Sunday 2 June, 2013
 
Jessica Mutch interviews Paula Bennett
 
On TVNZ’s Q+A Government doesn’t rule out Increasing Working for Families Credits for Larger Families
 
Social Development Minister Paula Bennett left the door open to increasing the Working for Families Tax Credits for bigger families. The Ministerial Committee on Poverty was looking at a range of issues.
 
“The committee have decided that they’ll look deeper at a few other options, and that might be one of them,” the Minister told TVNZ’s Q+A programme today.
 
The Government has however ruled out introducing a universal child payment – one of the key recommendations of the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty. The minister said the Government was looking at “more targeted support” through Working for Families and emergency grants though the benefit system.
 
Mrs Bennett also ruled out another recommendation to have “at least five poverty measures to capture the different aspects of child poverty”.
 
There were already effective measures in place, she said. “It’s a statistical argument, these kids need action and I think that’s where the country’s attention should be.”
 
Commenting on the Food in Schools programme announced by the Government this week, Mrs Bennett said it too was “better targeted” than other universal programmes in America or the UK.
 
“We’re getting to those children that really need it,” she said, “and we can kind of pontificate around it, but at the end of the day you’ve got hungry kids, so let’s step in and do something about it.”
 
Mrs Bennett said the Government put significant amounts of money into low-income and beneficiary families. “They should be able to feed their kids on that. But circumstances sometimes mean they can’t, and as a consequence we want to put the children first and make sure they’re being fed.”
 
“We would rather that these children were getting fed at home and in a more nurturing environment.”
 
Q+A, 9-10am Sundays on TV ONE and one hour later on TV ONE plus 1. Repeated Sunday evening at 11:30pm. Streamed live at www.tvnz.co.nz.   
 
Thanks to the support from NZ On Air.
                                                            
Q+A is on Facebook, http://www.facebook.com/NZQandA#!/NZQandA and on Twitter, http://twitter.com/#!/NZQandA
 
 
Q + A – 2 June, 2013
 
PAULA BENNETT
Minister for Social Development
 
Interviewed by JESSICA MUTCH
 
PAULA                          Well, I think it says that it’s a hard job and I think the reasons that we need Food in Schools are pretty complex. They can go back a long way. I don’t think there's one solution. I don’t think that Food in Schools is the solution for our children, but I do think it plays a small but significant part in making sure they’re not hungry.
 
JESSICA                      Isn’t it pretty embarrassing that we should even need to have this kind of programme?
 
PAULA                          Yeah, well, they have it all around the world. I mean, certainly in America they have their own schemes that every school has food, same with the UK. So I think we’ve got something that’s better targeted, and it does say that at the end of the day we’ve got children that are hungry and it does feel embarrassing and it does feel like it shouldn’t be necessary.
 
JESSICA                      So are you disappointed as minister that you even have to bring this kind of scheme in? Because it’s not a positive step, is it?
 
PAULA                          Well, no, I actually do think it’s positive that at least we’re addressing it and we’re getting to those children that really need it, and we can kind of pontificate around it, but at the end of the day, you’ve got hungry kids, so let’s step in and do something about it. So I’m not disappointed in that respect, but do I wish that children were better nurtured and looked after in some cases? Absolutely. But then you’ve got to remember that I also see the worst of humanity at times in my role as heading Child, Youth and Family, so I have a pretty distorted view at times, I think, as to how some adults treat children.
 
JESSICA                      But is it the role of the state, though, to step in and give our kids breakfast?
 
PAULA                          Well, I suppose that’s a debate we’ve been having, and we’re saying at times in a targeted way, yes, but it is reluctantly. There's no two ways about it. We would rather that these children were getting fed at home and in a more nurturing environment.
 
JESSICA                      So aren’t you taking that responsibility away from the parents, then? You know, that’s their job, that’s their core job – to care for their children – and the government’s coming in and saying, “Hey, we’ll take care of this. Don’t you worry.”
 
