Ardern Jacinda: Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 15 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17935. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): That speech from David Bennett was an absolutely pathetic contribution to this debate and it proves that National started working on this policy based on some of the analysis provided by the Inland Revenue Department in April. April at best is when National decided that perhaps public pressure had finally come to bear on it and that it was time that it started having a little look over at this side for the policies that would benefit families.Budgets should be about people. That is absolutely what Budgets should be about. They should be focused—if we are indeed moving into surplus—on how we can ensure that hard-working New Zealanders are enjoying the spoils of any of the prosperity that we are supposedly moving into. Our disappointment on this side of the House is that New Zealanders by and large are not benefiting from any recovery. They are not. Even this Budget is a “fudge-it Budget”. It is an attempt to make it feel like some families are going to get some small scraps from this Budget. The Government could have done so much more. It could have done so much more.I am happy to point out where there are elements of this Budget that would have been a vast improvement particularly for families and particularly for newborn children. In particular when it comes to a little bit of the papering over that has happened it has especially happened for our most vulnerable children—the 285000 children living in poverty in New Zealand. Out of this Budget they have got a bit of a clear Duraseal cover over the top of that issue but what we needed was step change. What we needed—and what has been called for for some time—was an action plan that was focused on the well-being of all children. Paid parental leave and changes to tax credits should have been one part around income of a plan that should be focused on lifting the well-being of all of those children. As Plunket said: “Poverty continues to hamper progress for all children. Plunket would like to see a coordinated plan to genuinely tackle child poverty using measurable child poverty targets.” That is what it said in respect of the Budget. From Unicef: “UNICEF NZ encourages the Government and all political parties to commit to a comprehensive plan to address child poverty with targets measurement and clear accountability …”.That is exactly what this Labour Party will do in Government. We already have a bill that sets out exactly how we would do it and we would do it with more than just our Best Start policy because we recognise that our Best Start policy is just one part of a much wider plan that is required. But let us do a little bit of policy comparison. If indeed it has been talked as “Best Start - lite” let us see where in particular—unfortunately—the Government’s plans have not addressed some really key areas. It has done a little but it is still no cigar. So let us look at paid parental leave. Currently we have got 14 weeks of paid parental leave. The Government has proposed extending that to 18 weeks. It is good to see an extension. Labour’s policy has always however been 26 weeks since we have been in this. We have been pushing hard for 26 weeks. Sue Moroney has done an enormous amount of work—Grant Robertson: That’s right—26 for Babies.JACINDA ARDERN: —in conjunction with 26 for Babies to try to get that Government to move an inch on paid parental leave. It is disappointing that we have not seen it go all the way to 26 weeks because 26 weeks is what evidence and research says we should be doing. In fact Labour has said that ideally we would like it to be a year but we recognise that that would take time and so 26 weeks is our policy and unfortunately 18 weeks just does not cut it when it comes to what the research clearly tells us benefits children. In fact Growing Up in New Zealand a fantastic piece of research currently under way—the biggest update on longitudinal studies since the Dunedin study—has shown us that parents currently try to bring together every bit of leave they are entitled to scrimping to try to get that little extra bit of time. Having 26 weeks would make a massive difference and we want to pay tribute to the work Sue Moroney has done to eke 4 weeks out of that Government. So that is part of our Best Start payment.What about the parental tax credit? We should first acknowledge the origins of the parental tax credit. Jenny Shipley came up with it in the 1990s when she recognised that there was a large chunk of parents—60 percent—who were not eligible for paidparental leave. Actually the small tweaks the Government has made although laudable actually will not make a big dent in that eligibility. We had 60 percent of parents who were not getting anything so she stepped in and said that she would create this little tax credit which still went to a narrow group. Not every parent who does not get paid parental leave gets a parental tax credit and it does abate—let us be very clear on that. So she introduced that at a rate of $150 a week for 8 weeks. The change this Government has made in these proposals is to increase the rate to $220 and to increase the length to 10 weeks for the group of parents who are eligible. It has changed the eligibility—it has reduced it. It has reduced it now so that it is more in line with families who might be eligible for the family tax credit or in-work tax credit. So basically if a family out there does not get that it will not get the parental tax credit. That is the message now.Let us compare that with the Best Start payment. Best Start said: “Look the parental tax credit is kind of fudging things. It is not covering everyone who is not getting paid parental leave. It is not near-universal. Why don’t we just scrap it and start again?” and that is what Best Start did. Best Start says: “Actually for parents who don’t get paid parental leave and who earn under $150000 we want all of you to receive some support when your baby first arrives.” Ninety-five percent of parents receive the Best Start payment and they receive it at a rate of $60 a week. The families who do not get paid parental leave get it for 12 months. For families who do get paid parental leave it kicks in after their paid parental leave ends. On every count the Best Start payment helps more families it helps them for longer and it is more generous.And here is the kicker. Here is the thing that makes the biggest difference between Best Start and what the Government has proposed. The Government’s proposals exclude our most vulnerable low-income families. They get absolutely nothing from the package that the Government has introduced. Roughly 14000 parents who we know are living below the poverty line are still excluded from this Government’s plans. Best Start left none of those children behind. In fact it said to those children that we will support those kids until they are 3—not just for their first year but for 3 years. So the 50000 children living in poverty would benefit from the Best Start package for 3 years.That is a big difference between what Labour proposed and what this Government is proposing and that is what distinguishes what Labour is about and what National is about. We wanted to lift the well-being of all children but with a special focus on the most vulnerable. The National Government has said: “We want to do a little bit of a lift for some.”—for some. For us it was about extending on both ends. Where this Government has narrowed the parental tax credit and actually left out some of those income earners who very rarely get anything those are the ones who have also been cut out today as well as those at the end.Yes John Armstrong I think said it best when he said that this is the “Great Brain Robbery”—the Labour Party brain that is. He said: “If ever an explanation was needed as to why Opposition parties like to stay mum on their policies for as long as possible then look no further than the contents of this Budget.” Absolutely! But you know what? We stand by announcing our policy in January because we know that what we announced set out a clear difference that this Government still has not been able to keep pace with. It still reverted to type on the people whom it has decided to lift. It still could have done so much better. We will continue to promote helping the most vulnerable families with no shame on this side of the House. We will make sure that we promote policies that are for the many not for the few and are ultimately focused on children not blame not reverting to type and not focused on stereotypes on who should get assistance and who should not. Instead we are just saying that if we lift children we lifteveryone. That is what Labour policy is about. That is what a Labour Budget would have been about and that is how we will hold this Government to account.