Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa e te Whare. I move, That the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services Committee—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Sorry, Metiria. I am just not sure that I heard that you nominate the Social Services Committee to consider the bill.

I was just about to.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): My apologies.

No problem. I nominate the Social Services Committee to consider this bill. All New Zealand children deserve a good life and a fair future. New Zealand can be, and should be, a great place for our kids to grow up. But we cannot deny that for many thousands of children it is not great. It is a cold and hungry place to grow up. It is easy for us to turn away, to blame the parents, to blame the economy, to blame earthquakes or Europe or acts of God, but it is impossible to deny the facts—the facts of poverty in our own country—or to deny that we have the solutions in our collective hands.

The Children’s Commissioner says that 270,000 New Zealand children live in poverty. That is more than a quarter of a million New Zealand children. Fifty percent of these children are Māori or Pacific, and more than 150,000 are reliant on families who rely on a benefit. These facts are why we see on television screens day after day empty lunch boxes in school-bags; teachers desperately seeking funding to help give their kids breakfast; increasing illness, hardship, and deprivation of our littlest citizens; and even reports of kids looking through pig bins for food. These are children whom we know. They go to the same schools as our kids, they play in the same playgrounds as our kids. They have the same dreams and aspirations, but they do not have the essentials, and therefore they do not have the opportunities that many of our kids have had.

We could wait for a miraculous growth to provide thousands of new jobs—and that is certainly what John Key crosses his fingers for. We could wait for some new economic boom to bounce our economy back into the black. But we are not the ones who are waiting. It is the 150,000 poor kids who are waiting and paying the price for this ongoing delay. It is a price that is paid in empty tummies, cold feet, and poor learning. How can we possibly justify leaving 150,000 beneficiary kids in poverty? We simply cannot justify it on any grounds. Such a huge disparity can never be justified in a country that prides itself on fairness and opportunity.

The solutions to this poverty suffered by kids every day in this country are in our hands, and we can, if we choose to, give them a fair future. So here is my first step towards that fair future for our kids. My bill that we are debating tonight will relieve the worst poverty for these 150,000 children. My bill transforms the in-work tax credit into a genuine targeted child payment available to all low-income families. It is a step towards a universal child payment supported by so many in our community.

My bill removes the requirement that a person must work a minimum number of hours from the current criteria for this tax credit. It also removes the restriction that a person must not be in receipt of a means-tested benefit, whether that is a welfare benefit, a student allowance, or superannuation—and we know that many grandparents on superannuation take care of their grandchildren. So this extends the eligibility for the payment to all low-income families. The bill does not alter the means-test aspect of the payment, so John Key’s supposed millionaires will not get the payment from this bill, no matter what he says.

The in-work tax credit was designed to provide an incentive for people in paid work and to alleviate child poverty. But it is not delivered as an incentive. It is actually delivered as a child payment to alleviate child poverty. The tax credit is paid on the basis of the number of children in the family, and it is paid to the carer of the children, not to the income earner. It is not related to the cost of work nor to the hours worked. It is, in effect, a child payment, and it has been operating well for low-income working families.

People should be encouraged to work, and increasing the minimum wage and making the first $10,000 of income tax-free are just a couple of ways to make work really pay. If this Government is serious about creating an incentive for families and for work, it should not pay that incentive by denying to the poorest kids in this country a child payment that will help alleviate the worst poverty.

My bill will cost the Government money, and so it should. It will cost between $300 and $400 million a year. But compared to the estimated $6 billion a year—the cost of keeping kids in poverty—it is a very good and very small investment to make in our littlest citizens. And we do need to make it now, because our kids deserve it. The bill has been described as a practical and just way to address child poverty, by Auckland University economics professor, Susan St John. She says that excluding the poorest kids from the payment as they are now cannot be justified on moral or ethical grounds.

💬 David Bennett: You rely on Susan St John—far out!