PAULA                          Mm, but for so many reasons— I mean, yes, we probably are, but for very good reasons, we’re doing it, and I think there's so many different reasons why parents aren’t able to feed their children in the morning, and we can all sort of make reasons as to what that might be, but their complex and they’re varied, and at the end of the day, we’re all in this a bit together. If we can nurture those little brains so that they can learn so that they can have different outcomes, then I think for me, that’s where it sort of lies.
 
JESSICA                      One of the things that’s caused a real stir around this whole debate has been this Marlborough Express cartoon. What did you make of the cartoon when you first saw it?
 
PAULA                          Yeah, I mean, there's absolutely no doubt for me that it was pointed at Maori and Pacific. I mean, we can—
 
JESSICA                      Is it racist?
 
PAULA                          Well, we can say that there's others in it, but they were the ones that stood out. I don’t know if I— I mean, I do think it’s stereotyping, so I’m not sure if I’d quite say racist, but I would certainly say that it’s negative stereotyping and not helpful in any way, but then you’re also talking—
 
JESSICA                      Around this whole debate with that— You talk about stereotyping. Around this whole debate, do you think that people on the benefit get that raw deal?
 
PAULA                          Well, I don’t think this has been about people on the benefit. We’ve been talking about people on low incomes as well. I think we see it in some decile-10 areas, quite frankly, where children are not looked after as they should. Quite frankly, as I say, I head up Child, Youth and Family, I see some white, rich people that treat their children appallingly, and we have to intervene and step in there, so I don’t think it’s a race issue. I unfortunately think it’s much broader than that.
 
JESSICA                      Do you think, though, that this is just a temporary measure? This $1.9 million – do you hope it’s just a short-term thing?
 
PAULA                          Well, I do, but I don’t think it’s all about income. So if it was just about income, then I would say that we’re getting the economy back on track, we’re seeing more jobs come on, that means these families are going to—
 
JESSICA                      But just specifically about Food in Schools – will the success be measured if you can stop doing this?
 
PAULA                          I think our success will be more measured on things like rheumatic fever and kids living in warmer homes and them getting the sort of health treatment they need earlier and some of the other effects that we’re seeing. I don’t really see Food in Schools as a panacea of this.
 
JESSICA                      Why did Sanitarium and Fonterra need to be part of this?
 
PAULA                          Well, why not? You know, we sort of always point to government, and it’s like if they want to step in a play a role, then why wouldn’t we a) not just let them but actually encourage them to do that? I think it’s— It’s sort of been making me laugh in the last couple of days that the Opposition have been talking about how it would be more sustainable if it was through government. Well, governments change and they change their minds and they change direction and they reprioritise funds all the time. I think it’s got more sustainability—
 
JESSICA                      Isn’t it the role of parents, though, Minister?
 
PAULA                          Well, there's no doubt about it that it is, yeah. We have a very generous welfare system when you compare it internationally. We have Working for Families. We put significant amounts of money into low-income and beneficiary families. They should be able to feed their children on that. But circumstances sometimes mean they can't, and as a consequence, we want to put the children first and make sure that they’re being fed.
 
JESSICA                      Let’s talk a little more broadly now. The Child Poverty Report – your response to that was also released on the same day as the Food in Schools programme, and the government has said it has broadly accepted some of those. Of those 78 recommendations, how many has the government adopted?
 
PAULA                          Well, what I would say is they had some immediate actions that the recommended we take and then some longer-term – 78 recommendations overall, but some of them you almost lump together.
 
JESSICA                      So how many?
 
PAULA                          About two-thirds and probably a bit more than two-thirds at this stage. But of those immediate, there were six, and we’ve got five of them that we’re doing, and we’ll continue to work on others as we go.
 
JESSICA                      So what have you ruled out at this stage? What are you not taking on?
 
