Social Security (Child Benefit) Amendment Bill

Mr Speaker,

First of all I'd like to thank those parties, NZ First and United Future, who have offered to support this Bill to Select Committee so that it could at least be considered in the context of Government measures to support families and children. I am very conscious that these are parties who do not on the whole support Green initiatives, so I thank them for taking the time to really look at what I have been trying to achieve in putting this Bill forward for public debate, rather than just acting on prejudice.

On the other hand, we in the Green Party have been under no illusions about the likelihood, ultimately, of Labour support for my Private Member's Bill to reintroduce a low but universal benefit for all children. All along I had a faint but real hope, however, that the Government might at least see its way clear to supporting the Bill past its First Reading, given that all it does is reinstitute the family benefit which was lost with so little fanfare way back in 1991.

The family benefit seemed to sink without trace in the era of massive benefit cuts and the Employment Contracts Act, and yet the loss we experienced then of that pitiful yet significant $6 per week per child is still with us now, and in some ways having an even greater impact.

Just imagine if in 2004 we had a universal child benefit, which families could capitalise so that they could at least raise the minimum necessary to put the deposit on their first home. Just imagine if families who have to borrow or go to the food bank most weeks just to put food on the table could at least buy another $25 or $35 worth of supplies to feed their children. Just imagine if we lived in a country that dared to treat our youngest and most vulnerable citizens with a fraction of the same respect which we offer our elderly through a universal benefit called superannuation.

I hope that all those people who criticise this Bill because it is universal and not targeted just to families they identify as poor will take a moment to ponder, even briefly, the fact that most parties in this House are more than happy to support universal super, paid to everyone 65 plus no matter what their income or assets, while some of these same parties are saying at the same time that we cannot afford to offer all children and their primary caregivers the dignity and support of a mere $15 a week for the first child and $10 a week for the second.

I do wonder what this says about our comparative attitudes to people who are equally citizens of our country, but one segment of whom can vote and the other can't.

I feel really sad tonight that a Labour Party filled with all sorts of well intentioned people like Steve Maharey and Jill Jeffs who have spoken in this debate, and many others, cannot at a minimum allow us to take my Bill to the Social Services Select Committee. If we had been given this opportunity, we could have looked at it in the light of Budget changes to family assistance and the benefit system overall which evidently Dr Cullen is about to announce, received submissions and opened up a public discourse which would have been useful and timely.

However, this is not to be. Neither Labour nor National have seen fit to support my Bill, and this will be the last speech on the subject, at least for now. Nevertheless, I do not regret the priority the Green Party has put on supporting me in putting this Bill forward, and on making ending child poverty one of our key electoral policy targets.

I would like to finish by thanking all the community groups. Trade unions and church organisations who have supported this Bill, and by promising that we in the Green Party will continue to campaign for a society and a tax and benefit system which puts children and families at the front of policy making not at the rear, and which works for equity and sufficiency for all our citizens, even those who can't vote in elections.