Rich Katherine: Social Security (Child Benefit) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Rich Katherine: Social Security (Child Benefit) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12697] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 The National Party does not support this member’s bill—not because we have a disinterest in children or are disinterested in child welfare and protection but because we do not think the bill really takes the country any further in trying to deal with some of the tough issues we face as a nation. This bill states that the child benefit is a must to: “… restore a benefit that is necessary for the protection and development of New Zealand children.” 
We have seen no evidence that giving families another $15 a week will make that sort of difference and protect some of the children we have seen in the headlines just in the last few months. Over the weekend we saw the McLachlan family in the news. That family earns $55000 a year. Although this child benefit would return some money to them in a sense we are looking at just another way of income churning. We are taking money off many New Zealand working families only to give it back to them in another form. 
We have a system at the moment that is incredibly complicated and complex. Very few New Zealand families understand the way it works. We have family support a family tax credit and childcare subsidies. Tonight we are debating whether to add a child benefit to that system. We are taking money from people only to give it back to them. On this side of the House we believe that New Zealanders are better able to determine how they want to spend the money they earn. We think there are better initiatives in terms of reducing taxes to give people the opportunity to decide how they want to spend their money. We do not see that just continually whittling away the amounts that New Zealanders earn by taking it from them spending it on administration and then handing it back takes the country any further ahead. I understand some of the good stories about the family benefit in the 1960s and 1970s but it is a different world today. I do not think that $15 a week would have made one skerrick of difference to the Saliel Aplins the Coral-Ellen Burrowses and the families that have unfortunately been brought to the nation’s attention. 
The problem with this bill is that we cannot guarantee this money will be spent on children. We have seen no evidence—certainly no evidence presented in the explanatory note—that this will make a big difference to some children in terms of their protection development and welfare. We are looking at a sum of about $780 a year. Why not give that back to families in taxes? Why not give that back to them so they can spend it on things that are important to them? At the moment we are a country that faces all sorts of problems. We have children lining up because they cannot get grommet operations. They sit in classrooms and cannot hear the teachers so hello it is no surprise that we are unable to get good outcomes from our education system. But in terms of the child benefit that we are debating tonight all that is just small potatoes. 
Some of the biggest issues this country faces come from the fact that we have 250000 children living in welfare-dependent homes. One of the things we know is that in those welfare-dependent homes there is not a lot of extra money to spend on the things that many middle-class families aspire to give their children—the soccer boots the school camps the school fees the music lessons etc. Giving families $15 a week will not make a big difference. I think we should look at some of the more macroeconomic issues and also look at returning a greater amount of money through the tax system. 
It is very interesting to hear the Minister Steve Maharey dish out some of the rhetoric that I believe Sue Bradford was referring to when she made her initial speech. Sure he can talk about some of the benefit cuts that were made in the 1990s but is it not interesting that Labour has not reversed any of those decisions? Labour understands the importance of the difference between welfare and work and the motivations that any country has to provide for people to ensure they move on to a better way of life. 
This side of the House will support things that will make a genuine difference to children and that is why we are working pretty hard to raise a lot of issues about the Department of Child Youth and Family Services such as the fact that there are 6000 children who have not even had their cases allocated to a social worker. That is where we think some of the focus should be—not on this sort of piecemeal initiative.