1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) Link to this
to the Minister for Social Development and Employment
Does she stand by all her answers to Oral Question No 2 on 7 September 2011?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this
Yes, I do. However, the House might note that I did correct one figure late last night. But I particularly stand by my statement: “We had a huge hole in funding that we had to find millions of dollars to fill”.
In light of her answer yesterday that there is no official measure of child poverty in New Zealand, so therefore she could not comment on the accuracy of figures arising from various reports, has she considered using the Child Poverty Action Group figures; if not, why not?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
It takes its information from Statistics New Zealand and also from the household income survey via the Ministry of Social Development, so it is not where it is getting the information from, it is how it is analysing it. I think that some will find merits in it, but some will also find holes in that study.
If the Child Poverty Action Group figures are not acceptable to the National Government, why were they acceptable and used by the current Minister of Finance when in Opposition as the measure for child poverty in New Zealand?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
I think the difference between members on that side of the House and this side is that we are actually getting on with solutions, putting money into those children, and making sure that they get the kinds of services they need. We are not debating whether there is a problem; I think the debate is how we fix it. We are working on solutions, not measures.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a relatively straightforward question as to why figures that were acceptable for use by a member before he was a Minister are now no longer acceptable to the Government.
Mr SPEAKERThe member has just answered his own query in his point of order. The Minister has no responsibility for anything that the Hon Bill English may have said while he was a member of the Opposition. The Minister has no responsibility for that whatsoever. That is the risk of that kind of question.
If the Government is addressing child poverty as she claims, and is putting “millions and millions of dollars into those children”, how is she measuring the effectiveness of the expenditure and how are the programmes being evaluated?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
That is a good question. In many different ways, to be quite frank. Some of it is based on outcomes, and some of it is based on the number of visits by, for example, Family Start, and how it is dealing with those. They are being evaluated, as such, through studies on that. The Centre for Social Research and Evaluation is doing a whole lot of the research on those sorts of programmes. There are other organisations that are also doing that themselves. But I am the first to admit, as I did yesterday, that a whole lot of evaluating did not happen, particularly in the years when that member was in Government. We are trying to fill a hole there so that we can fix it and know exactly what is working and what should be funded.
Why did she tell the House yesterday that she did not have all the facts about the Growing Up in New Zealand longitudinal study because the question had not been set down as a primary question, but she managed to tell reporters on the way into the House how much money was being spent, and that she had told the university to seek funding from philanthropic sources to continue their work?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
I did not have the figure that the member was seeking yesterday in front of me, and as such I was open about that. In relation to the slight error that we made on one of the figures, I came back in and corrected that. If the member would like to explore it further, then let us go.
Does the Minister have the information today? Will the Ministry of Social Development cease funding the Growing Up in New Zealand longitudinal study, as has been reported?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
What we have here is a study that was launched in 2008 by Labour. It was not actually fully funded. It was not fully funded in the years when it was launched, let alone in the following-up—
This question was a very straightforward question, and I believe that when straightforward questions are asked the House deserves to be treated with a little more respect than that. The question was very simple. It asked whether the Ministry of Social Development would be continuing to fund this particular study, or whether it would not be, as had been reported. There was no attack on the Minister or anything like that. The question just asked whether the funding would be continued. No decision may have been made yet—who knows? It is OK to talk a little bit about the history, so long as we do get an answer to the question.
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
In actual fact no funding decisions have been made for the 2012 Budget. What I will say is that the university fund that Labour launched has a shortfall of $97 million over the next 25 years. I am sure that Labour members might like to go out and promise that sort of funding, but members on this side of the House will be taking it as it comes.
What knowledge does she have of longitudinal studies, particularly this one, which she called some kind of a study yesterday, and why is she demanding they show the merits of their work 2 years into a study that has to last many years before we get the results?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
Let us deal with the actual facts of the situation. Labour launched the study in 2008 with much fanfare, and without any idea or plan on how it would fund it. That longitudinal study will cost at least $113 million over the next 25 years, and that is not funded. Labour had no idea how it was going to be funded. This side of the House has been trying to fund some of that shortfall and has put in $9.5 million to date since it has been in Government. We will take it from there.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I seek leave to table a document that shows that the Labour Government funded this programme for the first 2 years—the first two Budgets that were presented by Bill English.
