﻿Mr SPEAKER: Question No 6, Metiria Turei.
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the PM:
Does he stand by all his statements?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (PM): Yes.
Metiria Turei: How poor does a child need to be under his
“definitional difference”, which he told Paul Henry about yesterday,
when he claimed that there were only 60,000 to 100,000
children living in poverty?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The advice I have from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD)
material deprivation index is that there are indeed
between 60,000 and 100,000 children who are living
in more severe material hardship.
They are children who, based on that index, lack nine to 11 items
from that deprivation index.
Metiria Turei: Under his “definitional difference”,
is a child living in poverty if their parents cannot afford
to buy them fresh food, if they do not have two pairs of shoes,
if they cannot afford a school uniform, and if they
do not have their own bed?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I refer the member to the MSD's material deprivation index.
Metiria Turei: Is the Children’s Commissioner wrong, and are his experts
who worked on the solutions to child poverty wrong when they state
that there are between 180,000 and 200,000 children
who are materially deprived—that is, they go without three or more
essential items such as fresh food, warm clothes,
their own bed, and good shoes?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It seems to me that the member picks
and chooses her index depending on what suits her argument,
but all I can tell the member is that if one looks at the number
of children who are deemed to be at the most significant level
of deprivation in NZ based on the MSD index, it is 60,000
to 100,000. But I would say that this Government is very focused
on all children, particularly those who are less well off,
and there are degrees of how less well off they are.
That is why the Government introduced free GP visits.
That is why the Government has put more money into providers
like KidsCan. That is why this Government has worked alongside
Fonterra and Sanitarium to provide free breakfasts.
That is why the Government has supported having social workers
in all low-decile schools. It is why the Government
has introduced Children’s Teams to work with at-risk children
and families. That is why the Government has insulated
every State house, and it is why the Government has worked
to insulate 240,000 other homes and has given them clean heating.
This is a Government that, in the very worst of times in NZ,
has maintained benefits and entitlements that provide support
for the very children whom that member is talking about.
[MEMBERS APPLAUD]
Metiria Turei: Did the MSD fail to give him the 2014 Bryan Perry report
that showed that there are 260,000 children in poverty
and that 205,000 of them are living in severe poverty,
where their parents earn less than half the median income?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member will note—if she wants to refer
to that particular report that she is talking about—
how consistently the numbers that she is talking about have been
at that level of deprivation. In fact, there were about 240,000
to 260,000 children living in poverty under Labour,
at the height of what was theoretically an economic boom.
But what I can say is that Bryan Perry’s new annual report—
and the new edition will be out very soon—will make it quite clear
that in terms of what they define as severe material hardship,
there are between 60,000 and 100,000 children,
and they have between nine and 11 conditions on the deprivation index.
Metiria Turei: Would the PM agree that by promising
to tackle child poverty and then changing the definition of poverty
to exclude most of the children who are actually poor,
he is breaking yet another Budget promise?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member is being extremely selective
with the comments I have made. If she actually goes back
and looks at the interviews that I have done on this topic
ever since the last election, she will see that I have
consistently said that there is a disagreement between ourselves
and those who claim that there are 260,000 children in that category.
We have made it quite clear that we see a group of 60,000
to 100,000 as our priority. It does not mean that we do not
provide either services or support for the wider group;
we actually do. I listed a great many, and I will not
repeat them now. But our primary area of focus and attention
is on those who are most in need. I think most NZers, actually,
would say that the Government having a focus on those
who are in the worst of conditions is putting
our resources in the right place.
Jacinda Ardern: Does he stand by his previous statements
in this House that there are many measures of child poverty,
in light of his position now that there is just one,
material deprivation, which just so happens to be the smallest
of all the measures that are used by the Children’s Commissioner?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I stand by the view that there is no
one single measure, but I am simply saying that
the material deprivation index, according to the advice that we
have had from the MSD, is the best. That is one measure, but there is no
one single measure of poverty in NZ, and I do not think there should be.
Metiria Turei: Will the PM just admit that he has made up
an Oliver Twist definition of poverty so that he can ignore
some 200,000 NZ children who suffer from poverty every day?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member risks being a little bit silly.
I listed a few moments ago a very wide range of support
that we provide for all NZ children, and in some cases, obviously,
the support is much more focused on those who are in need.
I have made it quite clear that I think there is a group
who are in worse hardship than others, and that is supported
by the material deprivation index, which evolved, actually,
from the European equivalent. It is a very thoughtful process
that Bryan Perry goes through, and it looks at very detailed analysis.
I am more than happy to have the debate with the NZ public,
but I think you might find that the NZ public supports the view
that those who are most in need deserve the most support.
That does not mean that other children do not get support;
they actually do. But this Government is very focused
on that group, and I think most NZers would say
that is the right thing to do. The member shakes her head,
but if we followed her economic policies a whole million
of NZ children would be in hardship because none
of their parents would be in work.
Mr SPEAKER: Question No 7.
Subtitles by the Amara.org community