7. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he stand by all his answers to Oral Question No 1 on 16 August 2011?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this
Given his statement in Parliament on 16 August that the report from Every Child Counts—a report that estimated the cost of poor child outcomes at $6 billion per year—was rubbish, what is his estimation of the actual cost of child poverty in New Zealand?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
In the context of the Prime Minister’s statement that it was rubbish, it was quite clear that he was saying that six of the key indicators were not available. So the ranking becomes kind of relative. Two of the ratings used—the indicators—were wrong, so that is the context of his making that statement.
Mr SPEAKERI invite the Hon Annette King to repeat her question. It was a very interesting answer, but I am not sure that it was actually an answer to the question asked.
Given his statement in Parliament on 16 August that the report from Every Child Counts was rubbish—a report that estimated the cost of poor child outcomes at $6 billion per year—what is his estimation of the actual cost of child poverty in New Zealand?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
It is entirely appropriate to put context around the Prime Minister’s statement that the report was rubbish. The member has gone on to make an assumption as to why he made that comment—that it was about the $6 billion—whereas his comment was made in the context of the fact that six of the key indicators were not available, two of the figures used for the indicators were wrong, and the report did not include Government spending, such as spending on health and other social investments.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you got it right last time when the supplementary question was asked.
With respect, I think that the Minister did clear up misunderstanding with that answer, because she pointed out in more detail that the Prime Minister’s dismissal of the report, or his description of the report, was not related specifically to the cost. It was not the cost that he was arguing was rubbish; it was other aspects of the report that he was questioning, and that is a perfectly fair answer. It would seem that the Minister is not disputing the cost side of it.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although you interpret the answer as the Minister not disputing the costs, it was a very specific question about the cost, which the Minister did not refer to. Normally in this House I think we have an arrangement where Ministers say if they do not dispute it.
I invite the member to look at the Hansard. I seem to recollect the member referring to the cost not being what the Prime Minister was disputing. I accept that my hearing is not great today at all, but I believe I heard that, and that is why I think the second answer was a better explanation and a reasonable answer.
In light of the report from Every Child Counts, which estimates the cost of poor child outcomes in New Zealand at $6 billion per year, what is his estimation of the actual cost of child poverty in New Zealand?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
In all fairness, there are a number of reports, a number of evaluations, and a number of estimates going on, which are discussing whether we have a problem, its magnitude, and what the actual cost of that might be. That is both commendable and actually predictable for this point in the election cycle. Members of this side of the House are not getting into an argument as to whether we have a problem. We think we do. Hence we are putting such a massive investment into children in this country.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although, again, I respect your interpretation of the supplementary answer before this one, I think I might have just been proven right. You indicated that the Minister had not disputed the figure. She was asked on this particular occasion “if the figure was not right, what was it?”. I thought it was clear that she was now disputing it.
The member makes a perfectly reasonable point. If I recollect the question correctly, it was actually a pretty precise question. It contained no criticism of anything the Prime Minister had said; it just asked, if I recollect correctly, what the Government’s current estimate of that cost was. I invite the member to repeat her question in case I have it wrong.
In light of the report from Every Child Counts, which estimated the cost of poor child outcomes at $6 billion per year, what is his estimation on the actual cost of child poverty in New Zealand?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
The point I am making is that there has been a number of reports over the last 12 months in particular. That is both commendable and quite predictable at this point of an election cycle. There is merit in the statement that there is child poverty, and that is why this Government is actually putting in the investment, particularly investment in the early years, which matter most.
I can anticipate the member’s point of order, but there does not seem much point in pursuing the matter, because it appears that the Prime Minister does not have an estimate—at least the Minister answering on behalf of the Prime Minister does not.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, going back two questions, it might appear that way, but when a direct question is asked, if the Prime Minister does not have an estimate, then I think he is obliged to say so, not just waffle around the edge of it.
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
If you would like further clarification, I am quite happy to give it.
The question asked what the Prime Minister estimated the cost of child poverty to be, given that the figure in the report being referred to was $6 billion, from memory. If the Minister can help clarify that, so that the House can make progress, it would be helpful.
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
My point is that there have been a number of reports and they actually go from a low figure to a relatively high figure. I do not have those numbers in front of me, and I am not prepared to just pick one out.
Does he stand by the statement in the Government’s Green Paper for Vulnerable Children that the Government will ensure ongoing research and evaluation to identify vulnerable children and to ensure interventions are effective?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
Yes. Not a lot of that work has been done, particularly in the last 10 years, so we are having to pick up evaluations that have not been done as to which children are vulnerable, where they are, and what programmes are effective. We have put a number of initiatives in place. The Minister of Health and the Minister of Education in particular are focusing on those early years, as is my own department. There are positive behaviour programmes and Family Start, just to name a couple of examples. But there are a lot more as well.
In light of that answer, why is the Growing Up in New Zealand multidisciplinary study, which produced its first report last year—which the Minister for Social Development and Employment acknowledged showed that those on lower incomes are not accessing the services and help they need—having its funding cut by his Government; and does it not make a mockery out of his claim that policies should be evidence-based when he cuts the very ability to gather such evidence?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
I do not have the actual number in front of me, but I know that millions of dollars are going into the Growing Up campaign. When Labour left office it had not fully funded it through to subsequent years. It had set it up but not actually funded it going forward. This Government has put forward literally millions more into it, and that funding is going in.