PAULA                          Well, at this stage we’ve certainly ruled out a universal child payment. I think it’s kind of ludicrous that the state might pay something for my child at this time in my life when I can afford it, so I don’t think we need something universally, yet I do think that we need more targeted, so we’re much more interested in targeted support like you get through Working for Families, like you get through emergency grants via the benefit system, for example. So that’s one that we’ve ruled out. We’ve ruled out a universal measure, if you like. So we have a number of measurements of poverty—
 
JESSICA                      Why is that? I mean, it seems very simple, from an outside point of view. If you can't measure poverty, how can you understand whether you're succeeding or not? I mean, in fact this was the very first recommendation in that report. Why aren’t you considering that?
 
PAULA                          But we do measure poverty, so it’s wrong to say we don’t. What we don’t have is one—
 
JESSICA                      But one universal way.
 
PAULA                          Yeah, what we don’t have is one agreed “this is what we’ll measure every year”, but actually it’s a bit more complex than that, so there's about four or five different measurements, and we agree with them and that they are what we are measured on. So there are measurements. I just don’t think it’s a statistical argument, which is what it would very quickly turn into over a long period of time as to what that measurement should be, which actually it’s real world, on the ground—
 
JESSICA                      In some ways, though, how can it not be a statistical argument? Because, I mean, the report is saying children in poverty – we need to reduce that in New Zealand by 30% to 40%. How can we do that or know whether your government and policies are succeeding if we can't see the exact numbers that are getting into poverty or not?
 
PAULA                          But we can see them. That’s my point. So you’ve got two measures—
 
JESSICA                      But a universal measure for that.
 
PAULA                          Well, you’ve got two measures, and they are universal. We just haven’t got one agreed one. That’s all it is. So they are measures. We can compare now—
 
JESSICA                      But don’t you need that?
 
PAULA                          Well, no. We can compare now to 2007 if we want to. So, projected—
 
JESSICA                      So why not? Because, I mean, that seems really simple.
 
PAULA                          Well, projected 240,000 children in 2007, and they say that there's around 270,000 now. So if you take that measurement, then that’s where it lies, and it tells us exactly where we are and we’ll be able to compare that in three years and we’ll be able to compare that in another five. But that is exactly it. It’s a statistical argument. These kids need action, and I think that’s where the country’s attention should be, and that’s certainly what government should be doing. So, you know, academics and others can wring their hands and want this one measure. We’ve already got measures. We can compare ourselves. We can know where we are now compared to a few years ago and we can look back in the future and see what we’ve done. What we need is actions.
 
JESSICA                      One of the other— One of those suggested actions is the Working for Families and giving more tax credits to some of those bigger families. Is that something you're considering or looking into?
 
PAULA                          Yeah, look, at this time, we’ve done our report and we’ve said that’s where it lies. But there are others that we’d like to look more deeply into, and I think I wouldn’t be ruling that out as something that we might look at over time.
 
JESSICA                      When will we see action on that? What's the next step now?
 
PAULA                          Oh, look, we’ve got the Ministerial Committee on Poverty, which is made up of Bill English and Tariana Turia and numbers of us, so we’re all sort of saying, “Well, should we look a bit deeper and get some work done?” And I think we might do that over time.
 
JESSICA                      So just to clarify, you’re saying that you’re looking into extending those tax credits for families?
 
PAULA                          No, we’re just looking into all of the recommendations, and that is one of them.
 
JESSICA                      But specifically on those tax credits?
 
PAULA                          No, well, we haven’t made that decision yet, but we just haven’t completely ruled it out.
 
JESSICA                      Great, so it’s still an option on the table for later in the year?
 
PAULA                          Well, it’s still there, and the committee have decided that they’ll look deeper at a few other options, and that might be one of them. But that’s yet to be decided. We’ve been doing a lot of work to get us to this point, and that might be on the next tranche of work that we might decide to look at.
 
ENDS

© Scoop Media