4. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) Link to this
to the Minister for Social Development and Employment
Does she stand by her statement “I will back those women into work and meaningful employment every time”?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this
Yes. This Government strongly believes that a focus on work, not welfare, is the way forward for sole parents to improve outcomes for themselves and their children.
Which of these statements is true: her comment in the New Zealand Herald today that these women are getting “a huge amount of support from the Government” and should “invest a bit of their own money” into training, or National’s welfare policy at the last election, which stated “National’s focus is on younger sole parents with dependent children because these are the families most likely to be in poverty.”; how can they be in poverty and have money to invest in training at the same time?
Mr SPEAKERI may have missed the start of the honourable member’s question, but I think she asked the Minister to compare two statements. The answer the Minister gave was “Yes.” I am not sure—I stress that I may have missed the start of the question—but I believe the honourable member did ask the Minister to explain two apparently, to the member, contrasting statements. The member and the House deserve a fuller answer than that.
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
Sorry, I thought the member asked whether I stood by those statements, and I said “Yes.” I think she asked which statement was true, and I would say both.
Katrina ShanksWhat assistance is available to people on the domestic purposes benefit who are studying at tertiary level?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
There is an accommodation supplement of up to $225 a week, there are childcare subsidies now of up to $181.50 per week for children under 5, and there are out-of-school care and recreation subsidies of up to $72.60 a week, rising to $181 per week in school holidays. There is a disability allowance for some of those beneficiaries. There are special-needs grants. There is a voluntary bonding scheme that was introduced by my colleague, and I think it will make a difference. There is the recoverable assistance grant and temporary additional support. There is a range of assistance available for those who are studying.
Sue BradfordDoes the Minister believe that she may have breached the Privacy Act in releasing confidential details about the income of the two women who went public, complaining about the loss of the training incentive allowance, and if she has breached the Privacy Act by either not telling them or not asking them whether she could make those statements, will she apologise to those women forthwith?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
I refer the member to the guidelines for Ministers on the Privacy Commissioner’s own website, which show that people can give implied consent for Ministers to discuss their personal circumstances by going to the media.
Will the Minister now release her own details of what she was paid by taxpayers when she was on the domestic purposes benefit, having milked that fact on becoming Minister for Social Development and Employment, so the public can determine whether she asked for more than she needed, as she is implying some women are doing now, and in light of her decision to release information on sole parents because they dared to speak out?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
There has been no such implication at all, and I make that point quite clear. I have never made a secret of the fact that I have been on and off a benefit and that I did receive the training incentive allowance. What I can tell those people who are looking at tertiary study is that it will not be easy, but if they back themselves—and this Government will be backing them as well—then they can get off a benefit and they may even end up as a Cabinet Minister.
Charles ChauvelWas the Minister advised that the individuals concerned had given implied consent to the release of their personal information; if so, on the basis of what precedent; if not, why did the Minister not take advice on that point?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
I looked at the guidelines that were on the Privacy Commissioner’s website. Let us be quite clear: there are no new standards, and this is not something we will be making a practice of. The standards that were set by the previous Government were underhand, at best. I seem to recall a “lie by unison” call from previous Labour Ministers.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My supplementary question was very specific. It asked whether the Minister had taken advice on whether she had reasonable grounds to consider that the individuals has waived their rights to privacy; if she had not, why she had not taken advice; and, if she had, what precedent she was relying on. None of that was addressed in the answer.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Notwithstanding your invitation, Mr Chauvel asked the Minister whether she took advice. The Minister then told him why she took the course of action she did. If that, presumably, was not some form of information offered by way of an answer, then I do not know what was. What needs to be clarified further is beyond me. It is unfortunate that Mr Chauvel is of a mindset that no one can do anything in this country—
We will not use points of order to criticise another member. I think the member has clarified why there is a bit of a problem with the answering of the question: it is because Ministers are not at liberty to answer a different question. If the question asked had been “What approach did the Minister take to going about this?”, then that would have been a perfectly acceptable answer. But there was a specific question about advice, and I think the House deserves to be given an answer on whether or not advice was received. Certainly, one part or the other of the question needs to be answered.
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
As I stated in my answer, I certainly referred to the guidelines for Ministers that are on the Privacy Commissioner’s website. I felt that that was adequate.
What steps did the Minister take to ensure that the information she released was accurate, complete, and not misleading to the public; for example, did she make any inquiries in relation to payments under the Child Support Act?
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, I asked the Minister what steps she took to make sure that the information she released was accurate, complete, and not misleading, particularly with reference to one Act. The answer simply did not address the question.
The Minister said, if I heard her correctly, that she took steps to ensure the information was correct, and—
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that was the third time the Minister was asked about what steps she took, not whether she took steps. Members on this side of the House have been taking your advice to try to tighten questions up and make them very specific, but I think the quid pro quo from that is that the actual questions are answered.
I accept the point the member is making, but members need to listen to the answers that are given. I believe the Minister has already told the House what steps she took to check out certain information. I think she has made that fairly clear to the House, and—
—no, I am still ruling on the matter—the Speaker cannot judge the quality of the answer. I accept that the answer may not be exactly what members wanted, but they have further supplementary questions in which to chase that up if they are not happy with the quality of the answer.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is clear that members on this side of the House and you have heard different things. Can I ask that the Minister repeat her answer to that supplementary question?
I will accept that. Would the Minister remind repeating her answer, please, to that particular supplementary question?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
Steps were taken to ensure the information that we held was put out there, and that is all the information I had available to me. That is the information we put out.
The question was very specific, asking “What steps did the Minister take …”, and the Minister has said steps were taken to check the information. It should be possible to tell the House what those steps involved. That should not be difficult. That is what is being asked.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
With all due respect, you have just extended the question that was asked. The Minister was asked what steps she took, and you have now asked that she chronicle those steps. Her answer was that she looked into it and found the information was accurate. Labour members believe it was not accurate; they should produce that information. That would be like Mr Goff last week—
That is not acceptable, Mr Brownlee. I have not extended the question at all. I listened very carefully to the member’s question, because he was concerned about whether his previous question was answered. I think the member was very careful in the way he asked the question. He asked what steps were taken, etc., to check the information. I believe that to simply say steps were taken is not, in anyone’s language, an answer to that question. I think it is reasonable that the Minister should be able to tell the House what steps were taken. It is not difficult. The Minister may not have the information. I accept that absolutely, and if that is the case, I am sure the House would accept that. But if the Minister has the information about what steps were taken, it would be an answer to a reasonable question.
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
At the end of the day, I presented the information that was available to me. I took steps to get the information that was available through my own ministry, and that is what I presented. I cannot present information that I do not have.