaver kick-start contribution is an example of front-end investment and that is now gone. Job creation for our young people is front-end investment and that is now gone. What we have here is a carrot-and-stick approach from this Government. It is quite simple: the number of unemployed youthis at one of the highest levels that we have had. It is steady and has not changed over the last 7 years that the National Party has been in Government. Unemployed youth will become unemployed adults. And as the Minister himself said today two-thirds of all children in material hardship are living with a parent on a benefit. That is the end result. That is the symptom. So why is this Government concentrating on the end symptom and not the cause and not on investing in the real front end of this issue?I would also just like to mention Working for Families and families earning $36000 a year. Low-income working families earning $36000 a year before tax will get $12.50 a weekextra but what does that mean in real terms? It is just over a 1 percent increase. If we compare that for example with the cost of fruit and vegies that cost has increased by 5 percent in just the last 12 months. Again where is the priority of this Government? The restrictions that are being put in place for people on benefits are cost-saving measures dressed up as help and encouragement. With the sole parent restrictions sole parents are in fact the group that is getting positive results right now. They have the highest number of exits off that benefit and the lowest number of entries. What the Government wants to do is make the sole parent benefit like the job seeker benefit. But the job seekers group has one of the worst results. Where is the logic in that? Carmel Sepuloni mentioned the impact of parents having to go back to work when their child is 3 years old and not 5 years old. Let us take a step back for a second and forget about whether that is the right or the wrong thing to do and let us ask what the social impact is for that child. What is the social cost for that child of the parent leaving the house when the child is 3 years old instead of 5 years old? Once the Government answers that question it will also see the priority that it has when dealing with child poverty and with the needy and the vulnerable in our society.As I said the increase in the benefit is part of the solution; it is not a plan and it is not the answer. I am looking forward to discussing this bill robustly in the Social Services Committee but at this stage New Zealand First cannot support this bill.