Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 15 May 2008. Volume:647;Page:16010. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What work if any is the Government doing within the benefit system to directly address issues identified in the Ministry of Social Development report  
Pockets 
of significant hardshipandpoverty 
? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 This Government’s huge investment in the Working for Families package is designed to significantly reduce poverty and early results show it is delivering to families and is making a difference. Forty-six percent of the 371000 families receiving support through Working for Families tax credits in the last tax year were beneficiaries who received three of the four main elements of the Working for Families package. Three-quarters of those receiving tax credits had incomes under $50000. Our Government is committed to supporting New Zealand families and we will continue to identify ways to target that support at those most in need. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister accept the findings of her own ministry’s report that beneficiaries are worse off now than they were in the wake of the 1991 benefit cuts; if so will she be pushing to lift core benefit levels in line with Labour’s public commitment to a fair and just society? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As I am sure the member is aware the information to which she referred in both her primary and supplementary question was based on 2004 data which was prior to the introduction and delivery of the Working for Families package. The comparability of benefits to wages is able to be viewed in a number of ways. Of course during the 1990s when we saw the minimum wage frozen except for a one-off increase of 87.5c and benefits increased in line with the CPI adjustment only that difference was not as large as it currently is. Wages have increased at a more rapid rate in the last 8 years than benefits have. That is why there is that difference.  
Sue Moroney 
: What reports has the Minister seen regarding the Government’s progress in reducing the number of families living in poverty? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I have seen a report where the Government’s Working for Families package is described by social policy researcher Charles Waldegrave as “the greatest redistribution of wealth—downwards—we’ve had in 30 years.” I have also seen a report from the Child Poverty Action Group that indicated that child poverty in New Zealand is the result of policies implemented by the National Government in the 1990s. The report identified areas of progress made by this Government including “substantial reductions in poverty as a result of the Working for Families package”. It also clearly identified areas where there is still work to do to eliminate child poverty. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister recall that this Government promised in 2002 to make the elimination of child poverty a core policy and its top social priority yet 6 years later 185000 children have been identified as living in poverty and beneficiary families are worse off now than they were in 1991—could the record of failure get even worse? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It is bitter irony having questions like that which are suddenly supportive of beneficiaries from that member and her party. Since Labour has had the privilege of leading this Government the number of New Zealand children living in poverty has been reduced by 130000. We do not have elimination of child poverty but a reduction in the number of children living in poverty by 130000 is something we should be proud of and we should be resolved to continue to reduce that number because having children living in poverty in our country is not acceptable. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: Given the recognition of the problems of the cuts to benefits in the “mother of all Budgets” and the poverty generated by that and also the position of New Zealand at fourth bottom out of 25 rich countries in relation to child poverty what is this Government doing to look at reinstating the equivalent of benefit levels prior to 1990? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The total package of Government support provided for our poorest families includes not only income support but also help to reduce essential costs such as doctors’ fees prescription charges and childcare and also individually tailored intervention to help families meet their needs. I know as that member is well aware that those particular supports in relation to access to doctors and childcare have been particularly advantageous for Pasifika families. We have also ensured that the incomes for beneficiary families have kept pace with inflation. In regard to the OECD figures that the member referred to he will be pleased to know that with the reduction in child poverty as a result of our increased employment and also the Working for Families package it is estimated that we will have moved New Zealand’s position from the bottom quarter of the OECD to the top half in relation to child poverty. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Why is it as reported on page 4 of  
Pockets of significant hardship and poverty 
 that being Maori or Pasifika “increased the likelihood of experiencing severe or significant poverty and hardship.”? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It is true that for many years in our country those in the lowest socio-economic level have also been Maori and Pasifika. I do not accept that race determines socio-economic status at all but it is clear that there is a link between poverty and Maori families. That is why we have put a particular focus not just on the specific areas of delivery of income support but also on the methods of delivery because we know that access to social service which was widely available was not accessed by Maori and Pasifika unless it was delivered by Maori and Pacific groups. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister accept that basing the annual increase in benefit levels on the CPI is a totally inadequate way of doing it especially now at this time of steeply increasing fuel food transport and other costs and will the Government take urgent measures to reduce the gap between wages and benefit levels by for example linking benefit rates to a fixed percentage of the average wage which is what happens already for superannuitants; should not our beneficiaries be treated with the same equity and decency as our older generation? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I agree with the primary point of the member’s question which is that a number of our low-income families particularly people on benefits are feeling financial stress at the moment and our Government is committed to continue to look at ways of addressing that. I do not believe that a blunt measure such as linking benefits to wages would necessarily address the issue the member is raising because if we had a National-led Government we would end up with the same situation we had in the 1990s when wages were suppressed and benefits having been cut were then adjusted only in line with the CPI. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: In light of the Minister’s answer to me what are the systemic barriers that increase the likelihood of experiencing severe or significant poverty and hardship? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I might repeat the points I made in the answer to my primary question but the member is aware of them so I will not insult him by doing that. But I can say that one of the areas of which I am most proud is that this Government at particular political risk has ensured that all our interventions and the outcomes are publicly measured and therefore accountable through the  
Social Report 
. That was an initiative that our Government took so that we now have nearly a decade of reporting of the interventions that the Government has invested taxpayers’ funds in delivering and of the outcomes that have been achieved. We can see the results that we have made through these interventions and we can better focus on the areas in which we need to do more work. 
Sue Bradford 
: Will the Minister give urgent consideration to restoring a discretion that was lost to the benefit system when the special benefit was abolished especially in light of the findings of this report; if not why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I will not make a commitment to any particular intervention but I will make a commitment to ensuring that continued work is delivered to address the financial needs of those in most hardship.