It is disturbing that the National members of this House are barraging from behind me given the serious issue of child poverty that we are facing today. I think it shows their attitude to the issues of poor children who go hungry every day in this country. In fact, the High Court has held that the in-work tax credit is discriminatory in part, and the Child Poverty Action Group is preparing a case for the Court of Appeal, seeking a ruling that the in-work tax credit discriminates against the poorest children. I sincerely hope that they succeed to get justice for our kids.

Some from the Government would have you believe that the poor in New Zealand are bad parents by definition and deserve nothing more. But through this bill I would unashamedly put at least $60 extra each week into the back pockets of families who desperately need it to house, clothe, and feed their kids.

💬 David Bennett: It’s called communism.

Did you hear that comment from the National member that feeding kids is communism? I refuse to condemn ordinary New Zealand mums and dads who are without work. I was one of those mums once, as were many in this House and thousands of those in our communities. We know how tough it can be, and we only shame ourselves when we judge others or kick the ladder out from behind us, as we know some have done.

Over the past month, like many New Zealanders, I have been appalled by the Prime Minister’s scorn for the seriousness of child poverty, by his refusal to entertain any solution for these 150,000 children, and by his ignorance of the targeted child payment created by my bill. I urge New Zealanders to take this step for children and to join our Green Party campaign to end child poverty, to become champions for children, and to make poverty a political issue so that no politician could ever turn their face away from the facts or the solutions—to make it such a political issue that even John Key could not reject those children who go hungry, who go cold, while he has his holidays and plays his golf on “Planet Key”.

I urge the House to send this bill to the select committee to allow the debate to be had as to what kind of support we should be providing to families and children and how we might best do it. All New Zealand children deserve a good life and a fair future, but we cannot deny that for many thousands life is not great. It is a cold and hungry place, New Zealand. So let us make New Zealand a great place to grow up for every single New Zealand child and do that tonight. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak on this bill, the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill. I want to start by paying tribute to Metiria Turia because I do believe that she has brought this to—

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is a deliberate mispronunciation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I hope it was not deliberate. Pronunciation is a very important thing and some people do have difficulty with it, but I would hope that the member does his best.

I apologise; it was not intentional. If it was intentional it would have been much, much longer than that, but I thank the member opposite for correcting me on that.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: It may have been your accent, Todd.

It must have been my accent—exactly. I want to pay tribute to the member—Ms Turia?

💬 Metiria Turei: Turei.

Turei—hooray! I got it right. I pay tribute to Ms Turei for bringing this bill to the House. The reason for that is that I do believe she has brought it here with good intention. But, having said that, it is not something the Government can support, and the reason for that is we do not believe that this legislation will achieve anything close to what she actually wants to achieve with it.

The Government is committed to investing in ways to eliminate child hardship and improve the economic and social well-being of individuals, families, and communities. We are doing that through supporting families and individuals into work and, importantly, recognising those families who do work. I think this legislation would blur those lines about what we need to do in this country and what is achievable for those who deserve support to be able to do more for themselves.

The welfare reforms that we have introduced and the measures that we are taking to support New Zealand families will ensure that we are getting New Zealanders off benefits and into work, where they are much better off. I challenge members of this House to find examples of where families who work are not better off—every member of the family being better off. On this side of the House we are committed to fairness and an unrelenting focus on work, and we are focused on what people can do, not on what they cannot do.

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: This is jargon now.

It is what New Zealanders voted for at the last election. It is a commitment and a promise we made, and one we are delivering on.

This bill, from a member of the Green Party, seeks to pay people to stay on benefits, rather than supporting working families. I will say that again: it seeks to pay people to stay on benefits, rather than supporting them into jobs and into work. There is a very important difference in philosophy between the two sides of the House. You see, the current in-work tax credit offers an incentive for people with families to gain and retain sustainable employment, helping to ensure a better living standard and a secure future for them and for their families. Evidence suggests that the most effective way to achieve a long-term, sustainable reduction in child hardship is to address its causes directly by encouraging and helping people into work, while continuing to provide support in the shorter term.