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
I seek leave to table a document from the Ministry of Social Development’s financial ledger that shows the longitudinal study reconciliation for Growing Up in New Zealand and the actual funding that has gone into it.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. You have listened to answers from the Minister over the last 2 days on this study where she has claimed that the previous Government did not put money in the Budget for this at all. In fact, she has said that she had to go cap in hand to Ministers soon after she became the Minister to get the money. We have tried today to table our Budget documents that show that that is incorrect. I believe we ought to have the opportunity to do that.
I hear the member’s point. I can understand the point of grievance, but I believe perhaps we are in debating territory here. And this is why we do not table documents to make points; we table documents to provide information to the House, and it already has the Budget information. I would be surprised if the Minister had said there was no budget for this study. I do not believe she said that. What I understand the Minister said, as I understand the answers given, is that after a certain point there was no funding for a longitudinal study. Longitudinal studies obviously go on for quite a while and that was something that troubled her. Obviously, the member can follow that up and if the Minister said there was never any budget for it, that is very good material for a question in this House.
Could I ask you, when you have a moment, to relook at the tape of the replies the Minister gave to these questions yesterday where she said exactly what I have just said.
I am very happy to do that, but the point I make to the member is that if in fact she believes that the Minister has given an incorrect answer, then to question the Minister with a primary question along those lines will certainly flush that out. A primary question is an issue of some formality and if the Minister does not make the position absolutely clear and correct following a primary question, the Minister would then be in some difficulty. Rather than trying to score political points, question time is a chance to really test whether a Minister has given accurate information, and that is an excellent opportunity to do that.
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
I seek leave to table a document I would not normally table, to be quite frank. It has been prepared by my office and it gives the time line for funding of Growing Up in New Zealand, which might actually clarify some of those things that the Opposition members are talking about. What they would discover is—
The member described the document and cannot go on to make argument from it. The member is seeking leave to table a document prepared by her office on the time line of the funding of Growing Up in New Zealand. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
When she told the House that within weeks of getting the job “I was informed that we had to find money to keep the study going. I had to go to my colleagues, cap in hand,” was she cognisant of the fact that the Labour Government in 2008-09 had funded the 2009-10 and 2010-11 years, so in fact had funded it 3 years out from the Budget and she did not need to go urgently cap in hand at all?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
It is a shame that the member did not let me table the document, because it would have explained this quite well. But let us get clear on this. Yes, Labour had put in some money, which was actually $5.8 million in April 2008—[ Interruption]—do not clap yet, guys, because members have not quite got the full story—and then it put some in the Budget for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11, and it was nowhere near enough. Within weeks of getting into this job, I was told that there was a $10 million shortfall in funding. There had been no funding plan by the previous Government for a study that it had launched. I have found $9.5 million in the last 2 years to prop up a Labour study that it had initiated without funding it as it went forward.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
When she said in answer to the last supplementary question that there was not enough put in for those 2 years, did she put more in for those 2 years, or are her Budget figures, which show that she put in not another cent for those years, accurate?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
I invite the member to look at the document that I have tabled, which shows how much we did put in. Let us be quite clear: Labour had put in money, $4.75 million and $3.1 million, over those 2 years; National actually put in more. Just because there is not a Budget line in with this actual money, it does not mean that it does not come through the policy advice appropriation. [ Interruption] The member knows that; she was a Minister at some stage. But because there is not, one will see in the financial ledger how much money was put in. This National Government has put in over $9.5 million in the last 2 years. I stand by that. I would absolutely guarantee it.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Is she therefore saying that in the 2009-10 Budget and 2010-11 Budget, the Minister of Finance tabled documents signed off by her as to the amount of spending on the longitudinal study that were inaccurate?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
No. Actually, Labour has got it wrong in this case. Yes, Labour put in some money. It put in nowhere near enough to actually cover what had to happen for that longitudinal study. I have gone to my members, who have fronted up with some, and I think that that is where they will see it land.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Why did she not, when she got the extra money for this longitudinal study, show it in the two Budgets?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
The member was once a Minister. He should know that line items change in the Budget. I have absolutely presented documents that prove that that money was paid out to the longitudinal study. The university itself in a press release yesterday said that it had $25.9 million, and it has been $23.3 million.
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
Of that, $13.8 million was from Labour’s appropriations and $9.5 million was from National, as we brought forward. Not all of that $9.5 million was from the Ministry of Social Development, but I can guarantee it.