For those without high or even medium-speed broadband, the Hansard is below:
1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Which, if any, of the seven key recommendations of the Child Poverty Action Group’s report Left Further Behind will the Government be implementing?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : I would not implement that report any more readily than I would Labour’s so-called policies, but, then again, they are the same thing.
Hon Annette King: Does she agree with the Prime Minister, who said this week that there are likely to be 228,000 children living in poverty now, and is that more or fewer than when she became the Minister?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: I will not speak on behalf of the Prime Minister; the question was directed at me. I can say that we have more than 220,000 children who are in benefit-dependent households, and by any measure we take of poverty, that says that children of benefit recipients are often doing worst in this country.
Hon Annette King: Does she agree with the Prime Minister, or not?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: The Prime Minister is always right.
Hon Annette King: Does she agree with the Child Poverty Action Group that the position of children is a lot worse than it was 3 years ago, and that the longer that children spend in poverty the more harm it does; if not, why not?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: I struggle to agree with pretty much anything that is in the Child Poverty Action Group report; it is so political. In fact, I think it is so political that it could almost carry a Labour Party authorisation with it, quite frankly. I can give the member many examples of why I do not agree with the Child Poverty Action Group, and I struggle with that example.
Hon Annette King: Given that the Prime Minister said this week “I am deeply concerned about every child in New Zealand who is in poverty.”, why has the Government waited 3 years to issue a green paper, which is to become a white paper that may or may not become policy sometime after the election, and which manages to mention the word “poverty” on one page in the entire document?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think this really is the key: while Labour pontificates on whether there are children in poverty and on which report says there are and which report says there are not, this side of the House is actually getting on with real solutions—like 100,000 households that have been insulated, like more money going into early childhood education, and like $43 million more in the last Budget going towards State kids. If Labour members want to talk about vulnerable children, I say that those are the children who need us most, and whom this side of the House is prepared to stand up for.
Hon Annette King: Why does the Government believe that the interests of children have to be balanced with the interests of other New Zealanders, as the Prime Minister said, but have no hesitation in spending public money on bailing out South Canterbury Finance, the Rugby World Cup, and kiwifruit growers, to name but a few examples of the Government’s more important priorities?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: This Government does concentrate on, and has a belief in, supporting those children. Quite frankly, the list of initiatives is so long that I would not be allowed to read it out. With the health initiatives around immunisation of those children, the rate has been lifted from 73 percent to 90 percent, which is extraordinary in helping those children. Extra assistance is going into child well-being. But what do we have from the other side? A kneejerk reaction like calling for a new Minister for children. What would they do and what kind of budget would they have? I will be interested in hearing responses on that.
Hon Annette King: Is she aware that one of the key recommendations from the Child Poverty Action Group’s report is to ensure training allowances to support sole parents to go into education, to enable them to move into employment, and will she reinstate the training incentive allowance; if not, why not?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think I have made it quite clear that I do not put merit on the Labour document that is the Child Poverty Action Group’s report, which, quite frankly, is just a rehash of old policies and of what Labour perhaps intends to do, depending on whether it changes its mind in the next few weeks. On the issue of those on benefits going into training, this Government is hugely supportive of that, and we stand by our record on it.
Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Before I come back to the member, it would have been quite helpful had the Minister mentioned something to do with the training incentive allowance. My hearing may have let me down, but I do not recollect that in the answer. The question asked whether the Minister would reinstate the training incentive allowance, but I do not think that that was even mentioned in the answer.
Hon PAULA BENNETT: With regard to the training incentive allowance, of course that has not been cut. We have simply changed the criteria to make sure that it is addressing the more than 50 percent of women, in particular, who are on the domestic purposes benefit and who have no educational attainment whatsoever, and to make sure that they are getting the priority they need and deserve.
Hon Annette King: Could the Minister outline, then, what changes she did make to the training incentive allowance soon after she became the Minister, and did that include not allowing those on benefits to undertake tertiary training at a degree course level, which is the same training she managed to get under the training incentive allowance programme?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Talk about the politics of envy. Quite frankly, if that member was still running policies like she did 20 years ago, she would be selling State assets, because that is what she was doing 20 years ago. If we all went back to what was happening 20 years ago, it would be kind of ridiculous. The changes that were made to the training incentive allowance I have reiterated in this House many times. We changed the criteria so that its eligibility is around the level of achievement and for those attaining level 3 or under.
Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Maybe my hearing is not so good today, but I thought that in a previous answer the Minister said there had been no changes to the training incentive allowance?
Mr SPEAKER: What would perhaps have helped to get a more specific answer out of the Minister on the last supplementary question was if the question had not included a slightly challenging reference to the Minister’s own past life. That sort of question always leaves more latitude for a Minister in how he or she answers it.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Can the Minister explain to the House how the withdrawal of eligibility for a group of people to go towards a degree course is not a cut?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: There was a change in the criteria. Those women can still get tertiary level achievements. There are student loans for them, there is extra early childcare assistance, there is out-of-school-hours care assistance for them, and, on top of that, there is an extra loan they can get that is interest free. So no one is saying that they cannot go on to study at a tertiary level. There is a lot of Government support for that.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Is the Minister telling us that although people in the same circumstances as a group of women who previously got the training incentive allowance are not now eligible, that is not a cut?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: To the first part of that question I say that the people who were receiving the training incentive allowance were able to continue receiving it. That was not actually taken away from them. But, yes, we changed the criteria of the training incentive allowance. I think everyone acknowledges that.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Minister answered a question that I did not ask. I asked a question about women who were in the same circumstances as the women who received the allowance, not about the same women. That part of the question was not addressed.