This is about making sure that we support those people. As a society and as a Government we absolutely must support those on welfare, who need the assistance of their society, but we also need to take responsibility to help them to do more for themselves and for their families. I do not believe that this bill will achieve that. Evidence suggests that the most effective way to achieve a long-term, sustainable reduction in child poverty is to address its causes directly by encouraging and assisting people into paid work, while continuing to provide that support in the short term.

I want to touch upon some of the things that we have been doing in this area. The issue of children, how they are raised, what support is available to them, and their livelihood around them is extremely important to us in Government, and I do take it that it is important to all members of the House. Where we are different is the approach to how we combat this problem. The Government is committed to investing in ways to eliminate child hardship and to improve the lives of individuals, families, and communities, both economically and socially. Some of the changes to welfare reform that we are putting in place currently through this House are a step in that direction.

The Ministerial Committee on Poverty is working through a number of issues critical to improving the lives of low-income New Zealanders and their families. This committee is focusing on ensuring that the Government is getting results from the billions of dollars it spends on a wide range of social services. I will say that again: the billions of dollars that it spends on a wide range of social services. We are able to commit and spend that money to support New Zealanders who deserve support only because hard-working other New Zealanders are out paying their taxes. Where we can encourage people and help them into the workforce, they and their families, their children, are better off. The Government has invested in increasing our knowledge about the nature, extent, and persistence of material hardship amongst families with dependent children in New Zealand, and we are committed to continuing to make progress on eliminating this hardship where it exists in New Zealand.

I hear members opposite say: “Where are the jobs? Where are the jobs?”. We are hearing that a lot, but 60,000 jobs were created by this Government—60,000 jobs have been created. Members opposite might not like that, members opposite may be disappointed by that, but the cold, hard truth and the fact is that jobs have been created. What we do have a challenge with in this country is people who do not have the skills to be able to fill these jobs as they are created. It is a very important piece of work the Government is doing to look to support them, to help them, to bring more skills to them, and to give them confidence and at the same time skills, so that they can find their way to the workforce.

We make no apologies for saying that families are better off when a member of their household works. It is an overarching ambition and a challenge, and the direction the Government is going in is to help more New Zealanders into the workforce. Again—I come back to where I started—to the member who has sponsored this bill: I do recognise that she is concerned about the hardship of children and families in New Zealand, and I think there are many areas where we will be able to work with other parties in this Parliament to find ongoing solutions to these problems. Unfortunately, I do not believe that this bill is one of those solutions, and therefore the Government will not be supporting it.

I found that speech from the member Todd McClay, quite frankly, offensive. The implication from that side of the House that we hear continually is that somehow members on this side of the House, all of the Opposition members, do not have an interest in improving the lives of children, particularly those who are in the homes of people on Government support; this notion that we pay to keep people on welfare rather than trying to move them into work, where apparently everything in life gets better when you are on a meagre minimum wage.

Well, I have news for that side of the House: 40 percent of the children living in poverty at the moment are in the homes of people who are working. They are the working poor. If you want to improve the lives of children in the homes of families who are already in work, you could start by lifting the minimum wage.

This bill, the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill, is about poverty. That side of the House is ignoring that it is not just about those who are on Government support. Even in work, families are struggling. And that side of the House has tried to claim that there is not any incentive in this country to be in work. Do you know what the best incentive that we currently have is? How much, Mr McClay, does a sole parent on the DPB receive? How much does a sole parent on the domestic purposes benefit receive?

💬 Todd McClay: How many kids?

With one child. With one child, what is the main benefit rate—the main benefit rate—for the DPB? I hear silence. That, Mr McClay, is the best incentive we have to move into work. We pay $293 to a sole parent on the DPB. And what do we pay a 20-year-old on the unemployment benefit? Anyone? Anyone on that side of the House? I will take offers. It is $170.

