Lisa Owen interviews Social Development Minister Paula Bennett
Headlines:
Paula Bennett says Government won’t raise benefit levels, disagrees with Children’s Commissioner that current levels do
not allow children to participate in society.
“If I honestly thought that putting an extra 20-dollars or 50-dollars a week would see these children substantially
better off I would be advocating for it.”
Says 50% of those on sole parent benefit don’t go for extra hardship assistance, which is easily obtained.
Defends rejecting official advice to include beneficiaries in Budget package to help families with newborn babies
Denies New Zealand has a rape culture after saying this week New Zealanders need to change the way they respect each
other in order to abolish our rape culture
“I wouldn’t say that we’ve got a rape culture or a sexual violence culture in New Zealand. Actually most men and most
women do not and would not condone any sort of behaviour like that.”
Says NZ has high incidence of reporting sexual violence, “so actually some of those that are being reported are
incidences that haven’t even led to violence.”
Says her male National colleagues were concerned about the woman at the centre of the Malaysian diplomat case and didn’t
trivialise her concerns.
Lisa Owen: So the Household Income Report showed that there was a 3-percent decrease in the number of children living in
poverty, but that still means that there’s about 230-thousand kids who are living in poverty. Why are there still so
many?
Paula Bennett: Well because we’ve come through a global financial crisis we have seen women in particular on benefits
moving into work and we have certainly had a focus on sole parents and helping them realise what they can do with
children. But there’s no doubt about it, it’s a pretty hard life on benefit, even with all the extras that we put in to
help those children. But I think we’re making strides in the right direction.
But that’s a 20 year old figure and people like Jonathan Boston say that eradicating poverty is a political choice. Is
it just that you’re not making a big enough political choice? A billion dollars, an extra billion dollars a year he said
will make an enormous dent in this.
I don’t think it’s throwing more money at it across the board if you like. We need to target. We need to actually make
sure that those children are in school, that they’re learning, that they’ve got the means to do that so that they’re not
going to be in poverty when they become adults. I think it’s about helping people into work. We are really tackling that
long term welfare dependency and that is where I think we see the greatest gains. So we’re not scared to spend more
money.
On that point, a lot of international research suggests that actually more money is the solution, that is has better
health outcomes and that it is more education for kids in poverty and that in turn raises their lot in life so money
does help.
Yip and I agree. So that’s why we support people into work. We actually spend more now on the supports up front to help
people into work than we ever have. So another hundred million just in this budget year alone, we spent another
500-milllion over the last three years and that money all going into getting the right supports and the right time so
that we can help people into work which means higher incomes and better every way for them and their children.
But in the meantime are you saying that those kids who by poverty measure don’t have a decent meal every two days, and
man that’s not a big ask, they don’t have a waterproof raincoat, they don’t have two pairs of decent shoes, until their
parents get a job, is it ok for them to just be left in that situation, having to wait?
Well we on average, a sole parent with one child living in Auckland gets about 560 dollars a week. So that’s the
average. A lot get a lot more than that, not many get below that to be quite frank so that’s kind of the minimum that
you see happening for a sole parent. So we believe we do provide the base, we also provide for hardship assistance, we
spend about 240-million dollars a year on that, we’ve got social workers in all decile 1 to 3 schools, we provide
breakfast for every school that wants it. We are doing our bit at the bottom.
But when you talk about those benefit levels, the Children’s Commissioner Russell Wills he says that benefits have not
gone up in real terms in a generation since the ‘mother of all budgets’. And he says it’s time for you to raise benefit
levels. What’s your response to that?
Well my response is that to make the long term gains that are most important for what is often a very complex set of
issues that have led people to be in this situation. It is not going to be throwing more money at those on welfare, it
is going to be supporting them into work, while they on benefit giving those base supports that I think we’re very
responsible as a country in that we care enough that we do it. But I don’t think more money.
But he doesn’t regard that as throwing more money at the problem. His point is that this is not just about feeding a
child, it’s about allowing them to participate in society and benefit levels at the rate they are now does not allow
that.
Well I disagree.
So I ask again, is it not time to raise the benefits?
