8. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this
to the Minister for Social Development and Employment
Why did levels of severe hardship rise between 2000 and 2004, as reported by the Ministry of Social Development?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this
While the overall proportion of people with fairly comfortable to good living standards was reported as unchanged between 2000 and 2004, there was a reported 3 percent movement of those within hardship categories, from some hardship to severe hardship, and that is clearly of concern. To quote from the report itself: “A confident explanation for the rise is not possible mainly because of the limited data collected in 2000.” The Ministry of Social Development is doing some further work to explain this variation, and it expects to publish it in 2007. But I can tell the House that that research pre-dates the Working for Families package, which will have significantly improved the living standards of all groups.
Why did the numbers of Pacific Island New Zealanders living in severe hardship rise from 15 percent in 2000 to a whopping 27 percent in 2004, despite his Government introducing the Pacific Value Jobs initiative?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
I just commented on that question, but I am able to confirm to the House that, across the whole community, social well-being improved in that period over a very large number of indicators, including an improvement in housing affordability, a reduction in the share of households—including in the Pacific community—with low income, an improvement in market income per person, an improvement in employment participation, a reduction in unemployment, an improvement in participation in tertiary education, an increase in the share of school-leavers with higher qualifications, and, pleasingly, of course, an increase in participation in early childhood education.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not believe that the Minister addressed the question of why the number of Pacific Island New Zealanders living in severe hardship has risen. He talked about some of the initiatives from the Government, but he did not actually address that question.
Madam SPEAKER
Georgina BeyerWhat did the New Zealand Living Standards 2004 report have to say about the effect of adverse life events?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
The report identified the accumulated effect of life shocks with regard to hardship. What I can tell the member is that many families are still clearly suffering from the accumulated life shocks suffered under 9 years of a National Government, which drove down income through the Employment Contracts Act and, of course, wielded cuts to the provision of health, welfare, and housing. Working for Families, cheaper doctors’ visits, and more affordable housing are just three of the things that have been introduced by this Government to act to address inequality.
What did the Pacific Aim-Hi to Employment (PATE)initiative cost, and how did it affect the number of Pacific Island New Zealanders living in severe hardship between 2000 and 2004?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
I do not have that information in front of me. If the member would like to put down a question, I would provide it for her. But I can tell her and her colleagues that since June 2004, 28,000 people have moved off the unemployment benefit—including Pacific Island people—8,000 have moved off the sole parent domestic purposes benefit, and total working-age benefit numbers have reduced by an extraordinary 29,000 people. I can also tell the member that, in terms of the Pacific Island cohort, the unemployment level when National was last in Government was 12,017; that number is now an extraordinarily low 3,175.
How effective have initiatives like PATE and Help Our Pacific People into Employment (HOPE) been in raising the living standards of Pacific Island New Zealanders, or is the Minister going to tell the House he simply does not know?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
Well, I think, cumulatively, the social initiatives of this Government have been extraordinarily effective. A good piece of evidence has been handed to me today in the form of an article in the Gisborne Herald headlined: “Families package ‘good policy making’ ”, which reads as follows: “The Working for Families package has had a positive impact on families in Gisborne, despite negative talk to the contrary, says Tairawhiti Age Concern. Chief Executive Frances Toroa said the Working for Families package was one of the best supplementary assistance packages to date. ‘That is what has been communicated to me by family members who are on one income and needed that extra assistance,’ Ms Toroa said. ‘It has raised their living standards substantially.’ ”
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question was not about Working for Families; it was about initiatives from his ministry. The Minister clearly was not addressing the question. He obviously does not know the answer; he should just tell us if he does not know.
I am reluctant to ask the Minister to expand on his answer, but I do think he addressed the question.
Why will this Minister not just admit that this massive rise in severe hardship—from 15 percent in the year 2000 to a whopping 27 percent in the year 2004—is, in fact, testament to the failure of his Government’s race-based policies rather than dealing with the real issues for people?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
Because that is not the case. I will repeat, for that member, what I said earlier. Since the mid-1990s there has been improvement in a huge number of social indicators for the whole community, and for the Māori and Pacific communities. There has been an improvement in housing affordability, a reduction in the share of households with low incomes, an improvement in market income per person, an improvement in employment participation, a reduction in unemployment from 161,000 under the National Government to less than 40,000 now, an improvement in participation in tertiary education, an increase in the share of school-leavers with higher qualifications, and an increase in participation in early childhood education—something that member obviously missed out on.
I seek leave of the House to table the report—because clearly the Minister is not aware of it— Pacific Value Jobs Initiative: Final Evaluation Report. It is a report of his own ministry, and he clearly needs to read it.
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
I seek leave to table an article from today’s Gisborne Herald entitled: “Families package ‘good policy making’ ”.