Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBudget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 15 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17983. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 15 May 2014(continued on Friday 16 May 2014)Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Part 2 Amendments to Income Tax Act 2007 (continued)The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): When the Committee was suspended last night Jacinda Ardern had the call. She has about 2¾ minutes.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): Is that all—2¾ minutes remaining? Oh right so technically I have up to an extra 5 minutes if I am lucky. I thought it might—Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s another 15 minutes actually.JACINDA ARDERN: Well I think I managed to clock up 40 minutes last night so I am still waiting for the Minister in the chair the Minister of Labour to match me call for call in this debate.I thought it might be helpful to recap on where we were in this debate last. We are in the Committee stage obviously and last night we debated Part 1 of the Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill which talked about the extension of paid parental leave. The extension from 14 weeks to 18 weeks was basically all that Part 1 did despite the Minister talking about the extension to eligibility. That is not what this bill is doing.Hon Simon Bridges: It’s coming.JACINDA ARDERN: He says it is coming. That is interesting. Last night the Minister went to great lengths to make a claim about Labour’s comprehensive paid parental leave policy and Best Start policy which is quite a significant package fully costed fully stepped out and based on consultation with the sector. He claimed that the policy work had not been done yet here we are debating a little bit of a change to paid parental leave—just one simple change from 14 to 18 weeks; it is just a little bit of what the Government announced—because I suspect the policy work has not been done. That is my very big suspicion. Why would I expect that that might be the case? From what I was reading of the regulatory impact statements last night some of the briefing papers were not actually being churned out by the Government until last month. So my strong strong suspicion in responding to what the Minister has said is that perhaps some of it was done in a bit of a rush.That brings me to Part 2 which we have only just begun debating and I am sure it will be a comprehensive discussion this morning. Part 2 contains the changes to the parental tax credit. Very simple changes are made in that part. They are changes that the Minister—again I am astounded by the statement—said are extending support to people who got nothing from Labour. That is an absolutely unbelievable statement made by the Minister in the chair because there have always been losers in the system that we currently have. Labour’s policy was clearly focused on trying to plug those gaps. So let us look at who those losers are and how that has changed because the parental tax credit was always about supposedly plugging that gap.We have roughly give or take 60000 births in New Zealand per annum. Of those births we know that roughly 40 percent tend to be eligible for paid parental leave. Why is that? Under the existing criteria which have not changed yet you have to be in a job for a particular length of time you have to be working for a certain number of hours—there are a number of criteria that often preclude people’s eligibility. The Minister haschanged those criteria a bit and I applaud him for that; it is good to see. But out of that change what did the Minister say? Was it roughly 1200 or 1400 people affected by that change give or take? Again that is not a massive extension of the eligibility then for paid parental leave. It is good but not too significant.Jenny Shipley in the 1990s recognised that that gap existed and she brought in the parental tax credit. It is not for everyone. Not everyone who does not get paid parental leave automatically then receives the short-term parental tax credit. Let us be really clear about what the parental tax credit is. It is not the family tax credit; that is part of Working for Families which Labour brought in cuts across the life of a child and is income tested. It is not the in-work tax credit which is meant to be a payment to cover the extra costs of being in work when you have a family. It is the parental tax credit. At the moment after these changes it will be for 10 weeks. It used to be at a rate of $150. Under these changes in Part 2 it will be $220 for that 10-week period. So it is roughly $2000 for a family.It sounds like everyone who does not get paid parental leave is going to get that—not so. In fact the eligibility criteria are going to narrow—not yet in this bill; I believe that is yet to come is it Minister? I imagine that might be a revenue bill perhaps. The criteria are going to narrow. So who misses out? Students miss out. The reality is some people might say “Well if you are studying why are you having kids?”. There are people in many varying circumstances who might be in study at any age at the time that they may fall pregnant. Life happens. The fact is that in New Zealand 50 percent of our pregnancies are unplanned—life happens. It is about making sure that when it does parents are well supported to give their child that best start in life. When people are unemployed it might be the most temporary of unemployment. They might be transitioning between jobs and be temporarily on jobseeker support. They are not eligible for this extra support. They might be in a situation where their relationship has split up. As dire as it sounds there are relationships that fall apart when people find out they are pregnant. It is a major stressor in relationships and it happens. If they happen to then have to seek sole parent support they are not eligible either. You could say that these are individuals who actually are probably in the most precarious of situations—potentially our most vulnerable families—and they are excluded from the parental tax credit.I think this is a really important point to make because the extension that the Government has made is in the length of time of the parental tax credit and to the amount but not to who receives it. That has always been one of the biggest downsides of the parental tax credit. It was a little bitsy thing that Jenny Shipley came up with that predominantly tends to go to families where for instance parents are staying at home to raise existing children but are under a certain income rate. Those tend to be the families who are receiving the parental tax credit and families who already have children when another one is on the way if members would like the longer-form explanation of that. Those tend to be the ones who are falling into those eligibility criteria.The Minister has also said though that the criteria are going to change. At the moment yes the parental tax credit is not universal outside of people on benefits. It is abated. It is income-tested. The income testing is going to narrow now; that is what we have been told. It is not what we are debating yet but it is going to narrow. That basically means that if you are currently eligible for the family tax credit—you are roughly on that kind of income range—then you are going to qualify for the parental tax credit. That is the rough guide that we have been given by the Government. That means that there are some families who often miss out on any kind of support from the Government. They do not feel particularly wealthy but they are not going to get anything now.SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is great to have an opportunity to speak on Part 2 of the Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill. It is a bit of a mouthful and it does not necessarily indicate how little support there is for newborn children but still