Logie Jan: Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 15 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17938. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAN LOGIE (Green): It is with pleasure that I rise to take a call in this urgent debate on this bill the name of which is beyond me right at the moment. Basically the Government is bringing in under urgency—oh it is the Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill—tax credits for parents and an extension to paid parental leave. Excuse me for not being over the title of the bill when it has just been put on the Table a few minutes ago and when there has been no real prior warning for this House to debate an issue that is deeply important for this country.When we have 285000 children living in poverty in this country we need to be talking about this and we need to be taking time and considering the best options for getting our children out of poverty. The Green Party believes in good lives and a fair future for every New Zealander. We believe in the vision of having every single child in this country thriving not just surviving—as all too many of them are at the moment when we put aside those who sadly are still dying of diseases of poverty in this country to our great collective shame.We know that in this country with so much wealth—so much wealth—around us we can do better for our children. This debate is part of the opportunity to consider our options to deliver that wealth. I would like to now address in what I think is quite a divided bill from what I can tell—not having read the detail in the 10 minutes we have had—one bad thing and one good thing. I will speak to the bad thing first so that I can end on a positive note. I do recognise that people I have been following on social media do not want to hear us in the Opposition just attacking the Government. They do want us to recognise what is good in here and we are up for that. We will recognise and acknowledge the things we agree with that are good for our children and we will strongly critique those things that we believe are causing harm or are not up to what our children deserve.So on that point I will first address the extension of the parental tax credit. It is a little bit hard to get our heads around what exactly this is. We have been told that it is an extension to the parental tax credit from $150 a week to $220 a week for those who are entitled but there has been a tightening up of the eligibility. That is where my quite deep concern lies at this stage because it seems to me that what the Government is doing here is actually extending the discrimination that applies to the in-work tax credit which is something that the Child Poverty Action Group has been challenging so strongly through our courts. My concern is that that same point of discrimination is possibly being extended into this parental tax credit. So although the Government is saying that this is a measure to alleviate poverty children from beneficiary families those who are in the most poverty are being excluded from that benefit on the basis that their parents are not in work.I spoke briefly after we had had notice of this provision with the academic Susan St John to ask her opinion of whether my reading of this was correct and she was saying that it is actually a little bit difficult to tell from looking on the website but it does look as if that is true. It does look from the way that the website is reading as if the bill requires people to be not receiving a benefit and to be meeting hours of work criteria that apply to the in-work tax credit. That is of deep concern for anybody who opposes discrimination for anybody who—Hon Members: Oh ha ha!JAN LOGIE: The members on the Government side of the House are laughing uproariously at the idea of opposing discrimination. I really fail to understand what is so funny about the idea of opposing discrimination. I guess their idea is that people who are not in work need to be discriminated against so that they will get into work. I am notreally sure that that bears out in fact. In the Green Party we believe that parenting is a job worth valuing and that we should be doing everything we can as a country to support our families—those who have two parents those who are in work and those who have only one parent who is actively parenting and might not be in work. That is why there should not be discrimination between those who are in work and those who are not in work but this bill does seem to be building discrimination in and extending it.I notice that the court ruling from the Child Poverty Action Group case—which was not successful—established that a ground for discrimination for the court to consider is: “First is there differential treatment or effects of persons in comparable or analogous circumstances on a prohibited ground of discrimination?”. That is the basis of being in employment. So on the surface of it it looks as if this provision meets that criteria for consideration by the courts. And if so—and this is the next ground for the court to consider—whether that “differential treatment results in material disadvantage” in that context. It looks to me like $70 a week or more actually. No it is probably not that but there is a significant difference here for those who are not in work so we are not happy with this as it reads to us at the moment and we will be looking at introducing a Supplementary Order Paper which I hope we can get support for in this House to extend this provision to those who are out of work.Government members will be pleased that I am now moving on to a more positive note to congratulate them on following the lead of the 26 for Babies campaign and the almost 4000 New Zealanders who submitted in support of Labour member Sue Moroney’s bill to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. I would like to congratulate the members on that committee from National who listened to those submissions and were convinced by them. I do not see how anybody could have gone through that process and not been convinced. The arguments were deeply compelling that extending paid parental leave facilitates a bonding and attachment between parents and babies. It supports families and ensures stability of incomes. It closes the shortfall between New Zealand’s paid parental leave provisions and those in other OECD countries. It improves health outcomes for mothers babies and children and 26 weeks would have met the World Health Organization’s recommendation for exclusive breastfeeding. It allows choice for women and it creates job opportunities. There are positive implications in this bill in terms of society our economy and women’s workforce participation. How could you not embrace that? So thank you National for listening to New Zealand.I would also like to thank National for the extension of the criteria and accessibility in the bill because that was my one concern with the member’s bill. I understand that when you have got a member’s bill you have to go for a narrow scope and that is why that was not in there. But it is incredibly important. The Human Rights Commission was very clear that for it extending paid parental leave to those who are in casual employment or are changing jobs is the priority for reducing discrimination. So it is fantastic to see that provision and our children and women all around the country will be thanking you for this significant step on the journey towards the Green Party policy of 13 months’ paid parental leave—13 months.Hon Members: Ha ha!JAN LOGIE: Again you might laugh because in the context of your world and the discourse promoted by the National Party that seems extreme. But in fact that was the Families Commission’s recommendation back in 2007. It actually puts it at only a mid-point in comparison with other countries in the world. It is not actually an extreme concept at all because it benefits our children and benefits our society. It is about recognising that if we start in the early years and provide a really strong foundation for our children and our families then we are all going to be better off. [Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member.JAN LOGIE: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker; I appreciate that after the unruliness on that side of the House. Those members do not understand the importance of children to our society and the importance of the first year of life. That is why the Green Party is happy to support this bill as a significant step towards our policy of 13 months’ paid parental leave.