Child Poverty Reduction Bill

Madam Chair, it’s my pleasure to kick off the committee stage of the Child Poverty Reduction Bill, and can I say that, from the outset, the work that the Social Services and Community Committee has done on this bill has been outstanding and very much appreciated. I think they’ve done a good job of incorporating elements of the bill that do indeed strengthen it, and I’m sure we’ll see some of those submissions factored into the debate. Equally, I’d like to acknowledge, as I have done already, the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that were produced by the National Party, elements of which have equally been incorporated in this bill.

I understand we’ll be taking this debate part by part. My contribution on Part 1 is brief because Part 1 of the bill obviously sets out the preliminary provisions for the Act. It does note that the purpose of this bill is of course to encourage a focus by Government and society on child poverty reduction, it facilitates political accountability against published targets, and it requires transparent reporting. And you will see later on in the bill the Public Finance Act provisions that require that reporting to take place.

Just for context, when we discuss this part but also the bill more broadly, the bill in and of itself does not contain the measures that reduce child poverty. They do, however, create the impetus, the transparency, and the accountability mechanisms to make sure that successive Governments put this issue at the heart of their policy making. So I think that’s something that’s become clear as this bill has been debated. It’s a piece of infrastructure. Not unlike what we’ll see with our climate change legislation, it’s a way of transparently putting to the public where we currently sit on a critical issue, where we should be heading, and what Government is doing along the way. The purpose part of this bill and the overview of this part are all contained in Part 1. I look forward to hearing members’ contributions and am happy to make responses from the chair.

Madam Chair, thank you. I stand to rise, and, as National has indicated in its first and second reading, we will be supporting throughout the committee stage this bill.

National has always supported the lifting of children out of poverty. It’s fair to say that in its own nine years previously of Government, it’s shown that in the last five years, it managed to reduce the number of children that were in material hardship by 85,000. In the previous six years, it also managed to reduce the number of children who were in benefit-dependent families by 80,000. That goes to prove that there were a number of policies and directions under the previous Government, and hence the reason why we support this bill and its direction as well. I know that the Prime Minister, the Minister, has put in two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). We want to indicate early on with those—I know that’s not part of this part, but we’re just indicating too in support of this.

Part 1 clearly indicates in clause 3, where in paragraph (b) it talks about to “facilitate political accountability” and “published targets”. Previously, under the National Government, we had Better Public Services (BPS), and I suppose that was part of our contribution to see how we could hold a level of accountability. So we agree with this clause. We think that clause is important. Obviously, we’re taking slightly different tacks as to how we do that, but we’re all trying to get there in the same direction and the same way. We felt that BPS targets were a way of holding those Government departments to account. We’re doing this differently. I think the reports that would come back in the Budget are important to that as well, and that’s going to be an indication around that.

I suppose the only part that I would start to comment on—when we are holding levels of accountability—is whether we can get to the drivers of deprivation. As the Minister has already alluded to, although the measures aren’t particularly in this part of the bill, in this Part 1, what will be important, while we have the measures of both income in and income out and also too around material hardship—the biggest challenge, I believe, to all of this will be around accountability of the drivers towards deprivation, and we think that will continue to be a challenge, even for this Government into the future as well. And so we believe that that’s really important.

We again support the fact—and thank the Minister for including two of our SOPs, which were around child poverty - related indicators. We think that they are really important, to have them. It is that level of accountability that we’ve indicated there. Obviously, we would have gone a little bit further, but that’s part of negotiating our way forward, and we’ll see. What I take heart in is that in this there is the opportunity at the discretion of the Minister, so I’m hopeful that, actually, if there’s a requirement that we actually extend the level of indicators that allow us to be able to ensure that we meet the target, then there’ll be flexibility to be able to do that as well. And I think, actually, in this part of the bill, it indicates that there’s an opportunity to be able to do that.

Also too, in the overview of this, it goes, and alludes, to the aspect of SOP 157, which is in regard to the bill being in two parts and especially in relation to the fact that one is on child poverty reduction and the other is on the Children’s Amendment Bill as well. We support that because, actually, as it says, in clause 4 of this Part 1 of the bill—it’s the overview of this part as well.

My comments will be brief at this stage because I will have some other comments I’d like to make in Part 2 to this bill, so I’m going to keep them brief now so that it gives me an opportunity to speak a little bit further on. But I support this Part 1 of the bill. Thank you.

I call Marama Davidson. I’m sorry. I apologise to the member. I was a little confused earlier. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m really pleased to be seeing this bill—the Child Poverty Reduction Bill—travel through the House.

A short contribution from me in this first up, Part 1, and—going back to the purpose of this part, and, particularly, picking up, as did the previous member, on clause 3(b) “facilitate political accountability against published targets” but actually picking up clause 3(c) “require transparent reporting on levels of child poverty.” They were, of course, measures that were long championed and supported by the Green Party, so I’m particularly pleased.

But in relation to Part 1 clause 3(b) and (c), in particular paragraph (c), can I go back to the select committee’s report, and it states there quite clearly—what came back was that children should be viewed in the context of their families, whānau, hapū, and iwi or other culturally recognised family groups and communities. I simply wanted to affirm and reiterate the stance that the select committee itself identified and, I think, acknowledged that it has been the political viability of talking beyond child poverty and seeing child poverty beyond just the children.

That is quite important, and I welcome this holistic approach that we are taking. I welcome that we are being upfront and stating—perhaps not in legislation. This is why I think through all the stages of this committee stage—through all of the readings of these parts—we are taking the opportunity to stand up and explicitly acknowledge the wider context that children are in. And we purposefully do so because the political viability of understanding that children are part of a whole—and that it has often been seen as easier to politically fight for the dignity of children as opposed to their families and parents and so on. I think that’s the first short contribution that I wanted to acknowledge in Part 1 of the reading of this bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 155 in the name of David Seymour to clause 5 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question that the amendments be agreed to.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Could I please correct my vote while it’s still running?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Yes, you may.

Sorry—55 votes opposed.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I’d like to change the Jami-Lee Ross vote, please, to one vote in favour. Thank you.

Now, let’s take that again. Actually, could I just ask the indulgence of the committee? Could we take all of the votes again on this? Thank you.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 155 in the name of David Seymour to clause 5 be agreed to.