it is a step in the right direction—a small step but a step in the right direction none the less. This part is the part that deals with the parental tax credit. I note that this morning the Prime Minister was having breakfast with the Child Poverty Action Group up in Auckland. Well I hope that he is honest and I hope that he is upfront with the group because it will not be fooled by the way; it is a very smart organisation. I hope that he is clear with the group that he has failed to give financial support for newborn children and the most vulnerable and the poorest of families because that is in fact what has happened.In fact the Child Poverty Action Group issued a press statement this morning pointing exactly that out. It says: “Unfortunately the 2014 budget offers little else to assist the 205000 poorest and most vulnerable children in NZ who fall below the very low 50% poverty line.”That was a press statement issued this morning from the Child Poverty Action Group. It is absolutely right that Part 2 bears this out. It is interesting that the vehicle that National has chosen is the parental tax credit because that parental tax credit is very targeted but interestingly does not target the lowest income people. It excludes the children of beneficiaries from having any support in this way. It excludes the children of students from having support in any way. It excludes the children of people who are on ACC payments from having any financial support at all. So I think it is quite misleading that the bill title says “Financial Support for Newborn Children” as if it is for all children.It of course is not and National with its Cabinet club mates has moved to specifically exclude the people who are the poorest. [Interruption] It is kind of interesting because every time we talk about financial support for children and parents National gets really rowdy. It gets very rowdy and angry actually. It is really surprising that this continues to happen.Mike Sabin: I’m always angry.SUE MORONEY: I could understand it—well Mike Sabin says he is always angry but in fact he is at his most angry when we talk about financial support for children. National members find it very difficult to understand this concept.I do want to support the amendment to this part in the name of Jacinda Ardern because it shows a huge gulf and a huge difference between the approaches of Labour and National when it comes to financial support for newborn children. Under Labour’s Best Start policy every child will benefit.Simon O’Connor: No no no.SUE MORONEY: Every single child will benefit. Well Simon O’Connor says: “No no no.” He is a little bit right. The people who earn more than $150000 will not benefit from the $60-a-week Best Start payment under Labour but they do get the early childhood education component and they will get paid parental leave. They will get extended paid parental leave—a much more extended parental leave—under a Labour Government by the way. But every single child will benefit from Labour’s Best Start package.Simon O’Connor: Oh!SUE MORONEY: It is true Simon. I know that National does not like that. It does not like the idea that all children will benefit but that is a fact of Labour’s Best Start package. Jacinda Ardern’s amendment would mean that all the children who miss out under what National is doing in Part 2—Hon Anne Tolley: All means all.SUE MORONEY: Well if Mrs Tolley would you know stop yelling and screaming—Hon Anne Tolley: Tell the truth.SUE MORONEY: She is saying “Tell the truth.” and I am—all of the children who miss out under National’s package will get $60 a week under Labour’s. It is not only $60 a week for the first year for those children who are missing out under what National is proposing—and they are from the poorest families by the way—but that goes on until the child’s third birthday under Labour’s Best Start policy. That is for the poorest families in New Zealand. Is that not the issue that really needs addressing? Well finally there is silence from National’s benches. Finally while I am on my feet there is a little bit of silence because National members do not want to answer that question.Labour’s Best Start policy—and I challenge Simon O’Connor to say this is not true—gives at least $60 a week for the first year to all families earning $150000 because those families who are entitled to paid parental leave get even more than $60 a year for that period. So it is at least $60 a year. And then the very poorest families—for those low-income families earning less than $50000 per year—will get $60 a week until that child’s third birthday. Those families earning up to $70000 a year will get a proportion of that $60. I really do want the Minister to take a call and explain—Mike Sabin: What does it all cost Sue?SUE MORONEY: Look all they can see is the cost. They cannot see that it is an investment in children. Is that not National through and through? They just see children as being a cost. This Government cannot see that that is the real way to a brighter future in this country. It is always in deficit mode—it is always in deficit mode. From the time that National got into Government it has increased the country’s debt. It has delivered deficits. It has got the slimmest of surpluses this year and you would think it had never happened before. Well there were 9 years of surplus under a Labour Government and that is what there will be from next year on when Labour returns to Government as well because it is Labour that knows how to deal with the issues that the Government is trying to deal with here—the parental tax credit.Clearly under a Labour Government there are many more opportunities for jobs. Unemployment was at the lowest levels in the OECD under the previous Labour Government. Under this Government we have slumped to about 15th or 16th place in the OECD rankings for unemployment. So these are the real issues that need addressing.In Part 2 the Government is instead just trying to pick and choose some winners amongst children. By using the parental tax credit it is casting the sorts of judgments that we see time and time again from National. Those members are very very good at judging other people’s families. They are casting the judgment that the children of those less fortunate than themselves are not worthy—they are not worthy of this financial support for newborn children. That is what they have called this bill yet they are using Part 2 to deliberately exclude the neediest of those newborn children—the most needy.I am looking forward to hearing the vote on the amendment put forward by Jacinda Ardern. It does reflect the very comprehensive policy and I do want to take issue with what Minister Bridges said albeit last night because I did not get an opportunity to respond at the time. He said that his Government has done all the policy work in this area. Well I can see that what it has done is look at the very comprehensive work done at the Social Services Committee through the very good Labour Party bill that extends paid parental leave to 26 weeks and it has cherry-picked a bit of it. And then with regard to the part that it does need to do some more policy development on it clearly has been lazy and has not done the work because if it had its proposed—proposed—extension to eligibility for paid parental leave would be in this urgency motion today and it is not. It is not being debated. So clearly the Minister has not done the policywork that he claims to have done—he has not done it—and it will be interesting to see whether that bill gets introduced before the House rises in July. I am not sure that we will see it this side of the election and then I think the New Zealand public would have cause to ask themselves why that is not happening before the election.Part 2 will be supported by Labour because it is a little bit of improvement but it is not a lot of improvement and it does make some really worrying judgment calls about National judging which children