King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:662;Page:10657] 
4. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does she stand by her statement “We absolutely believe that work is the best way out of poverty for people and we are going to back them and support them into those jobs every time”? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes and I also stand by the rest of the quote: “It’s going to be done with fairness it’s going to be done with a level of support that I think beneficiaries haven’t seen before. But there are going to be mutual obligations and expectations as well.” 
Hon Annette King 
: What confidence can parents have in her when she promised before the election that National in Government would retain all existing subsidies and fee controls and would deliver cheaper childcare to parents but within months of becoming Minister she breaks that promise and is taking away childcare assistance aimed at helping families to get ahead? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It is quite good that months later members of the Labour Party have read the papers that identify the changes— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not an appropriate way to start answering a question. The Minister was asked a question about the Government’s position. She should not start her answer by talking about the Opposition saying that it is quite good that the Labour Party might have done something. That is not the way to start answering a question. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Currently families on incomes of nearly $100000 can get childcare assistance via Work and Income. We are raising the abatement thresholds as the member might have known if she had read the papers. The papers say that beneficiaries can have their assistance increased from $80 to $100 a week. Approximately 28000 parents will be better off. We are taking those abatement thresholds back to the 2008 levels. That is something I support. 
Hon Annette King 
: When she said at the weekend that she makes “informed decisions” who informed her that a family with three children with both parents working and both parents earning around the average wage of $49000 are high-income earners and therefore should have their childcare assistance cut? Is that the new definition of a high-income earner under a National Government? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: To deal with actual numbers I point out that those households were earning $99320 and could get childcare assistance. We are taking that level down to $93600. As I said previously more than 28000 people will gain from the abatement thresholds this Government is bringing in. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Can the Minister comment on policies that have tried to address long-term dependency? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The last 10 years have been marked by feeble half-hearted attempts to tackle welfare dependency. In fact the Auditor-General’s report said that the changes the previous Labour Government made did not go far enough to have a real impact. We certainly saw that in the numbers of both sickness and invalids beneficiaries which went up by 50 percent in that 9-year period. 
Sue Moroney 
: Did the Minister receive official advice that her proposal to retarget childcare assistance income thresholds would reduce the income of childcare providers and reduce children’s participation in early childhood education? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I received a high level of advice on this policy because we looked at it really closely. To be clear I point out that it has been grandparented for 3 years. Approximately 2137 people will not be eligible for the assistance but others will be and we believe that that is fair and reasonable. More than 28000 people will gain from the increased abatement thresholds. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your assistance. I asked a very specific question of the Minister and she failed to address it at any level. The question was about whether she had received official advice on two issues. One issue was that the income of childcare providers would be reduced and the second was that children’s participation in early childhood education would be reduced. She failed to address either of those questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member wants me to assist with obtaining an answer she has to choose which question she is going to ask. I listened to the member’s question and I listened to the Minister’s answer and it seemed to me that the Minister did try to answer the question. The member has admitted that she asked two questions in a supplementary question. Members are not meant to do that. I can be of more assistance if only one clear question is asked. 
Sue Moroney 
: Does the Minister accept that her proposal reduces the funding for childcare by $57 million over 4 years and will affect more than 11000 families thereby increasing the childcare costs of those families by more than $5000 on average? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes I take into account that the initiative will save $57 million over 4 years. We have decided that we will put that money into abatement thresholds so that it goes to those who need it most those who can get out there and earn a bit of money for their own pockets gain a work ethic gain a job and get further ahead. I will back them every time. 
Sue Moroney 
: I seek leave of the House to table a document. It is a Cabinet social policy committee document on the Future Focus programme outlining the official advice the Minister received that children’s participation in early childhood education would reduce and so would the income of childcare providers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I seek leave to table the document that states quite clearly at the top of it that there were changes to childcare assistance—something the Labour Party said was hidden. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the document? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It is an official document on Future Focus and benefit changes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have called Rahui Katene for a supplementary question. I ask members to please show her some courtesy. [ 
Interruption 
] I apologise to the member; the Hon Annette King and the Hon Paula Bennett will cease their exchange and show some courtesy to Rahui Katene. 
Rahui Katene 
: Has the Minister seen the recommendation from the Child Poverty Action Group that the Government could use the opportunity of the tax reforms to improve incomes for beneficiaries with children by immediately extending the in-work tax credit to all low-income children and will she stand up for these children and support them to get out of poverty by advocating with the Minister of Finance for this to happen? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Shivers! I am so sorry Mr Speaker; I was a little distracted by the front-bench member on the other side. I do apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What has been demonstrated here is what I was concerned about. The exchange across the House between the Hon Annette King and the Hon Paula Bennett was distracting the House it was unfair to Rahui Katene who was not being shown courtesy and the Minister did not listen to her question. I invite Rahui Katene to repeat the question. 
Rahui Katene 
: Has the Minister seen the recommendation from the Child Poverty Action Group that the Government could use the opportunity of the tax reforms to improve incomes for beneficiaries with children by immediately extending the in-work tax credit to all low-income children and will she stand up for these children and support them to get out of poverty by advocating with the Minister of Finance for this to happen? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: My apologies to the member for not listening to her previously. Yes I have seen the report and I suppose this is where we stand quite differently. I certainly stand by families that are getting into work and are earning more money and having children live in those sorts of households. I do not want just to increase those benefits making people become even more benefit-dependent.