Turei Metiria: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTurei Metiria: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 05 November 2014. Volume:701;Page:665. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green):I want to first congratulate Sue Moroney on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill—I do not think I have spoken on it yet during its passage through the House—and on her persistence over nearly 2½ years of ushering it through the House. I do strongly urge the National Party to support this bill because it goes to the fundamental premise of what is the purpose of this Parliament and what is the purpose of government. One of the core purposes is to take the best possible care of our most vulnerable citizens and there is nobody in this House who would disagree that children—particularly the youngest babies the newborn babies—are our most vulnerable citizens and that they deserve our full attention.Interestingly enough just today Alfred Ngaro from the National Party and I hosted the Big Picture Competition art exhibition which is currently open on level 1 of Bowen House I say for members who have not seen it yet. It is a series of artworks creative works by children talking about issues like poverty issues like housing and the income issues that they and their families face. You know we are talking tonight about how to support children and families better. Well these children have got some very clear views about what is needed to make sure that they and other children whom they know and their families including their little brothers and sisters have a better life. It is a great challenge for parliamentarians to go and have a look at that exhibition read the stories that the children have prepared as part of their artworks and come back to this House with a renewed sense of commitment to protecting our must vulnerable citizens especially our littlest babies. It is distressing that National is not committed to that—and I do invite those members to go and engage with that Big Picture exhibition.As much as the Government talks about prudent financial management and is looking to exercise its financial veto the fact is that it knows as we all do that investment in families when babies are very little—newborn babies—is a sound investment in our future. It is a sound social investment; it is a sound financial investment. That is what Sue Moroney’s bill is asking us to make—a sound financial and social investment in our most vulnerable citizens so that they have the best chance of having the best possible life—and surely that is what our job is here. It is about putting kids and in this case as I said the littlest babies first and it will cost a little bit of money. Some have said it would be half of the cost of the flag referendum. It is not that expensive in the context of a Government Budget but it will make a huge difference to the lives of the families of those littlest babies and frankly it will make returns to us in significant numbers. We know that child poverty for example costs this country around $8 billion a year in catch-up costs. Well just what is it a $6 million—I understand Sue Moroney or something like that—Sue Moroney: Yes.METIRIA TUREI: —investment in families now could save hundreds of millions of dollars in the future. So why would you not consider that to be prudent financial management?Clause 4 in Sue Moroney’s bill really does set out very clearly not just the purpose of the bill in a technical sense but the principle behind the bill which as I have been talking about is about how we best protect our most vulnerable citizens—our littlest babies—and frankly I do not think we can afford not to take this action. We need to make sure that families have the best possible chance when their babies are young and when the families themselves are most vulnerable. Those of you who have looked at the Children’s Commissioner’s report on solutions to child poverty will see its recommendation for a form of child payment. It changes the focus from what people generally consider is the high cost of older kids and the cheaper cost of little kids and we have a Working for Families kind of structure that gives more money as children get older. But its analysis based on significant research and very credible research is that young families face the highest costs when their babies are little and that is because they have the least capacity to be able to maximise their financial circumstances. This is when they most need access to decent paid parental leave so that they can take the best possible care of their children at a time when they are the most constrained. So even the Solutions to Child Poverty report from the Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty described in a very detailed and very analytical way why it is important that we invest more at the time when babies are littlest. It is suggesting a child payment of various kinds that is universal at first instance when babies are little and then becomes more targeted as the children grow. That was one model of providing financial assistance to these families. Sue Moroney’s bill is another excellent model that does the same thing. So it does leave us with a whole range of options on how we can best support families and their babies at the time of their highest vulnerability which is why the Green Party supports this legislation from Sue Moroney.I would say that National actually agrees with the principle. National clearly agrees with the principle that investing in families when babies are little is a good idea. It has demonstrated that by continuing with paid parental leave when it came into Government and of course with its intention to extend by just a few weeks paid parental leave over the next few years. So the principle we are talking about which is in the purpose clause of this legislation is supported across the House. Everybody agrees that paid parental leave is a good idea. Everybody agrees that these families need some kind of financial support when their babies are very little. But for some reason National simply will not invest what is needed to improve the lives of these families especially those ones who miss out.I want to take just a few minutes to talk about the ones who miss out. One of the issues that we have with paid parental leave both in terms of the extension of time and also in terms of the amount of money that families are able to access is that those families who are on the lowest incomes—working families on the lowest incomes—who would be eligible for paid parental leave find it very difficult to take because they cannot afford the reduction in income. If they can afford to take it all they certainly cannot take it for very long because the amounts are simply too low. There is a whole other group of families who are completely excluded from the alternative which is the parental tax credit—because that is the alternative for some of these working families—but there is a whole number of working families who are excluded from the parental tax credit because they are also in part dependent on a welfare benefit. So there is a significant group of families who are working who are in paid employment and who are also in receipt of a welfare payment for whatever reason and they are not able to afford to take paid parental leave and they are not entitled to the parental tax credit. Those families tend to be the ones who are on the very lowest incomes.There yet again is another group of families—that is beneficiary families who are not in paid work—who do not have access to either and who are completely bereft of support. It does beg the question why it is that these babies over here are entitled to some form of largesse that National supports. It is quite happy for them to have paid parental leave to some extent. These babies over here are entitled to a bit of additional support from the State when they are young and vulnerable and their families are most in need but these families over here are not. There is a gap—Hon Member: Good babies bad babies.METIRIA TUREI: Thank you! There is a principle and a logical gap in which a whole range of families who are at the very lowest incomes who have the most need of help whose babies are the most likely to suffer from the effects of poverty miss out in some form from the range of services like paid parental leave and the parental tax credit that we have available.There is some commitment from National to some parts of the principle that says our most vulnerable citizens deserve our greatest commitment but there are too many gaps that mean that too many of our children are falling through them. We know that one baby a week dies in this country from poverty-related conditions. One baby a week dies from poverty-related conditions in this country. So to the extent that this bill deals with one part of the principle around paid parental leave and its extension that is a good thing. That at least provides some additional assistance to the families who are vulnerable. But we need to make sure that when we are investing in the principle which is that vulnerable children deserve our greatest commitment we are committing to that principle without judgment—without judgment of the kind of work that a family is undertaking.