are worthy of the support and which children are not. Under a Labour-led Government that will change. There will be $60 a week made available as financial support for newborn children—all newborn children—and that will be coming in next year. So the New Zealand public would be wise to look in detail at this. I know that the New Zealand public understands which side of the House it is that really understands the needs of children.JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to speak to the Budget Measure (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill again and follow on from some of our discussion last night. First I do need to note how disappointed I was last night to see the proposal to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks voted down. It was I think a real shame for all the families in New Zealand who have access to paid parental leave. So to talk specifically to Part 2 of this bill the Green Party really supports the vision of having every single child thriving in this country and we believe in making an investment in our children and our families. We believe that that investment would pay off manyfold for many years for this country. We along with many in this country are deeply concerned about the levels of inequality that we are now living with in New Zealand. Those 285000 children could be living in poverty—Hon Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know that we have had a wide-ranging debate but I do think that we are on Part 2 and this speaker should really attempt to talk to the bill.Hon Trevor Mallard: I actually listened to the last sentence that the member spoke before she was so rudely interrupted and it was directly on this part of the bill. If the Deputy Leader of the House listened to the debate—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! The member should not use a point of order to attack another member. I think the point is well made. I have been listening very carefully and we are on the amendments to the Income Tax Act—that is Part 2. Some discretion is given to draw an analogy and example. I have listened very carefully. I am kind of reluctant to interrupt members but if members do not want to debate Part 2 then that is inviting the Committee to determine whether or not it wants a closure. That is the kind of discipline around how this stuff works all right?JAN LOGIE: Actually to carry on exactly from what I was saying about our concern around the levels of inequality in this country the parental tax credit which we are debating in Part 2 of this bill will directly feed into that inequality in this country which for us is just a shame. It is symbolic of the ideology of this Government whereby it will offer token lollies to people. That will make a difference to some families and I am not underestimating that. Seventy dollars a week for middle-income families in this country will make a difference and that is why we are supporting this provision. However by purposefully denying this parental tax credit to beneficiaries to people receiving ACC and to those receiving student allowances or pensions it will actually also increase inequality. The group that is in the most need is getting nothing from this provision in the bill which is why we are putting forward an amendment to this bill which I hope others in this Parliament will support to ensure that this extension to the parental tax credit will be available to every single family in New Zealand because we care deeply about inequality.I would also like to note that in some of the discussions around this provision in Part 2 of the bill the Child Poverty Action Group’s analysis of this issue has noted that the Government appears to have a blind spot when it comes to the needs of children and beneficiary families and we agree with that. We have heard that quite clearly from some of the interjections from the Government side of the Chamber last night and again today. I do want to remind this Committee of some of the drivers in the need for people to require income support. The primary driver for it is either a loss of employment which is something people have no control over or it may be disability and we have not brought down the barriers to employment for people with disabilities or it can be domestic violence which is something that we are supposedly all together on in this Parliament in fighting. So to discriminate against those families and to deny them this extra money to be able to help cope in those early days after the birth of a child does not seem consistent to us with the values of an inclusive society.I would also note that the Child Poverty Action Group has looked at this analysis and it has also said that although it looks as though families are going to be getting extra money and it will increase on annual terms for those families who are able to get it so that they will now get basically about $2200 from this provision up from $1200—so it is an extra $1000 in total for those families to cope with those extra financial costs of a new baby—it is urging the Government as are we to extend those payments to families who are currently excluded. In the words of Susan St John it is unfair that the new mothers and their newborns who are most in need will get no help from these measures which are funded by the taxpayer.For me that is one of the things to remember. Our tax money is our collective expression of our values as a country. Together we have so much more resource and we can make a huge difference in the lives of these families at virtually no individual cost to us actually. When it all comes together it is a tiny amount from me and a tiny amount from you that will make such a huge difference. I really believe that New Zealanders do want children and babies in beneficiary families—those who are leaving violent relationships those with disabilities those who have lost their jobs—to have as good a start as anyone else. That is what is in front of this Committee today: the opportunity either to give kids the best chance in every family or to entrench inequality. I am really hoping that this Committee will reflect on its values reflect on the foundations of this country and come up with a solution that says “Yes we believe every child deserves to thrive and no we do not support entrenching and building inequality in this country.”I would also like to just note that this provision of the bill has been specifically noted by the Government as part of its families package of $500 million which sounds like quite a lot and is a significant investment. But it is worth noting for the country that this is over 4 years so that is actually only $125 million a year and this provision is actually an increase of only $15 million a year I have been told. So when we are thinking about the relative value—Hon Trevor Mallard: 13.JAN LOGIE: —$13 million; thank you Mr Mallard—and how much this Government is really valuing families and children and wanting to support them I also remind them that $1 billion is now being spent on servicing the interest on the debt that this Government got us into because it chose to cut taxes for the wealthiest in this country. To me that needs to be said. I want to support and give affirmation to the Government for good initiatives and we will do that at every opportunity but this does need to be put in context. The question needs to be asked as to whether this fundamentally reflects our values. Will this deliver on a country where every single child has the ability to thrive? We are giving all our weight to that vision.Sadly although we will be supporting this because it is something unless this Committee extends it to every single family and particularly to beneficiary families I do not believe that this initiative will deliver what our children deserve.TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): I will take just a short call on Part 2 of the Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill. I