Martin Tracey: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill (No 2) Taxation (Parental Tax Credit) Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill (No 2) Taxation (Parental Tax Credit) Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 15 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:18011. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Taxation (Parental Tax Credit) Bill. A very wise man whom I highly respect—and in this case it was not the Rt Hon Winston Peters—once said to me that if you truly want to have influence you need to become a Minister. As I do not usually do with people whom I highly respect I disagreed at that time and said I believe that as Opposition members we can have influence every single day by taking the argument to the Government.I think this legislation has shown that that can be true. This Budget has shown that that can be true. Sue Moroney through the pressure of her member’s bill the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill has put enough pressure on through the campaigns she has run to show this Government that it must take some steps particularly in an election year to move towards supporting newborn children just as Barbara Stewart’s proposed member’s bill the Teen Health Check Bill—which would give free medical care to all children under the age of 13—has been picked up by this Government. That has been New Zealand First policy for a long time. Although I appreciate the advice that learned gentleman has given me and I am grateful for it in this instance I think I have proven my point. We have had influence and we are grateful that the pressure from the Opposition and the pressure from the public behind it has made the National Party move on this issue.I want to compliment Dr Paul Hutchison on the work that his Health Committee did around this issue of supporting our unborn and our newborn children. I can only imagine that inside caucus he was one of those who lobbied hard for this to take place because he understands how important it is. I believe that when he leaves thisParliament he will be sorely missed. I believe that Dr Hutchison probably fought hard for this to go to 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. I believe that he would have done that. But because of whatever it is that is inside the National Party psyche its members could not bring themselves to push that far and they will justify that on the grounds of finance. They will justify it. We have just heard unfortunately Dr Hutchison falling back on that argument. We all know there is not much else on which they can argue against it unfortunately.There is so much evidence that has been produced about the savings from 26 weeks’ leave. Dr Hutchison mentioned $172 million. Unfortunately due to the urgency of this legislation we have not had a select committee process where we could actually have gone through those numbers to make sure that we know what it costs. But we do know what 26 weeks would have saved. We know what 26 weeks would have saved because we have the report from the Government Administration Committee about 26 weeks’ leave. So we know that with 26 weeks’ leave there is a reduction of $13 million in childcare subsidy. There would be an additional $8 million in tax from recipients of paid parental leave and an additional $5 million in tax from temporary employees filling those paid jobs. Benefit payments would reduce by $2.4 million and as I mentioned in an earlier reading of this legislation we have not even factored yet what the downstream health savings will be. A study published by theJournal of the American Medical Association found that obesity rates among 2 to 5-year olds in America had dropped by an impressive 43 percent over the last decade and that was partly contributed to by mothers breastfeeding for longer. We have not factored all those savings in.Mike Sabin mentioned that if you had an income around $50000—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Who?TRACEY MARTIN: I know he is not well known but Mike Sabin made the comment that if you had an income of around $50000 or below—this is the spin that they spin—you do not actually pay tax. I am not sure those people feel like that every day of the week but National members say those people do not actually pay tax. They use another word for it. They like to spin it. They say it is tax-neutral. In a way they are saying that those people should not complain because they do not pay tax. But what we know is that there is $50 million worth of savings—$50 million worth of savings with 26 weeks’ paid parental leave and that is even without the health benefits downstream.Again New Zealand First will support this legislation but it is a bit of Hansel and Gretel legislation. It is spreading crumbs along the way towards 20 September so it is very much Hansel and Gretel legislation—a trail of crumbs up until 20 September. But there is not even a guarantee at this stage. There is a date for 2015—1 April—and there is a date in 2016. New Zealand First would like to make sure that the New Zealand public understands that although the National Government may steal our policies it will not steal our commitment to making sure that as soon as we have influence we will put in place these supports for newborn babies and other supports for families and children and for businesses in New Zealand to truly bring us back to the standard of living that we deserve and that we expect. Although the National Party might have lost its aspiration for this country New Zealand First has not. Kia ora.