Wagner NickyHon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I would like to start by asking the Minister Grant Robertson a question. Why does he keep talking about the family benefit when his Best Start tax credit is a very shabby thin version of that type of proposal? He's been singing the praises of Best Start and evokes the old family benefit. He's talking about the universal payment to all babies to help all families.I have to say that sounds fantastic. Even the Salvation Army has been endorsing it as a fabulous universal initiative. But who has read the terms and conditions? Who has read the small print? Well I have and it is nothing—nothing—like the old family benefit. In fact it is an enormously restricted payment. Firstly it's not universal and I have to pay credit to Erica Stanford for bringing this up. Not all babies are equal under this. Every baby I believe should get this tax credit. Every family should benefit. But under this legislation everyone will except if you are a working mother—except if you are a working mother with a premature baby. Can you believe that? Working mothers are being discriminated against and a working mother who's entitled to parental leave.Yes give them parental leave. We all sang and danced about that. But actually if you're entitled to parental leave that's your entitlement; ah ah your baby's not good enough—The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Can I just remind the member that paid parental leave is a benefit and it will be applicable to Part 2. We are talking about Part 1.Hon NICKY WAGNER: This is absolutely critical to Part 1. This is where the legislation is—The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I just encourage the member—we're not to talk about paid parental leave which is part of Part 2.Hon NICKY WAGNER: I beg your pardon. But the reason that these working mothers can't get this Best Start payment is because they're getting parental leave. So that's why it's connected. So again I'm encouraging everybody to read the terms and conditions to read the small print.The other thing that is interesting when you think about the family benefit is that the family benefit was truly universal. The family benefit went for 18 years. No wonder it added a bit. This one is not even universal for one year. After one year only a small number of families will be able to get it to three years. So the old family benefit was totally universal—18 years. This one is not universal for even one year and then only for a very small number of families in the second and third years. So it's absolutely nothing like it.So I would like to ask Grant Robertson why he's talking about this. I don't think you can take his statements at face value. I absolutely think parents should look into this and make sure that they understand what's being said in the papers. I also think when you look at other areas as well you need to read the terms and conditions and look at the small print. I think some people are going to be bitterly disappointed that this bill is not delivering what they expected and certainly not delivering what they could have had under National's plan.These people these working mothers are probably the ones that won't get the payment in the second or third years. These working mothers are probably the ones that have also lost the $1000 a year that they would have got under moving the tax thresholds.So I don't think this policy is what it's cracked up to be and I don't think the public know. I'm really advising all parents to look at the terms and conditions. I take offence that working mothers who have got a tough road to hoe when they've got a new baby—working mothers who are contributing to our society who are out in the workforce—I take offence that they have been discriminated against. They of all the people in our communities who should be looked after are being discriminated against by this Government and it's not good enough.