VoteHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. I wanted to—just continuing my questions of the Minister—go back to the comments that were made by Erica Stanford in particular because I think the Minister in the chair at the time misunderstood the point that she was making. The point that she was making was that if somebody is on paid parental leave why should that family forfeit their Best Start payment. There's been no adequate explanation of why there should be such a discrimination against a parent that is working as opposed to one who is not. I think the Minister confused it. The Minister in the chair confused it at the time around a discussion around benefit or not. That wasn't the point. The point that my colleague Erica Stanford was making very very clearly was that if somebody is receiving paid parental leave there is absolutely no reason that we on this side of the Chamber see that they should not also get the Best Start payment. That is an absolute discrimination against working parents in this country which I think is outrageous.I'm really hoping—I'm hoping that that was just an error that it was a mistake that was made and I'd like the Minister to give due consideration and to answer the question: firstly was it deliberate or not; and if it was what was the rationale and the reasoning behind it? From this side of the committee some of my fantastic counterparts have spoken who understand the challenges and the costs associated with being a working parent and if there is going to be a universal entitlement of $3120 a year—universal means universal. So I'd like the Minister in the chair to explain how something can be universal but they're not and discriminate against working parents.I want to then also reflect on some of the comments that my very very able and capable colleague Dr Parmjeet Parmar has introduced in two of her amendments. The two amendments also relate to the Best Start payment because you know on this side of the Chamber we do recognise that families should be supported which is why our package focused on Working for Families and people keeping more of what they earned. But let's just focus on the quality of this Best Start payment. Our party believes that in terms of the quality of the spend—and the total spend of the Best Start package is quite significant—then in terms of two elements there should be two elements added to the criteria for receipt of that Best Start tax credit.The first is enrolment—enrolling a newborn with a general practice or a primary healthcare provider. There is a significant amount of detail in the amendment that my colleague Dr Parmar has put forward and I would really encourage the Minister to ensure that he gets adequate advice on this because this is really critical in terms of children's well-being. It's an important amendment that deserves full consideration and I'm fairly confident that the members of the Government will be supporting this amendment.The second part of the criteria for receipt of the Best Start tax credit is that the dependent child is also enrolled with a Well Child provider. The Well Child provider is of course of the family's choosing so there's no specific requirement in terms of who that provider is but it is absolutely critical. It fits perfectly with the stated objectives in the bill which are around the Government's focus on ensuring children get the best start in life. I want to commend them for their focus. We agree with that. We agree with that but we agree that this amount of money that's being invested—collected from taxpayers up and down the country—actually should come with some degree of confidence that the money is being spent well and in the best interests of every child in every family in every town in New Zealand which is why I really want to commend the two amendments from Dr Parmar. I would specifically invite and ask and request the Minister in the chair to answer questions to the committee about these particular amendments because I think they are really really important and it would be helpful for the Committee to hear the answers.The other point that I want to make for those that are watching this debate live or that are watching from home—Hon Scott Simpson: Or listening on the wireless?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —or listening on the wireless as we like to call it—is that at this part of the debate the committee stage it is absolutely critical that we get answers from Ministers. This is in urgency; there is no public opportunity to raise issues—no scrutiny. This is the only opportunity so it is absolutely vital that the Minister in the chair gives fulsome answers gives sufficient detail to enable quality debate and scrutiny. I know that the senior Minister sitting in the chair will be able to answer the questions that I've asked that the Rt Hon David Carter asked before me that my colleagues Erica Stanford and Dr Parmar have asked and Sarah Dowie before that. These are questions that deserve answers.This is the only opportunity in this House for us to scrutinise this legislation on behalf of New Zealanders. Because it's in urgency even though this doesn't come into effect until July next year the public don't have the opportunity to scrutinise this and provide their own feedback. So they are relying on this side of this House asking questions of the Minister in the chair. So there is a high expectation that the Minister in the chair will answer those questions to provide that clarity so that New Zealanders can ensure—the 36.6 percent that voted for the Labour Party—that there is sufficient scrutiny of this particular piece of legislation and ensure that Supplementary Order Papers that are very well drafted and that raise very real concerns on behalf of New Zealanders are answered.Let's not forget that this is actually about the well-being of children in New Zealand. They don't have a voice in this Parliament so we bring it for them. And as I said before I commend the Government for their objectives. They are fairly broad in terms of the objectives of this legislation: to target social assistance to improve incomes for low- and middle-income families with children and to reduce child poverty and to ensure that children get the best start in life. It does then put a high level of responsibility on the Minister in the chair to answer in detail the questions that not only I have asked but my learned colleagues on this side of the House have asked.I know the Minister has been taking notes and we are looking forward to the answers. In particular I want to come back to where I started in this particular contribution which will be one of many today: the contribution around the clear discrimination between those parents who are receiving paid parental leave and why the Labour-led Government have decided that if a parent is getting paid parental leave they are not entitled to the so-called universal" Best Start payment.I am quite fascinated given that parties that support them whether that's New Zealand First or the Green Party who are also supporters of paid parental leave would allow this huge discrimination and would really make sure that those who are working families that are producing their own income working hard to do it—some of them are the very same low- and middle-income families that are stated as one of the objectives of this piece of legislation. So why? Why? I want to know why there is discrimination against working families in this so-called universal entitlement—$3120 a year. They are excluded from it. It is not included for those parents that are working and on paid parental leave. Now it doesn't matter whether they're male or female whether it's the mother or father or whether it's a father and father or mother and mother: this is about equity.Now I have heard that side of the House debate for hours and hours and hours about equity. This is your golden chance. This is your golden chance to the Labour-led Government to provide equity for parents across the board of every income level whether they are working or not. Remove the paid parental leave requirement and that discrimination against them and say that if it is universal then it should be universal across the board for every parent for every child in New Zealand regardless of what their parent is doing in terms of work or not. In Opposition that side of the House constantly banged on about why should you discriminate against someone who is in work and someone who isn't. This is your golden opportunity to right what is clearly a wrong in this piece of legislation and to remove the discrimination—[Time expired]Hon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put."