actually just need to ask the Minister of Labour directly whether he could explain part of the regulatory impact statement. If we were not under urgency for this bill—and I am not quite sure why we are under urgency for the bill because nothing happens from tomorrow when we pass it for quite some time—it would go to a select committee and I would be able to ask the officials for clarification. I am absolutely happy for any member of National to jump up and explain this if they can please. I am absolutely happy for anybody over there on that side to explain this for myself and therefore for the parents who are receiving Working for Families. I would be grateful.Point 5 of the regulatory impact statement says that to receive the Working for Families payments “a person must be at least 16 years of age and also meet residency requirements. The amount of payments depends on the number of dependent children aged 18 or younger that are being cared for; the age of the child being cared for; the total family income; where the family income comes from; and any shared care arrangements.” I would pick up the note that this is a parental tax credit. If it is a parental tax credit it does seem strange as to why the circumstances of the parent matter. If there is a philosophical statement there that we support parents through a parental tax credit why does it matter what the financial circumstances of that parent are? So it would be great if you could just explain that first part.Point 7 however says—and I read it last night and I really would like somebody from National to explain it—“The FTC and IWTC are currently abated at 21.25 cents in the dollar when annual family income exceeds $36350. The PTC is also abated at 21.25 cents in the dollar; however the amount of the abatement is calculated against 56 days of annualised income rather than a full year’s worth of incomes; this creates an effective PTC abatement rate of 3.26 cents. The MFTC is abated dollar for dollar until a family’s income reaches $21216 after tax.” If the Minister would like to jump up and just clarify that paragraph that would be great. Mike Sabin have a go at it—no problem. But then we shift to the departmental disclosure statement and this part on page 3 under the statement “Parental Tax Credit” which reads—David Bennett: Tell us about your man Denny.TRACEY MARTIN: You will not be able to answer it if you do not listen Mr Bennett. The statement reads: “The Bill increases the maximum amount of Parental Tax Credit (PTC) payable”—[Interruption] Can you hear me Minister? I am sure it is a little bit loud. You might not be able to hear the question.Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not that far from the speaker. I am really struggling to hear her over the rabble of the National Party benches and I would like you to call them to order. They have been doing this throughout this whole debate and I think it is time that they actually let the speakers be heard.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes well having been present for a few debates across this urgency I would have to say that it has been a fairly energetic debate from both sides and I am not sure it is any more appropriate now than it has been at any stage. If you want the Chair to intervene every time on either side well we are happy to do that—Hon Trevor Mallard: No.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! I am on my feet. Look this is the highest court in the land. There is a standard of decorum that I would like to see us embrace and members just ought to be conscious of that.TRACEY MARTIN: Thank you Mr Chair. So just for the Minister I will start that paragraph again. It is on page 3. The Minister has officials behind him who might be able to provide him with an answer. It is in the departmental disclosure statement on page 3 under “Parental Tax Credit”: “The Bill increases the maximum amount of Parental Tax Credit (PTC) payable on the birth of a newborn to $220 per week”—so it is for newborn children—“for the first 10 weeks following birth. This takes the total maximum payment to $2200 per newborn. The higher payments apply to babies born on or after 1 April 2015.” Let us be clear: it is 2015. But it is the following paragraph that I have concerns about. It is this paragraph that I know I would like clarification on: “The Bill also changes the abatement formula for the PTC so that is”—the English is a little bit off—“abated against each dollar of family income over the abatement threshold earned over the year rather than over the parental entitlement period.”Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): The first thing I would like to do is to refer the Minister in the chair the Minister of Labour to paragraph 44 on page 9 of the regulatory impact statement where it says that there is no ability to consult after the Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill has been put through because the legislation needs to be in place before November 2014 in order to have sufficient time for the Inland Revenue Department’s “systems processes and guidance to be finalised.” I am not saying we should keep this urgency going until November but what I would like to ask the Minister is why we are considering this under such shortened time frames. Why has this particular part of the bill—not the whole bill but this particular part of the bill—not been sent to a select committee for a proper examination?The paper that he has supplied to us tells us that this particular part of the bill is not urgent. It is not urgent; it could wait until November. Being realistic about elections and things it could wait until July to go through Parliament. What I want to know from any National speaker who is prepared to get on their hind legs is why the Government is pushing this through when its own officials have told it—when its own officials have told it—that this is not urgent legislation.The next point I would like to make is to jump way further into the regulatory impact statement and ask the Minister about the relative options that are set out in paragraph 45 under “Conclusions and recommendations”. I do not know whether the Minister knows but what we know is that Cabinet and the officials worked their way through a set of options in this particular area and the reason this option was chosen—I just want to check my logic with the Minister because it appears to be written down here—was that it would keep people in work and off paid parental leave. Is that the objective? That is why on the weighted choices that are set out in paragraph 45 this option won by one point—by one point—and that point came from the fact that it would keep people at work and discourage people from taking paid parental leave.I just want to ask the Government whether that is really its objective. Is that the objective of the Key Government? Is it to say especially to women: “We don’t want you to take up your paid parental leave and this is a way to stop you from doing it. This is a way to save us money on paid parental leave. We will encourage you to stay at work. We will give you a pittance for a short period of time in order to not do what’s right for your baby.”