Well 50-percent those on sole parent never go for extra hardship assistance even though it is there for them and it is
there for them to easily obtain so they can actually get it via the telephone. So actually a lot are surviving on
welfare and doing alright. There are some that are not and as I said it’s usually a set of complex issues that are in
the household that we’re prepared to tackle and spend more money on but I don’t, if I honestly thought that putting an
extra 20-dollars or 50-dollars a week would see these children substantially better off I would be advocating for it.
What about the kids, the hundred and thirty odd thousand who are in severe poverty, do they need more money?
Well this is the, that’s where you’re getting to the heart of it. So there is not one easy solution for them. It takes
targeted support. It takes actually putting the right measures around. It’s the support we give in schools as well as
into the home. It’s making sure those parents have dealt with, what often they’ve got it is mental health issues;
there’s drug and alcohol issues, often in these households. And unless we’re prepared to tackle the really complex stuff
and target our support then we’re just going to see it continuing to be intergenerational. We’re prepared to do that and
we’re prepared to spend money there as you can see through children’s teams, as you can see through different health
initiatives.
But in saying that, it’s part of the issue, do you feel slightly hamstrung I suppose in that you don’t want to get ahead
of voters, that this might be unpopular, to up benefit levels, to spend a billion dollars and really knock this problem
on the head?
No I don’t. I think that we have some real concern, particularly for those that are on welfare or are on low incomes
with children under the age of five. And as I say we are prepared to actually spend money there but it is targeted and
it’s around actually getting in and solving some of those very complex problems that are happening in the household.
So Jonathan Boston, well respected researcher, he’s done a book, a definitive book on child poverty in New Zealand. Is
he wrong when he says a billion dollars a year could really solve this problem?
No. And we’ve actually picked up quite a few of his initiatives and those through the expert advisory group that the
Children’s Commission put in place. I agree that debt is a real problem for those on low incomes, so we’ve got a
micro-finance scheme that we’ve introduced. We sort of heard that kids need to be fed in schools so we put another
9.5-million dollars just into KidsCan which provide raincoats and shoes to help with that lower end.
Ok so you are listening but what about the big ticket items, because you mention Russell Wills there and his advisory
group. His statutory role is to keep a check on you and what you are doing and tell you what he thinks is needed. And he
says raising benefits is needed, absolutely. He says it’s scandalous.
Well I think that we provide a base support. I think there’s a whole lot of additional income that they can gather via
hardship assistance, via the accommodation supplement. We put 1.2-billion into that a year alone, where we provide extra
assistance to those that are struggling and that are on lower incomes or on benefit. So we have maintained them and
we’re not scared to spend money where we really think it needs to be. But I don’t want to see them long term on welfare.
Ok but wages have gone up about 25-percent in that same time that benefits in real terms have not increased. Nobody is
saying that there shouldn’t be a gap as an incentive to get people back into the workplace. But that ain’t a gap, that’s
an abyss.
Yeah, look as I say I think that we have a base welfare system that actually provides for all the necessities, we give
extra assistance for accommodation and hardship and everything else. And it’s not on our agenda at this stage to
increase benefits but we do see the merits…
So you’re ignoring his advice or recommendation
Oh I’m just disagreeing with it. So it’s not ignoring. But we have a choice. You know we listen to people who give us
advice and there’s a whole myriad of it so I could probably sit here and give you another report that says it’s a
disincentive for people to get into work if we raise benefits too much.
Well you talk about targeted assistance; we know that the government had advice from Treasury that looked at initiatives
that would support the children of beneficiaries for this Budget and that Treasury said that those were the most
vulnerable children. In the end you excluded the children of the unemployed in your families’ package. Why did you
decide to do that?
Because when we looked at weighing up paid parental leave against the sole parent support, actually those on the sole
parent support get more weekly than you could get on the maximum paid parental leave. So we thought actually we are
covering those that are having babies on benefit by providing them sole parent support which is more than paid parental
leave maximum.
But 50-percent of families don’t qualify for paid parental leave.
No and so for those they can get the parental tax credit. Or for those that are sole parents they can actually get
assistance through welfare. There are those on lower incomes who also get access to the accommodation supplement.
So do you actually think that was a fair decision for the children of beneficiaries?