It is time we broke through the rhetoric. On that side of the House there is a constant implication that people are making a choice—a lifestyle choice—to be on Government support, that they live in the lap of luxury, and that they are making poor and irresponsible choices on behalf of their children. In most cases—in the vast majority of cases—that is simply not the case. They do not have the means to provide well for their children. And the longer that that Government spins rhetoric that it is solely about parental responsibility, all it is trying to do is take responsibility off itself to provide an environment where there are opportunities; where families are able to move into decent, sustainable, well-paying jobs; and where sole parents who are primary carers are able to provide adequately for their children when they have no choice but to be the carer and, in fact, when that is the best place for them to be in that vulnerable stage of that child’s life.

That Government is disowning responsibility for an issue that is affecting 270,000 children. Let us not desensitise the issue. This is not just a number; these are kids who are, as Metiria Turei has said, going to school without food in their bellies and shoes on their feet. And this Government implies that this is simply a state of irresponsible parenting. It goes well beyond that, and any attempt to detract from the issue in that way is an insult to the children who are affected by it.

Let us look at this Government’s record when it comes to child poverty. It dismissed the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty’s recommendations on increasing incomes for children in poverty. It called them “dopey”. It dismissed Labour’s policy of food in schools, saying that fruit in schools was surely enough. It even dismissed my bill, which was simply about setting measurements for poverty and subsequent targets. This is a Government that has no political will to address child poverty.

This bill should be going to select committee. Labour, when in Government, lifted over 100,000 children out of poverty through Working for Families. But we are quite honest; we left unfinished business. Last election one of the policies we put forward as an idea to address this was the extension of the in-work tax credit. We have not removed that policy from the table, but we have been very open that we are looking at alternatives to see whether there is another and better way to increase the incomes of the households with children who are in desperate poverty, and we will continue on that search.

But until that point we will be supporting this bill. This Government should too, if it wants to prove that it has any political will to address an issue that is costing all of us dearly, not least children.

It was interesting to hear the previous speaker, Jacinda Ardern, suggest that she was offended by what this House was saying. I am not so easily offended, but there is a constant refrain that comes from that side of the House that this side of the House does not care about people and it does not care about children. Well, frankly, I find that offensive. The reason why this Government is moving ahead with welfare reform is precisely that the current regime, which we have had for the last few decades, is not working effectively. We do it because we need to do it for the sake of the children of this country.

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: Labour had 9 years.

And it has had a long time. I just want to start off with a couple of quotes because what we seem to be boiling down to here this evening is diverging views about the importance of work. I will quote here from Metiria Turei in this House on the first day of this session where she talked about the Prime Minister restating the myth “that work is a path out of poverty. The truth is that it is not.” This is Mrs Turei speaking: “For the two in every five children who live in poverty whose parents work, work is not the pathway out of poverty. Work is the trap, because work is not properly paid.” There you have that astounding comment from the Greens, whose members do not believe that work is the way out of poverty.

I recently came across a quote from Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1935. It is an interesting quote, I thought, from the man who probably more than anybody started welfarism in this country, for those who do not know their history. He said: “Continued dependence on government support induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fibre. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.” Well, I am not sure what to make of both those comments, but the point that I am making is that this side of the House believes that work is a good thing, and the whole point of the Government’s activities and proposals in its welfare activities and its growth promotion and the way that it focuses on building the economy is because we believe that it is best for children to be raised in households where people work and find meaning in their lives for earned success. We go back to Michael Joseph Savage in this country promising that he would end poverty with the welfare State in New Zealand, and 70 years later we still have more of it.

So this National Government is committed to investing in ways that eliminate child hardship and improve the economic and social well-being of individuals, but our welfare reforms are measures taken to support New Zealand families to ensure we are getting New Zealanders out of benefits and into work, where they are so much better off. On this side of the House we are committed to fairness and an unrelenting and unapologetic focus on work. We are focused on what people can do, not what they cannot do. We do not accept that it is a good thing for a child to be raised in a house where nobody has worked for generations. The essence of this bill and the Greens’ policy is just to somehow think that the problem will be solved by giving yet more and extending benefits, when we should be focusing on finding ways to encourage people to get back to work, which is what this Government is all about. I am afraid we all in this House agree that child poverty is an issue for this country. It is that we disagree on how best to remedy that, and this bill, unfortunately, is not, in my view, one that would remedy it at all in the long term. Thank you.