? I just want to ask what sort of ethical basis we are working on. Whom do we care about? First of all we will make a tiny—not that I am going back to it Mr Chairperson—change in one area but then we will work really hard to ensure that you do not take it up. We will work really hard to make sure that parents do not take it up. What the document tabled in the House says is that the defining difference—the thing that made this option the weighted average winner—is the fact that it would stop people from leaving their jobs to take up paid parental leave.I just ask members opposite whether they read this stuff. Do they read it? Do they care? Do the backbenchers ever hold their Ministers to account for the ethics of the Government? The Government is prepared to go out and pretend that it cares about paid parental leave but then they choose the option in this particular part of the legislation that is designed to minimise people taking up paid parental leave. That option won out of those presented to Cabinet only because it was the option that most kept people away from paid parental leave. So it is designed to save the Government some money in the longer term. It is designed to reduce the options for some people to take paid parental leave and that is the reason it was chosen. I just want to say that that is something that is absolutely disgraceful.Moving back to the paragraph that I referred to before we now know why the Government did not want to send this part to a select committee. Under paragraph 44 it says that it does not need to go through Parliament until November. We now know why the Government is putting it through now. It is because it was trying to sneak it through under the radar. It was trying to put it through this Parliament without us realising what it was actually doing. I just say that in New Zealand which has a long-term tradition of being transparent in its legislation and being clear and open and obvious about the reasons why we are doing things to take this sort of sneaky approach in the hope that all members of Parliament are like National Party backbenchers and do not read the documentation that is tabled in the House—it was hoping that we would not read it as well. And what we do know is that we do look at it.I do not often disagree with officials in their regulatory impact statements but the next thing that I would like to refer to in paragraph 45 is the targeting criteria that targets “lower and middle income families”. This option comes up top in that particular area. Well it does not—it is not the best option for targeting lower and middle income families. The reason it comes top here is that the option of targeting those who are really low-income families was excluded earlier in the paper. It was excluded earlier in the paper. I just want to say to the officials—not those in the Chamber of course; I would not address them—who were responsible for this regulatory impact statement that giving this option a rating of four which is at the top of the targeting of lower and middle income families is just bollocks. It is wrong. It is not the case.When you take out those families who are the most in poverty and do not allow them to be part of the ranking system in the regulatory impact statement on this part of the bill then what you are doing is denying the facts of poverty in this country. It might be fashionable and it might be—I do not think it is acceptable for John Key to mess around with the facts when he is answering questions in this House but it is absolutely unacceptable for the Public Service of New Zealand to become so politicised that the regulatory impact statements do not tell the truth. It must not pick up the standards of the Prime Minister in the denial of poverty in the way that it has here. It is the role of the Public Service to be full and frank in their advice to Ministers and this House. Although I welcome officials’ frankness as to their timing and I welcome their frankness as to the fact that this is designed to stop people taking paid parental leave I regret the fact that they were not prepared within this statement to point out that the people who are most affected by poverty in New Zealand will miss out entirely on this measure. It is their job—it is the job of the policy advisers of that ministry—to do it.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I moveThat the question be now put.Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): I am pleased to take a call on Part 2 of the Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill. I really start from the position where the Hon Trevor Mallard was because these provisions actually take out the most vulnerable. What Jacinda Ardern’s amendment does is put them back in because thosereceiving a benefit are the most vulnerable the most in poverty and it really says that that group should be included. By the process that Trevor Mallard has just identified they have been excluded.This is a good amendment and I think if the Government was sincere about addressing the most vulnerable it would agree to this particular amendment because those on benefits at this time require this assistance. I have not heard an argument from the Minister of Labour. Maybe he would like to take a call to explain to us why those receiving a benefit are excluded. If that provision was put in I think that would satisfy this side of the Chamber.Then I want to speak also to the other amendment that Jacinda Ardern has proposed and this is to increase the parental tax credit to $3120 from $2200 because that actually does begin to put it within striking distance of the Best Start programme. This actually does relate to the Best Start programme that Labour proposed. It is quite interesting. When Labour proposed Best Start and tried to address this there were howls from the Government benches that this was the baby bonus this was a bribe and they pilloried it. They did not have anything positive to say about it. I believe that this was when the Government started to think: “Oops we have made a mistake.”When Sue Moroney’s bill was before the Government Administration Committee a very large number of submitters came forward to say that these are the kinds of things we need to think about. When the Government saw support for these kinds of provisions—which Sue Moroney’s bill was talking about—that is when it started to think about paid parental leave and the changes it is making here.Prior to that the Government had no idea. The Minister of Labour earlier when he took the only call he has taken so far said that this was a very carefully thought out series of policies. That is unbelievable—absolutely unbelievable. This Government has been absolutely driven to consider paid parental leave and the tax credits that we are talking about in Part 2 of this particular bill. The Government did not think about it before and it had no idea.The Government realises that there is a demand from the public and it is Sue Moroney’s bill that has forced the Government to look at this. What the Government is doing now is not doing the job well enough. The first part increases paid parental leave by only 2 weeks next year and by 2 weeks the year after. It is a pittance—60000 children this year and 60000 children next year will miss out.So where is the sincerity of this Minister and this Government in trying to address this problem properly? They are not sincere about this. This is simply something the Government has been forced to do something it has put in the Budget and it is now trying under urgency to pass this bill. The bill has got lots of faults.This side of the Chamber supports families. This side of the Chamber supports mothers particularly at the time when children arrive. This is why the 26 weeks’ paid parental leave was so important. It gets us towards a minimum standard. The reports are legendary. The Families Commission report recommending about 13 months was a very well-thought-out piece of work. It brought every piece of knowledge that was available around the world in this particular area and all the assistance available thought it through and put in place a 7-year programme. New Zealand could have transitioned very very systematically and programmatically to have a decent paid parental leave system to give our children the best start possible.But what this particular bill has done and what Part 2 is doing here is just only playing at the edges of it. This questions the sincerity of this Government. This questions the extent to which it really is interested in paid parental leave. I think of all of the quotes that were read out by earlier speakers around what National Cabinet Ministers and National members said about paid parental leave. I think an honourablemember said