Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Thank you very much Mr Chair. After half an hour of fairly repetitive contributions from the National Party members I thought I'd respond to some of the questions that were asked—and they have all been pretty much on the same theme which is around the question initially of Best Start and why the figure was set at $3120. Well that is $60 per week multiplied out for the year. Mr Brownlee was concerned it needed to be a round number; that number of $3120 emerges from a round number of $60 per week.Andrew Bayly: Well what's the basis for 60 bucks?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That was assessed as an amount that would be a useful additional contribution to the outgoings of New Zealanders. It needs to be balanced against other requirements within the Government's budget and the $60 is the accurate balance Mr Bayly of what we do to make sure we can improve the lives of New Zealanders.So yes the Best Start payment is universal for the first year—to respond to the questions that were asked about that by Mr Bayly Mr Joyce and Mr Brownlee. The Children's Commissioner's Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty recommended a payment for children in the early years of life with a maximum amount in year one for everyone. So we're using—Hon Steven Joyce: But why? It's not enough just to say they said it.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well on this side of the House we believe that actually bringing experts in and getting evidence from experts is a good way to make policy and so we have drawn our conclusion from there.Mr Joyce and Mr Bayly all raised the question of the difference in terms of the number of children lifted out of poverty and I do want to respond quite specifically to those questions. So just to get it absolutely clear: 71000 children—Hon Steven Joyce: Ah! Why didn't you put that in the press release?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —will be lifted out of poverty in 2019 representing a reduction of 44 percent. The comparable number for Mr Joyce's benefit in the package in the Budget 2017 Families Income Package would have had 55000 children—a reduction of 34 percent. So there's a significant increase in there.But there is an interesting point to note which is why it's important to look at what happens when the package is fully rolled out. So under the package in front of us in the bill today 88000 children will be taken out of poverty representing a 58 percent reduction. When we look at what would have happened under the previous Government's package by the time we reached 2021 we would have seen a reduced then of 49000 children—in other words going down—and the percentage of children lifted out of poverty would have been 27 percent. Hon Steven Joyce: No no I don't trust that calculation at all.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That calculation is based Mr Joyce on the fact that actually as incomes rise you have to do a little bit more. So let's be absolutely clear comparing apples with apples exactly using exactly the same measure—when our package which is covered here in this bill is fully rolled out: 48 percent reduction 88000 children lifted out of poverty. The previous package when fully rolled out: 49000 children out of poverty 27 percent. So to answer the questions asked a demonstrably better package across the board.I want to respond to Alastair Scott's questions that he asked essentially about why the decision has been made in this part to reverse the tax cuts and focus more on children. Well that actually is a philosophical decision. I absolutely own the fact that that is about this Government's desire to improve the well-being of children. We have focused this package on families with children. I absolutely understand that members on the other side of the House may not support that but that is the decision we have made because we want New Zealand to be the best place in the world to bring up kids and we will redirect resources to be able to support children. So I congratulate Mr Scott on seeing that difference and identifying that difference and that is my response to his question.We had a series of repeated questions from Brett Hudson that built on questions that have already been answered around why Best Start is universal. We should be proud that we are returning to a benefit like the family benefit that many of us grew up with—universal in year one and then means-tested on in years two and three. This is a proposal supported by evidence.