Malo le soifua i lau susuga. The Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill proposes to amend changes to the criteria in the Working for Families package by removing discriminatory elements that are attached to the in-work tax credit. The bill intends to assist vulnerable children, and that is a good thing—it is a good thing. So Mr McClay’s misinterpretation of this bill is a real concern. To say that it is to pay people to stay on welfare is astonishing, in my view. My advice to Mr McClay is this: he needs to do some exercise, and the only thing he should exercise is caution—caution, Mr McClay. No one was born to be a bad citizen. Exposing them to risk and unhealthy environments contributes to the negative outcomes that the National Government has been creating in the last 4 years.

This package is supposed to support families with children on low and middle incomes, and it is worth $60 per week. Is that right, Ms Turei? It is $60 per week for poor families with one to three children and an additional $15 per week for each additional child. However, there are implications. [Interruption] It is weekly? All right. OK. However, there are implications in this package regarding parents who do not meet the threshold for working hours—and I am talking about the 30 hours between a couple. Parents who receive income-tested benefits and parents who receive a student allowance will get $60 per week less in the current framework of the Working for Families package because of their eligibility under the IWTC, or the in-work tax credit.

The proposed amendments to the in-work tax credit are based on elements of the Working for Families package that discriminate on the basis of parental work status. It does discriminate. So this bill aims to amend the Income Tax Act 2007 to capture all children of beneficiaries, students, and families under the in-work tax credit. The proposed amendments would require the criteria under the Working for Families package to emphasise income, rather than work—income, rather than work. Income and work are both interrelated, but if parents are unable to meet the requirement to work 20 to 30 hours per week and their reasons are justified in some way, then the package should recognise this, rather than turning a blind eye to the actualities that people are confronted with.

There are also issues surrounding high unemployment periods, where it is difficult for parents to find work. Work is something that has become a foreign environment on that side of the House.

💬 Todd McClay: Very good speech!

It is. If changes do not occur, children will continue to suffer at the hands of the system, and that will contribute to greater poverty rates in the future. The estimated cost of the bill is around $300 million annually, which is a very small amount compared with the $6 billion annually to target poverty. This bill will invest in the future of our children and will contribute to a more equal society.

New Zealand First will support this bill’s referral to the Social Services Committee. Let the people of New Zealand have their say. It is time that democracy was given a fair opportunity to be exercised in this House. Thank you.

That was actually quite a reasonable speech from New Zealand First. I was quite surprised and I thought it was pretty good from those members. But let us have a look at what we are dealing with in this House tonight.

This bill, the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill, is not so much about work. This is about increasing the welfare State or providing—

💬 Sue Moroney: It’s about communism!

That is what this is about. That is what the Labour and the Green parties are about. They come to this House and they play holier than thou. They stand up and they say that the Government does not care about children, that we do not have a heart, that we do not make the right decisions, that they do, that they are standing on some pedestal, and that they know what is right. What they are actually doing, though—the Labour Party and the Green Party, and the New Zealand First Party—is preying on the most vulnerable people and their emotions. That is what the left wing is all about. How dare they do that to our most vulnerable people! They are preying on their emotions—preying on their emotions.

The National Government is doing the right things to build an economy that delivers the solutions. The solution is not giving more money to people so that those members can say that they have taken them out of poverty. I ask members of this House: are there members of our communities who are on benefits who are not in poverty?

💬 Hon Member: Yes, there are.

There are. There will be. There will be people who can manage their benefit to provide food for their children, who can provide a roof over their head, and who can provide shoes on their feet. Not all people on a benefit are in poverty. That is the assumption that the Opposition is making, and it is a wrong assumption. Even the Labour Party came out today and said that 40 percent of the people in poverty are actually in work; they are not actually on a benefit. So that is a reflection of the need to get more income. It is not a reflection that welfare is the problem.