Mr SPEAKER: The Minister, in answering, said that in respect of women in the same circumstances the Government has changed the criteria—that is what I heard the Minister say—and therefore some women maybe not qualifying under those new criteria is the implication of that. Whether someone wishes to interpret that as a cut is up to a member, but I think the Minister did answer that question.
Yay Annette and Trev!
Woo Hoo! 
!
Bennett – GRRRRR
“The Prime Minister is always right.” – What kind of answer is that?
TIA – Hypocrisy much?
So is Labour going to give the CPAG what it primarily wants? What is was back in the High Court fighting for this week? That is, give beneficiaries the In Work Tax Credit?
Regarding your appraisal of Bennett, you have been a liability for decades but survived.
From Wikipedia:
Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) is a New Zealand political advocacy group for the abolition of poverty and social exclusion.
Led by senior University of Auckland economist Susan St.John CPAG describes itself as “an independent charity working to eliminate child poverty in New Zealand through research, advocacy and education.”
So what was all that almost incoherent babbling about the CPAG being some sort of subversive Labour Party organisation? Paula Bennett is not fit to be in charge of such an important portfolio.
Regarding your appraisal of Bennett, you have been a liability for decades but survived.
Lindsey Mitchell from the ultra right-wing Maxim Institute? Charming.
I see that CPAG want more affordable housing and is worried about rents for low income families.
Since the capital gains tax as proposed by Labour will make this group worse off compared with those that own houses, perhaps it is no surprise that the report is entitled “Left further behind”.
“Lindsey Mitchell from the ultra right-wing Maxim Institute?”
I have no connection with Maxim. If you click on my name (spelt with an ‘a’) it’ll take you to my blog and other public information.
Anyway, Anne from where?
nice cut and paste Trev. What is your point? I don’t see this being a tippping point -
“I can give the member many examples of why I do not agree with the Child Poverty Action Group, and I struggle with that example.”
The poor lady struggles with her portfolio. She struggles with answering a straight question. Although it is taking on grudge-like proportions, since she is a rising star of New Zealand Politics I think it is incumbent on Trevor to pull her into line..
Simon, I’m interested in your comment, can you expound further on how you see CGT hurting low income renters?
@ Lindsay: My mistake. I see it was another Institute – Institute for Liberal Values. Still to the right of the political spectrum, but probably not as far as the Maxim Institute.
Actually I took exception to your quoted sentence Lindsay. Unnecessary.
tracey at 10.56 am
Have a look at http://motu-www.motu.org.nz/wpapers/09_13.pdf it doesn’t model exactly the same parameters (a 20% CGT similar in design to the Labour proposal, but assumes all proceeds go back to GST reductions rather than a tax free zone and GST off fruit and veg).
Note its abstract concludes:
“…. The model suggests that capital gains taxes will raise rents, increase homeownership rates, rebalance the housing stock towards smaller houses, and increase the net foreign asset position. The implications for welfare are much less clear, however, particularly for young low income households that will face higher rents.”
On the last point the report itself expands:
“However, the effects on economic welfare are ambiguous, for many low-income households suffer a welfare loss from the increase in rents. The simulations suggests the welfare consequences will be worse for low income households if owner-occupied housing is exempt from the tax, although this result is dependent on the revenue from a capital gains tax being refunded to households (including low income households) through a reduction in the GST rate.”
One presumes Labour modeled the welfare impacts of their CGT, but they haven’t put them in the public domain.
@Simon Arnold – thank you for the voice or reason. Of course Labour acolytes (are you listening Anne?) will continue to deny facts, and refer you all to an “Expert committee” (I think its called, mostly Unon hacks and failed secondary teachers) for their spin on the facts and the refutation therof.
Simon – what is missing in your analysis is that Labour’s CGT would necessarily involve accommodation supplements to renters.
(refer this comment, it spells it out quite clearly)
http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2011/08/16/phil-goff-is-answering-your-questions-tonight-from-7pm/comment-page-1/#comment-191534
Father Tim the accommodation supplement is available to both home owners and renters, contrary to what SPC suggests.
Real point is that we don’t know what impact the GCT will have on low income renters because if the sums have been done by Labour they aren’t telling us.
On the face of it the policy should make people on low incomes who rent worse off compared with those in similar circumstances that own their own home, simply because Labour are exempting the family home from the CGT, but not rental accommodation.
It isn’t clear to me why we would want to favour those that happen to own their own home.
Thanks Simon. One of the major issues which needs to be factored in here is the real housing shortage in our largest city. The elephant in the room being the 80-120k homes effectively out of the housing stock (in terms of sales and purchase) because at land value only no one is selling them (unless their claim has been met and they have been financially compensation – which most are not) – I refer to leaky homes.
I’m intrigued at how CGT will impact in light of this kind of data.
Lou, denying facts is rampant, amongst all parties, and supporters of both parties, including the current government. Possibly you are as tunnel visioned to the right as you say Anne is to the left if you think otherwise?
tracey
Housing shortages tend to come about because councils limit the amount of land available for development, and I’m not sure that CGT will have any effect much on this.
As for leaky homes if it happened again a CGT might allow landlords to write off some of their losses, but I understood the proposed tax was not retrospective so the CGT won’t help the current landlords. Because homeowners are exempt the CGT it is difficult to see any particular impact.
In the end the problem with leaky homes is that part of our stock is substandard and it needs to fixed, not flicked onto someone else. So I’m not sure if a CGT on rental properties as proposed by Labour is particularly relevant.
@ Lou and some of your fellow NAct mates:
I am on record here – and elsewhere – being quite critical of some of Labour actions, or lack of action as the case may be.
“Institute for Liberal Values” lol.
Isn’t that just Lindsay’s new nickname for herself?