that it was a travesty. I think this is where their real heart is. For them this is a—MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I moveThat the question be now put.DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take a short call in the Committee stage on Part 2 of the Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill. We have put forward an amendment to attempt to extend the parental tax credit to not just the extensions that are included in the bill but to all families particularly those who are on low incomes—the lowest incomes—those who are on benefits those who are students and those who are currently excluded from this scheme.Every family suffers the financial burden of a newborn child. There are costs associated with it. They include things like the equipment—cots prams and nappies. Each of these stresses is felt by every family that has a newborn. So those tax credits for the first 8 weeks or in this case now 10 weeks makes a significant difference. But it makes more of a difference for those families who are the poorest because they are less resilient.In respect of this part of the bill and these provisions around the tax credit this Government by excluding the poorest of our families those who are on benefits is punishing the babies of the poor. It is basically saying: “We will start your life out by discriminating against you.” This is unacceptable.This morning I attended with several of my colleagues in this House the post-Budget breakfast that was put on for us by the Public Health Association and the Child Poverty Action Group. They had done an assessment of the Budget. One of the things they said was that this Budget does nothing to raise those 285000 children out of poverty. What they said was that “The real value of Working for Families continues to decline because of failure to properly index payments rising abatement rates and a reducing threshold so fewer people are being able to access it. It is worth less because the cost of living is rising.” I was alarmed to find out from one of the speakers this morning that New Zealand has the second lowest wages in the OECD countries just above Iceland’s. That is shocking. How can people rise out of poverty when this is the situation and this Budget does nothing to alleviate that?This Government is picking the winners and the losers. This Government is spending in this Budget around about 50 percent of its income—50.1 percent I think—on superannuation and it is a clear indication of where this Government is directing its policies. Is it if I am going to be cynical because people who are receiving superannuation are voters whereas the babies of the poorest families may not vote for the National Government? I would suggest that this Government has directed these policies towards those who will vote for it and that is why this tax credit the parental tax credit applies to low and middle income families not to those who are the worst off in Aotearoa New Zealand.I believe that we should be supporting our children out of poverty because if we do not we all pay the costs. Those costs are things like poor education outcomes and poor health outcomes. We know that the health budget is one of the biggest that we have to deal with. It is a bottomless pit as my colleague Kevin Hague who is the spokesperson on health for the Greens would say. Unless we do something to alleviate the costs associated with poverty by raising people out of those dire circumstances then we are going to continue to keep paying for them.It is the short-term thinking that gets me the most I think—the fact that we are not thinking in terms of how our families will grow and how our communities will benefit if we invest now. It is a cynical Budget. It focuses mainly on those who do not need it the most.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I moveThat the question be now put.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I want to pick up on a point that the Hon Trevor Mallard made around the policy development regarding the Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill. He talked about the kind of baseline information that the officials had in order to develop the policy. Well Trevor Mallard what I have to say about that is that when you are coming from the point of view that actually there are not 285000 children living in poverty when you are coming from the point of view of denying the real situation that exists in this country and when your Government is telling you to write a report that actually misses out all of that information of course you are going to come up with the option that the officials did as being the most useful option. Like you I do not want to blame the officials. They are coming from a position where the Government is saying really clearly that there are not 285000 children living in poverty and that there is nothing to see here—move along. That is the fundamental flaw in this piece of legislation.We are looking at the parental tax credit which is supposed to be extending the eligibility to people who were not previously eligible but really when you boil it down when you look at the actual components of that parental tax credit we start to exclude those people who are most in need. Why is that? Because people on the other side of the Chamber have got blinkers on when it comes to recognising the reality that many of our families live in.I do want to just comment on Tracey Martin’s point. Reading through the abatement discussion is totally confusing. I have no idea what that is about. I like you Tracey would welcome the Minister to stand and explain those particular parts of it.Hon Trevor Mallard: That wouldn’t help.POTO WILLIAMS: No possibly it would not. We probably have a better idea of what is going on with our families than he does. I have to say that where this really misses the point is that we are not looking at children as a whole and what will benefit them unlike our Best Start package which looks at 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. All the good science says that staying home with baby for 26 weeks is the way to go. It is the bare minimum that we should be supporting our families through. When we are looking at free antenatal care when we are looking at increasing early childhood education hours and when we are looking at providing money to every single family who has a newborn child up to the earning level of $150000 we are starting to address the real areas of need. We are saying that most of our families need that not just a select few. Most of our families need that.The Child Poverty Action Group breakfast this morning was called “The Loaves and the Fishes”. We all know the parable of the loaves and fishes where a certain man spoke to a crowd and he had nothing to feed them. There was a basket of—was it five loaves and two fish? And he had to feed the crowd on five loaves and two fish. Every time he went to the basket the basket would miraculously replenish itself. Unfortunately the reality for our families is that they go to their basket and look to replenish that basket but they find it empty.Dr Rajen Prasad: And this Minister doesn’t walk on water.POTO WILLIAMS: No he probably does not walk on water Dr Prasad. These families are required to produce miracles for their children every single day. They are required to produce miracles out of the barest of supplies.I also want to talk about the name of this bill. What is it? Let us see. It is the Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill. I would like to call it the “Baby Steps When Actually Bold Steps Are Required Bill”. It is definitely not enough in terms of supporting our most vulnerable families or even those families who just find it really tough when newborns come along. Let us face it. When you have a new babythere are lots of stresses and pressures on you as a new mum. So maybe we could call it the “We Could Have Done What Was Asked For But We Did Not Bill” or maybe we could have called it the “We Gave Lollipops to Some”—CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I moveThat the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jan Logie to clause 35 be agreed to:in subclause (1) replace MD 11(1) with:(1)This section applies when a person qualifies under section MC 2 (Who qualifies for entitlements under family scheme?) in relation to a dependent child but excluding the disqualifying situations described in MC 6.