What we are doing here is we are looking for a solution through welfare—a solution that does not fit the problem. The real problem is that we need to deliver an economic solution for New Zealand, so that people can get good jobs, can get a good education, and can make their way in this world. There is nothing wrong with work as the way to get yourself into the better series of income, and the Green Party can disagree all it likes, but that is the secret. It will not come out of this place. It will not come out of this place giving $60 to certain families. That will not take those families out of poverty, will it?

💬 Hon Members: Yes, it will.

Is $60 going to be enough? Sixty dollars is all the Labour Party says we need to give to beneficiaries to take them out of poverty. Well, how about working people, then, who earn more than beneficiaries and are still in poverty? Does it take them out of poverty? No, it cannot. How can the Green Party say that $60 will take people out of poverty, and yet working people who earn more have still got poverty with the $60? How does it work? Is that the Russel Norman approach to economics? Is it based on his theories? No. It is not true. It is not going to work. It is not going to achieve the purpose. Do not come into this House and try to say to the Government: “You’re mean. You don’t care.” Do not prey on people’s emotions to put your arguments across. That is all that the Green Party is trying to do.

This is the Green Party, the Green Party that, before the last election, said: “We never do personal attacks.” Its members went on TV and said: “We’re bigger than that. We never do personal attacks.” Here tonight, what does a co-leader of the Green Party do in her speech? A personal attack on the Prime Minister. It is all the Green Party can do. Stick to the knitting, look at what you should do as a green party, and do not try to change the economic framework of the world. To the voters out there, be aware. The Green Party does not put up bills about helping our rivers and our lakes; it puts up bills about spending other people’s money, and that is all that it would ever do if it got into Government. The Green Party is all about social reform and it is all about spending other people’s money. It is a classic left-wing party; it is not a real green party. Those members should be ashamed to call themselves that and to be in this House under that name.

Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. I found that last speech quite patronising, and I believe that that speaker, David Bennett, is blind to the poverty that exists in his electorate in Hamilton. I want to welcome the introduction of this bill, the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill, by Metiria Turei, as an opportunity to debate and discuss the issue of poverty that many families—beneficiary families and working families, including middle-income families—are now facing, especially families that have young children. We need to really talk about what we do with the 270,000 children who are living in abject poverty in New Zealand. We in Labour are totally committed to reducing child poverty, and we are looking at a range of ways to achieve this. Extending the in-work tax credit in the way that this bill introduces is only one of those ways. That has been part of our policy in the last election, and it is part of our goal to try to reduce child poverty. That is a goal that we remain absolutely committed to, and as part of our policy process we are looking through a range of options, including the options that the Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty has thrown up. We are going to consider those, because we know it is a real problem, and we believe that if we do not tackle it now, it will be dire for the future of Aotearoa New Zealand.

David Shearer has also rolled out Labour’s commitment to ensure that children are not learning while hungry in decile 1 to 3 primary and intermediate schools. We have pledged to work with community groups to provide free food in every decile 1 to 3 primary and intermediate school that needs and wants it. Of course parents are responsible for looking after their kids, but that will not change the reality that some children are turning up to school hungry, turning up to school without shoes, and their learning is affected, and that should be unacceptable to all of us. Labour makes no apology for committing funding for the sake of our children. I think that we have got to commit ourselves for the sake of our children.

There have been an additional 30,000 children living in benefit-dependent households since this Government came into power. Again, this is unacceptable. According to an OECD report, New Zealand has one of the highest rates of child poverty, and one of the lowest levels of investment in the first 5 years of life, among the 34 OECD countries. Again, this should be totally unacceptable to all of us. Research shows that poverty and income inadequacy are key drivers of poor outcomes for children. There is a need for more houses, quality and warmer homes, especially in Christchurch, and they have to be affordable for all. We have got to be prepared to acknowledge that there is poverty and be prepared to measure progress of what we do about it. It is unacceptable for any Government—any Government—to allow significant numbers of people to live in persistent poverty. The number of children living in hardship has increased from 15 percent in 2007 to 21 percent last year. It is unacceptable, I say, for any Prime Minister—any Prime Minister—to promise incessantly during an election campaign a brighter future for all New Zealanders, and then fail to deliver after he got everyone to buy into that promise. Every New Zealander, I would say, would be disappointed, and has every right to be, in the failure of this Government to keep that promise.

