Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMoroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 30 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19664. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.SUE MORONEY (Labour)to the Minister for Social Development: How many children were in households affected by the 15079 sanctions against people receiving benefits with dependent children since her welfare reforms were introduced on 15 July 2013?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development):The number the member refers to is the number of sanctions applied not the number of beneficiaries. This is because beneficiaries can have sanctions applied to them more than once. We know there is at least one child living in each of these households but the total number of children per household is not centrally collated. It is held in individual case files and could not be compiled in time to answer this question. However what we do know is that people often quickly re-comply so the number of sanctions in place at any one time is much lower. For example at the end of June 2014 there were 575 households with children being sanctioned. This does not necessarily mean—Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order might be obsolete now but the Minister said that she did not know the answer to my question and I fail to see why she continued.Mr SPEAKER: I accept that the Minister answered that she could not answer it exactly because it is a massive job to collate the information but I would have expected the member to appreciate that the Minister was attempting to give quite relevant information which certainly was of interest to me if not to the member herself. I would be grateful if we could hear the answer. Has the Minister now completed the answer?Hon PAULA BENNETT: No that is fine.Sue Moroney: Why does the Minister for Social Development not want to know how many children are affected by her policy to halve their parents’ benefit reducing the household income by $150 per week?Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I was trying to tell her it is at a point in time so what we do know is that actually when a sanction is applied it does not necessarily mean that they lose money out of their benefit. Most actually re-comply—Hon Member: Yes it does.Hon PAULA BENNETT: No it does not actually. What it means is that most actually re-comply in a relatively short period of time and it does not actually affect their benefit payment.Sue Moroney: Does she realise that cutting the household income by $149 a week means that children go hungry doctors visits are cancelled prescriptions are not picked up power is cut off because the bill cannot be paid and families get behind in their rent payments; and is this the brighter future she promised?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Actually the brighter future we promised is having 30000 fewer kids on welfare now than there were 2 years ago. What we promised is the lowest number of sole parents on benefit that we have seen for nearly 20 years. Before any sanction is applied a person is told that they have failed their obligation and they are given 5 days to re-comply. If they re-comply in that period they will not be sanctioned.Sue Moroney: What if they don’t?Hon PAULA BENNETT: And if they do not their sanction then applies but if they can re-comply between that and their benefit payment being made a week later then it does not affect their actual benefit.Sue Moroney: And you have no interest in knowing what the impact is.Hon PAULA BENNETT: Actually it is very fair and reasonable to expect people to turn up for their appointments and to actually be looking for work if that is the expectation.Sue Moroney: Well what is her explanation then for the fact that in the latest household income report we now have the highest proportion of children in severe poverty this century?Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is about helping those people into work and seeing their incomes increase. As I have stated we have fewer sole parents on benefits now than we have had for over 20 years. That substantially makes a difference to them their children and their community and we will back them into work because quite frankly the hand-wringing sympathy of the Labour Party does not work for them.Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very clear. It was asking her for an explanation for the fact that in the latest household income report we have now got the highest proportion of children in severe poverty. The Minister’s answer was denying that fact.Mr SPEAKER: No. The Minister answered by saying that in her explanation it was helping people into work.Sue Moroney: Well if she is going to deny that then has she asked for any advice or reports about the plight of the 5822 people who have had their entire benefit stopped under her welfare reforms in the year ended June 2014 and whether that has contributed to the increased homelessness to the increased begging and to the increased poverty that we see on the streets of New Zealand?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well no because we have not actually changed the eligibility to benefits. So actually those people are eligible for benefits if they meet the criteria where they do not have a job or do not have an income. The reality is that they—Sue Moroney: But you’re cutting them off.Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well we do not know what the reasons are for them leaving their benefit and they are many and they are varied.