Absolutely. Absolutely. No I stand by it. At the end of the day we provide literally million and millions of dollars a
week in assistance to those that are on welfare and are unable to work. But I am unashamed that we’ve put a focus on
putting more support in earlier, which we are doing. 8,800 sole parents have come off benefit just in the last year. The
number of sole parents on welfare hasn’t been this low since 1988. That’s pretty remarkable.
But in saying that you put a lot more, you say you’re putting in resources early on but we have a really good system for
looking after older people here. Only 3-percent of our older people are living in poverty whereas about 20-24 percent of
children. That’s because you give a universal benefit to older people, it’s called super, and that is tagged to wages so
in real terms it increases. Why can’t you do that for kids?
Well it would be billions of dollars more if we were to do that for those on welfare. We think that we have.
A billion. A billion a year would make a dent says Jonathan Boston.
Well that’s a lot of money. You know, that is really a lot of money. And you need to look at those incentives that go
for those that we are trying to get into work. So actually we don’t want the welfare system to be a lifestyle choice.
And I don’t actually think that people should be having multiple children while on benefit because it’s not good for
them and it’s not good for their children. So where we can we will not be putting those incentives in place which can
mean more money. What we will do though is spend more on those that are on welfare to support them so that they can get
into jobs.
As you would know 1 in 3 Maori and Pasifika children are in poverty, 1 in 6 Pakeha or European kids. Would this problem
be closer to being solved if those statistics were reversed?
What do you mean by that sorry?
Well if there more white children living in poverty.
Oh definitely not. Gosh the focus that goes on our Maori and Pacific kids is huge. We’re seeing more in early childhood
education. The health initiatives that are going in are going to those very children. We see ourselves needing to focus
on them. It’s Whanau Ora that’s getting in earlier. Our children’s teams have a massive focus on Maori and Pacific
children. No I don’t think that at all.
Ok, in the time we’ve got left I want to turn to your role as the lead minister for sexual violence services. Do you
think that we have a rape and sexual violence culture in New Zealand?
I wouldn’t say that we’ve got a rape culture or a sexual violence culture in New Zealand. Actually most men and most
women do not and would not condone any sort of behaviour like that. We have got a few people that have got disgusting
and abhorrent behaviours that we need to address and stand up and say that we will take a stand on and hold them to
account.
But those statistics that have been talked about this week, 1 in 3 women suffering from intimate partner violence and
between 2000 and 2010 the highest levels of intimate partner violence in the OECD in New Zealand. Doesn’t that suggest
that there is a degree of apathy towards the problem?
No I don’t think so. I think what we do in New Zealand is we report more than any other country. So actually some of
those that are being reported are incidences that haven’t even led to violence.
Yeah but we can only report if it’s happening.
Yeah but some of them are not actually full on violence that I think it makes it sound like. At the moment we can see
incidences where there is some.
So really we’re overplaying our hand with this are we?
Well at some level we report a lot. It’s the same with actually child abuse and neglect. We have one of the highest
notifications-
So it’s not as bad as people are saying it is?
We have got some of the highest notifications in the world actually in New Zealand. Actually it means we care and we’re
standing up and we’re reporting. And I think that’s a good thing. So don’t let me say it’s not a bad thing.
But you suggested it’s not as bad as we might think, some of the incidents aren’t as bad.
I think we report everything.
Isn’t that indicative of trivialising the problem?
Oh not at all. Not at all. I mean we put more than 70-million dollars into services for family violence, we’re increased
the money going into Women’s Refuge, we’re got a whole of government approach that we’re taking. We’ve got new justice
initiatives. I by no means trivialise some of the undercurrents of violence that are happening in homes in this country.
But I also think that we notify and we report. And that is a good thing.
Ok, so how do you think that your male colleagues handled the alleged assault on Tania Billingsley and the departure of
the Malaysian diplomat? Did they lose sight of the victim? Did they trivialise that?
Well look I’m not prepared to go into what has happened in that case. But my short answer to that would be no.
Why not? How can you say that under the circumstances with what the victim has…?
Well because I don’t think that. You asked me what I thought. My opinion is no actually.
I’m asking you why.
Well because I think actually everyone was very concerned about the victim.
Ok thank you very much for joining me this morning.
ENDS