Once upon a time there was no poverty—not the kind of poverty that we see today. People had jobs. People were well paid. Most families could generally have one person working. Everyone had a house that was affordable, everyone had food on their table, milk was delivered to people’s doorsteps, everyone had a family doctor, education was free, and as a country we collectively looked after one another. We came together. Everybody pulled together, did their bit, and afterwards we celebrated over a barbecue. That was the New Zealand way. That was the Kiwi way, and sadly we have lost that. I have to blame, to a large extent, this Government being in power and the kinds of policies that it is introducing. I want to say to National members that they have got to recognise that there is a real problem, and unless they do that, nothing is going to be done under this Government’s watch. Labour and Shearer will fight to ensure that we get rid of the poverty.

As the Green Party spokesperson for income support, it is an absolute pleasure to speak to this Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill. This legislation will actually do something, pretty much immediately, to reduce child poverty if it is introduced, and all without stigmatising anyone. It is like a miracle. Of course, it will not fix everything, but it will make an immediate tangible difference, and that is more than any other idea I have heard in this House recently. As a country, we can find the money to make sure everyone has a good life and a fair future, if we just make the commitment to do it—and that is not a Communist conspiracy. Extending the in-work tax credit would cost between $300 million to $400 million a year. Child poverty is estimated to cost this economy over $6 billion a year. The benefits of extending the child payment are more than the costs, no matter which way you look at it. Metiria has already outlined several compelling reasons for supporting her legislation. I would now like to add just a couple more. The primary one for me is that benefit levels are just too low and the consequences of child poverty are far too high.

Now I would like to bring in some of the words of young people and their experiences of poverty, as found by the Children’s Commissioner. This is their view of what it is to live in poverty in New Zealand: “You get sick easily. Being left out. Not having enough money. Shame, neglect, lack of warm clothing. Living week to week. Not accepted by your peers. Debts. Phone and electricity cut off. Hard to fit in and take part in things like sport. Going without necessities. Moving a lot. Scary and stressful. Bad housing, overcrowding. Can’t go on school trips. Choices you can’t make, choices taken away. Lack of warm clothing. Can’t afford to go to the doctors. Cold, grotty disgusting housing. Not enough food. Hungry. Can’t afford school uniforms. Get picked on at school. Missed opportunities. Feeling of worthlessness. No good clothes. Getting pick on or bullied. Sad, disappointed, frustrated, angry. Children paying the price for parents’ mistakes. Lack of school books and stationery.”

I have heard the Government’s view that the way to improve child outcomes is to get their parents into paid work, and of course this has an instinctive appeal to pretty much everyone because actually we all want to work. But there are three problems with this. One is that parenting is work; two, there needs to be paid work to get into; and, three, child outcomes improve only when the parents are in reasonably paid jobs with decent conditions and flexibility, and there is plenty of research to back that up that I am happy to provide to any member of this House. Our benefit system even tacitly acknowledges that. For sole parents with children under 14, their focus may need to be on the care of their children. Despite the erosion of this principle in the new welfare reforms, our welfare system still retains this core value. Full-time work expectations kick in only when the youngest child is 14, so this Government even acknowledges that parenting for children under that age is work and should be able to be a focus, and yet it refuses to allow an increase in income to those families and to those children.

Finally, I would like to finish with a poem from a student from Ōtāhuhu:

Poverty is just a word …

but a word that means a lot

not when said

but when seen.

Poverty is just a cycle

but an on-going cycle

not being altered

but left aside.

