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:17949. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I note that the Minister of Labour in his address said that the Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill was aimed at giving families the financial certainty that would be beneficial to them and their newborn babies at that really crucial stage of development. But let us be honest. It does not do that for everyone. In fact as Labour members have pointed out through the early stages of this debate the most vulnerable families and children remain untouched by this Government’s proposal tonight and that amongst other things will be the most significant defining feature apart from the fact that our package runs for longer reaches more people and is more generous.Aside from all of those fundamental features one of the most significant is the fact that the National Government’s policy leaves vulnerable families absolutely untouched. If as National members have purported in their general statements to this House their Budget is targeted—targeted—at vulnerable families and children how is it that the poorest families in New Zealand are excluded from this bill? How can that be? That demonstrates to me that this Budget has been more about rhetoric than it has been about practice.I also want to point out that in comparison to Labour’s Best Start package which fundamentally aimed to treat as many children as possible equally in terms of the assistance it gave families the only children in families excluded from the Best Start package were those families who earned over $150000—and even then those ones might have been eligible for paid parental leave and could have received paid parental leave. The only ones outside paid parental leave who were excluded were families who earned a combined income of $150000 in the year that they were taking leave—so not a large number of families; roughly about 5 percent. Under National the families who are excluded are basically the ones who are earning roughly less than $20000 per annum. What a telling story that is so I will let that speak for itself.I wanted to see then in that context what kinds of issues were raised in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act analysis of the bill that we are debating tonight. It said under the departmental disclosure statement which we received late this afternoon that advice had been provided to the Attorney-General on whether any provisions of the bill appeared to limit any of the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It said yes that information had been provided and we could find that advice on the website.I would like to just raise with the Minister and the officials that despite my searches I have been unable to find that analysis on the Ministry of Justice website and I would implore the Government that if it is indeed available it would be very beneficial to members on this side of the House if that were tabled in the House. All of the regulatory impact statements have been tabled at the same time as the bill but the last time I checked I had not seen the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act assessment. I will check again for that New Zealand Bill of Rights Act assessment but it would be very useful if members on this side of the House had that available to us.But as I said I have had the opportunity to look at the regulatory impact statements and particularly I found very useful the statement that was provided by I believe the Department of Labour. These statements are very useful. If I were to assess what they were doing they basically give the kind of analysis that is often provided in a Cabinet paper. They tend to look at the problem definition and will often then provide some analysis of the pros and cons of different options that may or may not have been presented to a Minister. The giveaway often that it is not exactly the same as probably those early briefing papers is that often the analysis in the regulatory impact statement will home in on one option and it will be the one the Government has gone for. That is a little clue that sometimes they have been written after the fact.But I find it interesting that the Department of Labour has included the following statements under what it calls “problem definition” when looking at the issue of extra support for new families. It states: “Currently some families experience poor outcomes due to financial pressure on working mothers to return to the workforce earlier than is desirable for health and social reasons.” It then goes on to say that some of the examples of this are for instance “suboptimal bonding between parents and their children leading to poorer outcomes for children and therefore society. Secure attachment is an important predictor of resilience in later life and a large body of evidence suggests that many adolescent difficulties including crime substance abuse and mental health have their beginnings in early childhood.” I want to point out that the footnote for this piece of research and evidence comes directly from Sir Peter Gluckman his piece in May 2011Improving the Transition: Reducing Social and Psychological Morbidity During Adolescence. All of the statements made in the problem definition by the department of labour this side of the House would absolutely agree with. They were the founding principles for the Best Start payment.I want to though just ask this question: does suboptimal bonding between parents and their children leading to poorer outcomes and secure attachment as an important predicator of resilience in later life stop becoming an issue at 18 weeks? That is surely the fundamental question we should be asking because the Government has said: “Yes we accept maybe 14 weeks might be contributing to the problem. An extra 4 weeks should do it.” Is it enough?If we look at the rest of the evidence that the department of labour has pulled out it goes on to say that there are reduced health and development benefits of not achieving the World Health Organization’s recommendation of exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months—for example improved outcomes to mother and specific benefits to babies such as “improved cognitive development and visual acuity reduced risks oftypes 1 and 2 diabetes reduced childhood obesity and coeliac disease reduced mortality during the first year of life and long-term benefits for cardiovascular health.” That comes from the American Academy of Paediatrics. That is a reference to 6 months of paid parental leave not 18 weeks. And wait there is more from the Australian Productivity Commission on paid parental leave. I want to point out to members who have just arrived that I am actually reading from advice provided to the Government by a Government department.Mike Sabin: Thank you.JACINDA ARDERN: No problem Mr Sabin. It then goes on to say: “not achieving child and maternal health and welfare benefits from the primary caregiver having a minimum of 6 months’ leave”—again 6 months’ leave. “The benefits include better health outcomes for mothers and infants and better developmental outcomes for children including cognitive benefits and reduced rates of infant mortality.” The Australian Productivity Commission reports that there is compelling evidence of these benefits from a period of absence from work for the primary caregiver of around 6 months—of around 6 months—and a reasonable prospect that longer periods of 9 to 12 months are beneficial.The advice that was provided to the Government pointed strongly to 26 weeks which is the very amount of paid parental leave that Labour has strongly advocated for. Yet what options were put to the Government? Not 6 months—no not 26 weeks. Instead it was always the extension of just 4 weeks. And why? What was the rationale in the paper? It said that the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill currently before Parliament which seeks to extend paid parental leave from 14 to 26 weeks in three stages basically was not something they would be putting forward as an option because of the prioritisation of Budget allocations.Let me say this: Peter Gluckman has pointed out in this report that poor attachment poor health outcomes through lack of breastfeeding all of the resilience issues and psychological issues that come about from poor early development—those things cost more than 6 months of paid parental leave will ever cost. It was about investing to save and that is where this bill has failed.