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes56New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Noes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Jacinda Ardern’s amendment to clause 35 is out of order as it is substantially the same as Jan Logie’s amendment which has just been defeated.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to clause 36 be agreed to:in subclause (2)(a)(ii) replace “$2200” with “$3120”.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes56New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Noes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.Part 2 agreed to.Schedule 1agreed to.Schedule 2agreed to.Schedule 3agreed to.Clauses 1 and 2JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to speak on the title and commencement clauses of this Budget Measures (Financial Support for NewbornChildren) Bill in the Committee stage. For the large number of viewers at home that is when we have the opportunity to say if we agree with this bill whether it is coming in at the right time and secondly whether we agree with the title that the bill is given. It always seems like a rather bizarre thing to be debating but it does allow us to get to some of the core objectives of a bill and whether or not we agree with them.Before I begin though at the beginning of my earlier contribution in the Committee stage I did raise an issue about the availability of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet for this bill. I will admit I have not had a chance in the last moments to look at whether or not that has yet been tabled. It was not available online when I looked last night. I just wondered whether or not the Minister in the chair the Minister of Labour could make a contribution during this title and commencement part of the debate to just advise the Committee whether the vet has indeed been made available to the public for this debate—acknowledging of course that the Opposition always does have a challenge during speeches on Budget-related legislation because we are given the bill literally at the moment that we begin debating it. That is basically when we get the information.For viewers at home who are unable to see them there are a large number of papers available on the Table. Trevor Mallard has been speaking about some of them recently. Regulatory impact assessments from different departments are provided. It gives us an insight into the process that has gone into this bill’s development or it gives a bit of a clue as to where the Government tried to guide the options very early on. But the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet which is provided by the Ministry of Justice gives us an indication as to whether or not from its perspective people are unfairly discriminated against in the policy that the Government has put forward. It is a very important check and balance that enables us to see whether or not discrimination was justifiable. In some cases a case will be made in a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet to say “Look on balance this discrimination has been made for x y and z reasons and we think it is justifiable.” versus those that are deemed to be not justifiable.It does not mean that a bill will not go ahead but it does provide an Opposition with legal advice based on the Bill of Rights Act. It is the way that we enforce the Bill of Rights Act in this Parliament so it is very important. The vet was not available last night—that I could find. We were of course given just a typewritten link to look up not specifically for that New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet but for where they vaguely might be on the Ministry of Justice website. The reason I am interested in that is I am interested to see whether or not the fact that not all children are covered by some of the changes raised any issues from the perspective of the Ministry of Justice.I move now to the commencement clause because I think it is interesting. We are in urgency and that usually suggests that there is a matter—obviously as the word implies—of urgency in passing a piece of legislation. For instance if it is during Budget time it might be that there is going to be an extra tax or levy. The best example I can think of is when we raise it for alcohol and for cigarettes. The reason we do that is so people do not go out and rush to purchase before we have had a chance to make these changes. As for these commencement clauses obviously no one is going to rush out and procreate in order to get these minimal changes that the Government has put in. So from their perspective they might perceive that there is no particular urgency. But here we are in urgency for elements of the bill that actually do not commence for quite some time.For instance for clauses 6 to 18 of the bill—and clauses 6 to 18 basically set out the transition from 14 to 16 weeks; that is where we get up to with clause 18—that comes into force on 1 April 2015 which is quite some time away. The transition is something that probably could have been included in a non-urgency motion. The difference that would have made is that it would enable people to make submissions. Why is it that theGovernment may perceive that it is not necessary for people to submit on this element of the bill? Well it is because not that long ago the public already gave their views. They did it through Sue Moroney’s member’s bill on paid parental leave. It came back rather conclusively that actually submitters were overwhelmingly in support of an extension to paid parental leave—not from 14 to 16 weeks as the first phase in this bill does but from 14 to 26 weeks. So that is a major disappointment and it is probably why the Government thought it could put it through an urgency motion because it already had a Committee stage for another bill that it had got the public view on but just unfortunately chose to ignore.The commencement date for clauses 19 to 31 of the bill which is the extension primarily from 16 weeks to 18 weeks then comes in on 1 April 2016. That is interesting. Obviously the Government is making a decision here that the paid parental leave extension is not something that it sees any particular urgency around phasing in. It clearly does not think that people are going to go out and have babies to get paid parental leave or the parental tax credit in fact because let us be honest the extension of the parental tax credit—if I have read this correctly—comes in at the point of Royal assent. Am I correct Minister? So the extension of the parental tax credit from $150 to $220 for a period of 10 weeks rather than 8 weeks comes in at the point of Royal assent because if I am reading correctly from the commencement clause it basically says as we have already said that “Sections 6 to 18 … come into force on … 2015” “Sections 19 to 31 … come into force on … 2016” and the “rest of this Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.”So Government members are not concerned that raising the parental tax credit by $70 a week and then locking an extra 2 weeks on the end of that mean that people are going to go out and have babies. Yet somehow miraculously they had that concern about Labour’s policy. I do not quite understand the difference there. Oh there is one difference. Our tax credit went to the most vulnerable New Zealanders. Ours went to individuals who are currently left out of the parental tax credit.So that is again the same old tired rhetoric from the Government around the deserving