Verrall Ayesha; McAnulty KieranHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Mr Chair thank you very much for the opportunity to take my first call on this bill. I want to pay particular attention to the clauses dealing with the FamilyBoost tax credit particularly clause 12. I guess I appreciate the intent of trying to address costs for families while I share the multiple concerns raised by Hon Jan Tinetti just before me. But my question to the Minister relates to the policy intent of this tax credit. Why is it that this particular focus of childcare costs was taken? And what was it that led to this being prioritised this cost for families while other costs have been put back on families in this Budget?In particular I'm thinking of the prescription co-pay waiver that was brought in in Budget 2023 that this Budget now repeals. That is effectively a tax on the sick. Now the sick who have to pay additional for their medicines and young working people—many of the people will also be eligible for their tax credits—have to face increased costs because their prescriptions are no longer free. So why is it that the rebates are for this cost and not for the additional cost put on to people who have illnesses in New Zealand? Multiple costs: if you have a chronic condition you'd expect to pick up multiple prescriptions a year. We know that there are multiple public policy benefits from having a policy in place which means that people are kept out of hospital. It's thought that there's a 34 percent increase in hospitalisations for people who have chronic conditions and cannot get their medicines because of the changes this Government is bringing in. So why is it that this particular cost is being addressed by the Government through this clause and not the cost for people who have chronic conditions and who need medicines? Not to mention it's not just people with chronic conditions who need medicines. Perfectly healthy people also need medicines. For example women need medicines for contraception and yet it seems like these costs aren't considered important costs by this Government to address and there's a focus here on a small rebate. But on the other hand the Government through its Budget takes away an important support for people who need access to medicines in New Zealand. Thank you.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to have my first call on this. I have a series of questions for the Minister but I'll keep the contribution here to the first of those. The regulatory impact statement outlines quite clearly that there are concerns around the potential effectiveness of the policy that's being proposed in Part 2 around FamilyBoost—in particular the limitations on the assessment of this policy. It raises questions about whether the sector is able to make the necessary changes. It also raises questions as to whether this is the most effective way in which to deliver the policy intent. It outlines that there will be a post-implementation review to see if what is being proposed actually does what is suggested. And there have been some really important questions raised thus far in this debate that are yet to be adequately addressed.So to add to that if this doesn't work if the requirements on families the administrative burden—and I'm thinking particularly those that don't have access to what some families in larger urban areas do. So specifically rural families who don't have access to the same level of internet and other technologies that would assist in what is required administratively in this. What if they can't do it? And what if at the end of the day this policy isn't actually effective for those families? In that post-implementation review what is the time frame on that and what does the Minister expect that that review will cover if they truly intend to assist the families with the cost of early childhood education as is outlined in the policy intention?