Poverty is on our conscience

but at the back of our minds

not acted on …

but why not?

“PLEEZZE To people in power + the Government—don’t tuck us away as a statistic.”

I rise to speak to the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill. Even the name is ridiculous. It is, of course, a natural extension for a party that wants to print money, put us on the path that Zimbabwe is on, and make us the richest country on the planet. Quantitative easing—literally printing money—is a flawed notion for a party that thinks it is helping out people who are poor. It is very consistent with the bill it has put up now, which we utterly oppose. Perhaps I will come back to quantitative easing, because there is so much to say about it.

I would like to firstly outline why we are against the bill. The John Key National-led Government is committed to investing in ways to eliminate child hardship and to improve the economic and social well-being of individuals, families, and communities. This is a bill that would work against that. Our welfare reforms and the measures we are taking to support New Zealand families are going to absolutely ensure that we will get New Zealanders off benefits and into work, where they will be much better off, instead of leaving them imprisoned in a benefit system. On this side of the House we are committed to fairness and an unrelenting focus on work. This is what people do, if they can. Being on benefits, being cocooned, being on “Cloud Green”, or whatever you are calling yourselves these days, is a ridiculous thing—as ridiculous as the name of this bill and the notion that underpins it. This is a bill from the Greens that seeks to pay people to stay on benefits, rather than support working families. [Interruption] Of course it is. There are none so blind as those who do not see.

Let us go back to one of the favourite things that Dr Norman put out last week about quantitative easing. I mean, how ridiculous—hitting the poor the hardest. If you printed money in the way that Zimbabwe does, and Dr Norman and his band of merry Greens would have us do, then everybody who goes to the supermarket, goes to the petrol pump, goes to buy children’s clothing will have to pay more. So what is the point of that? How is that going to relieve child poverty and hardship within families? It will make it worse. The 1+1=2 scenario is lost on the Greens. Arithmetically they are utterly challenged, and this is yet further proof of it.

I looked through this bill. The current in-work tax credit, which is offering currently an incentive for people with families to gain and retain sustainable employment, is also helping to ensure a better living standard and to secure a future for them and their families—not borrow, borrow, borrow, get further into debt, get indebted not just for this generation but for future generations. Again, it is the printing money thing. You know, we should remind ourselves about the “Watermelon Greens”—green on the outside and bright red to the core. It is a very socialist—and that is putting it mildly—measure that they come out with repeatedly. It is nonsense. So I am very proud to be part of a Government that does not support it in any way, shape, or form.

Let us look at some of the evidence, shall we? I mean, this is something you probably cannot google in 2 minutes, which is what the Greens and their research unit tend to go in for, rather than substantive evidence and substantive proof. It is just kind of what they do, really. So let us look at the evidence. It suggests that the most effective way to achieve a long-term—not just a short-term, little, tiny, Green-minded one, but a long-term one—sustained reduction in child poverty is to address the causes directly, and that is why encouraging and assisting people into paid work while continuing to provide support in the short term is targeted. The pained expressions, the unbelieving faces of the Greens! They really do not get it, and maybe they never will. But we will certainly not be voting in favour of this bill.

I am very proud to be part of a Government that in fact does things that really make the future secure for our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. We care about the environment. The Greens purport to. How many questions do they ever ask in the House about the environment? There is the odd one on fracking, the Māui’s dolphin, one or two on—what is your favourite, Ms Logie? Sex-change people going into prisons. There has been a lot of talk of these fringe issues. And the other stuff they prattle on about? Well, it is about the economy, because Dr Norman wants to be the next Minister of Finance, if the unholy alliance of Labour and the Greens ever actually makes it across the line. I fervently hope they do not, for the sake of New Zealand and our long-term future.

There is an international consensus, too, that the Greens tend to miss out on. The medical community knows and understands—our esteemed Minister of Health, the Hon Tony Ryall, does as well—the general health benefits. People’s recovery from illness or injury is improved. To be in an environment where there is not benefit dependency is a good thing. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.