O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I'm very pleased to—through an amendment I've tabled only in the last few minutes—bring a new avenue of thought in particularly in this Part 1 and particularly addressing the question of eligibility. In this particular regard my amendment is seeking to add a new clause 12A—so this is in relation to MC 4 and to get to it relatively succinctly it's do with the National Immunisation Schedule. I've put down here that any person receiving a Best Start tax credit as referred to in MC 1 shall confirm that any dependent children have fulfilled the requirements of the New Zealand Immunisation Schedule as they relate to the age of the dependent child."So if we accept—and I don't fully do—that the Best Start grant is a positive step forward and that the handing out of cash will do the trick then I would argue or suggest that this is also a mechanism by eligibility to ensure the good health of that child through existing mechanisms—that being the National Immunisation Schedule. I would also make the argument and hence why the amendment has been tabled within the last few minutes that it's also for the public good. So members will hopefully understand that we have a register from effectively birth right through to actually old age but we're talking about four sections of the schedule here up to but not including four years of age where children receive various vaccinations. I for one am a very strong and ardent supporter of vaccinations. In fact you may even go as far as to suggest that I am for the mandatory immunisation of our children as a number of countries—I think including Australia—have gone down the line recently. I see with this piece of legislation being proposed that we have an apt mechanism via the Best Start tax credit to encourage if not mandate the vaccination of children.So fundamentally this amendment in my name comes back to how we can constructively use the eligibility criteria for the Best Start tax credit to ensure that the parents get their children immunised. And I'd like to put it to the Minister of Finance: does he see value in using his tax credit to bring about further individual and public good? I think fundamentally that this is a good idea and I'd like to understand if he sees it as such. It is possible—I don't want to presume the Minister's response. He may feel that this is not quite the right way to do it and if that were the case I would welcome a discussion be it in this debate or elsewhere of how we bring this about. As I say this is a public good. We all know that the immunisation of the many protect the few that do not but it's also good for the child and I suppose that's—Hon Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I'm sorry to interrupt the member but I do wonder and I know this amendment has only just been tabled in the House but the issue of the National Immunisation Schedule is not covered in any form whatsoever in the Acts being amended in Part 1.The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No. It's my opinion that the member can speak to this tabled amendment. At the end of the day it will be up to the committee to decide.SIMON O'CONNOR: Thank you Mr Chair. Look I'm more than happy to engage in a discussion and a debate with the Minister around how the schedule works in the various Acts and Orders in Council that bring it about. It's quite a legitimate thing in and of itself but I think what's really important and now I need to absolutely hammer it home is this is about providing the Minister and the Government with an eligibility option to obviously access the Best Start grant but also bring about some other particular goods.So I'm really just suggesting that we enable this amendment to be considered to be inserted in as I say as a new clause clause 12A. It's relatively simple. The legislation the mechanisms the regulations are already in play. I do accept that I may need to go away and provide a few more amendments to bring about how we verify this. Obviously the parent or parents will have to verify—I assume it's through the IRD that this is being done—but I am very aware that there are mechanisms or agreements if you will in place between various Government agencies at the moment. And without going on too much of a tangent because I'm conscious of my time the Ministry of Health already records all of this in its internal systems. So I don't think it will be overly difficult for say the Ministry of Health to inform IRD that actually this particular dependent child has received all the immunisations. There are quite a number of them. If the Minister is interested it is on the Ministry of Health website.But fundamentally I'm asking the Minister not to deny that the register is there but to say: does he see a benefit in these eligibility criteria? If he doesn't then why are we missing an opportunity to actually help the child simply beyond handing money to the parents? I would hope that most members of this committee and the Minister indeed himself would understand the good reasoning and scientific principles of why we need our children immunised. So let's not simply give them the money; let's also protect them."