Logie Jan: Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Logie Jan: Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 17 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5965. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JAN LOGIE (Green) 
: 
 As the Green Party spokesperson for income support it is an absolute pleasure to speak to this Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill. This legislation will actually do something pretty much immediately to reduce child poverty if it is introduced and all without stigmatising anyone. It is like a miracle. Of course it will not fix everything but it will make an immediate tangible difference and that is more than any other idea I have heard in this House recently. As a country we can find the money to make sure everyone has a good life and a fair future if we just make the commitment to do it—and that is not a Communist conspiracy. Extending the in-work tax credit would cost between $300 million to $400 million a year. Child poverty is estimated to cost this economy over $6 billion a year. The benefits of extending the child payment are more than the costs no matter which way you look at it. Metiria has already outlined several compelling reasons for supporting her legislation. I would now like to add just a couple more. The primary one for me is that benefit levels are just too low and the consequences of child poverty are far too high. 
Now I would like to bring in some of the words of young people and their experiences of poverty as found by the Children’s Commissioner. This is their view of what it is to live in poverty in New Zealand: “You get sick easily. Being left out. Not having enough money. Shame neglect lack of warm clothing. Living week to week. Not accepted by your peers. Debts. Phone and electricity cut off. Hard to fit in and take part in things like sport. Going without necessities. Moving a lot. Scary and stressful. Bad housing overcrowding. Can’t go on school trips. Choices you can’t make choices taken away. Lack of warm clothing. Can’t afford to go to the doctors. Cold grotty disgusting housing. Not enough food. Hungry. Can’t afford school uniforms. Get picked on at school. Missed opportunities. Feeling of worthlessness. No good clothes. Getting pick on or bullied. Sad disappointed frustrated angry. Children paying the price for parents’ mistakes. Lack of school books and stationery.” 
I have heard the Government’s view that the way to improve child outcomes is to get their parents into paid work and of course this has an instinctive appeal to pretty much everyone because actually we all want to work. But there are three problems with this. One is that parenting is work; two there needs to be paid work to get into; and three child outcomes improve only when the parents are in reasonably paid jobs with decent conditions and flexibility and there is plenty of research to back that up that I am happy to provide to any member of this House. Our benefit system even tacitly acknowledges that. For sole parents with children under 14 their focus may need to be on the care of their children. Despite the erosion of this principle in the new welfare reforms our welfare system still retains this core value. Full-time work expectations kick in only when the youngest child is 14 so this Government even acknowledges that parenting for children under that age is work and should be able to be a focus and yet it refuses to allow an increase in income to those families and to those children. 
Finally I would like to finish with a poem from a student from Otahuhu: 
Poverty is just a word … 
but a word that means a lot 
not when said 
but when seen. 
Poverty is just a cycle 
but an on-going cycle 
not being altered 
but left aside. 
Poverty is on our conscience 
but at the back of our minds 
not acted on … 
but why not? 
“PLEEZZE To people in power + the Government—don’t tuck us away as a statistic.”