7. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
In light of his statement of 9 February 2010 that “I worry that there are signs of an emerging underclass in New Zealand”, what action has his Government taken to reduce the number of children living in poverty since that statement?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
The Government believes that paid employment is the best way out of poverty for children and families. This year we have been working hard to create jobs and grow family incomes by strengthening the New Zealand economy, and repairing the damage done by a global recession and 9 sad years of a Labour Government. We have continued to run substantial deficits to fund social services that support children and families, including those in vital areas such as education and health, and to fund income support payments, like Working for Families.
Has he read the comments from Unicef that “The overall picture painted by the updated 2010 Children’s Social Health Monitor is deeply concerning.”, and “That so many of our children are admitted to hospital for illnesses associated with socio-economic deprivation is a wake-up call for all New Zealanders.”; if so, does he agree with those comments?
Is he prepared to set targets for the eradication of child poverty in New Zealand, as urged by the Every Child Counts organisation; if not, why not?
No, but I am prepared to commit Government resources to try to lift children out of poverty. There are a number of things we can do. Firstly, we can make sure that every child has a decent education, and, of course, national standards are an important step in that regard. We can make sure that we reform welfare, so that so many young New Zealanders are not trapped in welfare dependency, as was obviously the case under the Labour Government. We can make sure that we have innovative ways of tackling these areas, and Whānau Ora is a great example of that. I could go on, but we have the adjournment debate sometime tomorrow, and members will want to go home tomorrow evening.
Did he read the recent article in the Challenge Weekly newspaper by Garth George, a strong advocate of the Prime Minister and the National Party, who said “The measure of a society’s soul is the way it treats its most vulnerable members—children, … —and on this measure we fail miserably.” and “The gap between rich and poor is still widening rather than closing, depriving many of the right to live even a subsistence life and forcing many to work so hard that family life is non-existent.”; if so, does he agree with him?
Does he agree with Presbyterian Support, an organisation that has been working for 100 years in the community, which asks “How can a small, relatively well-off country like New Zealand allow such a generous ration of misery for so many, when at face value there should be more than enough to go around?”
On face value I agree with Presbyterian Support. The question we have to ask ourselves as a country is how we address that issue, which is an important issue. One of the things we need to do is to deliver opportunity for those kids, because being poor does not rob someone of hope. What is absolutely required is a decent education. I personally am saddened that for 9 years I sat back and watched the Labour Government allow more and more young New Zealanders leave school unable to read and write properly. If I were a member of that Labour Government, I too would be deeply ashamed of what it did. I know that members opposite are scared and frightened of their record in that area, and embarrassed at this Christmas time, but, unfortunately, that is their record in office.
Does he still believe that Working for Families, which lifted thousands of children out of poverty in New Zealand, is communism by stealth?
When it faced very high effective marginal tax rates of nearly up to 100 percent, yes, and that is why this Government changed it dramatically through its tax cuts. New Zealanders who faced that are very grateful for that change.
Did he say to a delegation of Church leaders whom he met in late November to discuss the future of welfare in New Zealand: “If we cancelled welfare to 330,000 people currently on welfare, how many would starve to death? Bugger all.”; if so, does he stand by that stupid comment?
I say to those members that if they want to hear the answer, they should let me finish. I have a recollection of two things: one was quite an extensive conversation about how we might reform welfare; the second was one of those Church leaders making a very offensive statement, and I having to correct him about it.