and the undeserving poor. That is exactly what we see from this. Actually the commencement dates starkly highlight that that is exactly what this Government thinks. It also highlights that the Government is happy for there to be an extension of a parental tax credit straightaway but not of paid parental leave. I do not think the Government’s argument around phasing it in because of cost savings really stands because it has said that it is fine to phase in one element of the bill which from memory I think comes in at around $16 million but the other bit can just simply wait.The problem I have generally around the argument that Government members have been making about fiscal costs—and every argument they make around why they are not doing something or why they are taking longer to do it—is that they say it is because they are fiscally prudent. No actually it is just about priorities because there is not any light any more between when Labour says it will be in surplus—we have demonstrated this—and when National says it will be in surplus. There is no difference. We have budgeted in the same way that National has. The difference is that we have prioritised things differently on this side of the Chamber. We have said “Yes we need more revenue. We’ll bring in a capital gains tax. We won’t sell assets. This is the way that we’re going to do it.”Also the Budget surplus that that Government has actually marked up in this Budget where has that come from? Let us be really honest about it. Where has it come from? It has come from a significant cut out of proposed spending on the Canterbury rebuild first of all. It has come from holding on to ACC levies for longer than it needs to because that is what we need in order to nudge ourselves into surplus. And it has comefrom no-interest loans through the New Zealand Transport Agency. That is basically how we have got to this surplus—this overwhelming surplus.So let us be really honest about it. Yes—yes—the Government has governed during a global financial crisis which we are well beyond now. Yes it has done that. Yes there have been earthquakes during National’s time in Government. And yes in comparison Labour when it had its nine surpluses across 9 years did have some relatively good economic times. So why not do a little bit of comparison across Governments across the decades? If you compare National Governments with Labour Governments through history Labour has always had stronger periods of economic growth than National has.Mike Sabin: Ha ha!JACINDA ARDERN: Mike Sabin laughs because it is an uncomfortable truth.Mike Sabin: You can’t be serious.JACINDA ARDERN: I am absolutely serious. I challenge Mr Sabin to go away and do the calculation because I am not using the rubbish rhetoric that he is throwing across the Chamber. I have actually based it on some numbers and analysis which is uncomfortable for that member.Finally because I do not want my time to run out before I make this point—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! There is too much barracking and this is not a football field. It is the people’s House and members will conduct themselves with respect for the traditions of the House as enshrined in the Standing Orders. That is why I am standing. I represent those Standing Orders and I crave your respect for them and your understanding. I am sorry Ms Ardern. Your time has finished.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. During the time that you were making your ruling—which I think was a good ruling and could well make it into theSpeakers’ Rulings given time—Mike Sabin was calling out. We cannot have the Chairperson asking for the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings to be followed while through the time that you were making your very good and well-reasoned ruling a junior Government member was speaking loudly.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. [Interruption] No I do not need any help Mr Sabin. Can I just say that when I am giving a ruling it is unparliamentary and it is discourteous to continue to interject or carry on a conversation during that period. That is totally out of order and I ask the member to desist.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Chair. He mihi nui ki te whānauwhānuio tePāremata. I want to talk about the title and commencement clauses of this Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill. Although the Greens are supporting it we have to go on the record with our deep concerns about the underlying discrimination that is being perpetrated by this bill. The title is the Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill but really it is for newborn children of good parents. You can forget about getting any help for bad babies because this is all about the good babies not the bad babies. It is about the babies who are allowed to have financial support from the collective taxpayer contribution and the babies who can go without because they are not OK.What is interesting when you are thinking about this title is that poverty is referred to very clearly in the regulatory impact statement. It says that “poverty is one of the greatest risks to children’s health and development” so it would be logical given the title of the bill to make sure that all of the smallest children—and particularly the poorest children who are at the greatest risk—get some relief. So it is very confusing to those of us who thought that the parental tax credit for example meant that all parentsand all babies would get it that some babies get it and some babies do not. I do not think that the public of this country actually want us to discriminate against babies.If one wants to listen to talkback and hear the hate speech against beneficiaries although that is an occupation that will not do us any good psychologically it is a way in which people vent their own frustration about low wages in this country by scapegoating beneficiary families. But that is not what Parliament should be doing. In the title of this bill we should be saying that this is support for all newborn children. That is what is missing from the title of this bill. It should be the “Budget Measures (Financial Support for All Newborn Children Without Discrimination) Bill” but we do not say that in the title. What we are doing is saying “Hey welcome to Victorian England. We will provide charity for the good people who are grateful or who are lucky enough to have a job but we will forget about everyone else who has got newborns. They can lie in the gutter.” which is what happened to many of the babies in Victorian England actually.But we would presume that in the 21st century there would be more courage and there is actually a failure of courage in the title. It should be clear that we support all our children and all our babies. It is completely perverse to create inequality and poverty while claiming as it does in the title to be a bill for the financial support of newborn children. It is discrimination and it is actually disturbing and perverse to see this happening because we believe that this was a wasted opportunity to actually support the people who are most in need and their babies.This week I have been touring decile 1 schools and talking to principals about families and their newborns. During the families and newborns discussion they have said that the most important thing is for those newborn children to get what they need when they are at their most vulnerable because if they do not get what is needed then by the time they reach school they are already at a disadvantage. So why would a Budget bill called the Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill create disadvantage which is going to be manifest very soon in those small people’s lives? It is simply not acceptable it is not a fairer society and it is not what most people expect us to do in this House. It is disturbing.Further to the commencement date well this is being put through under urgency. I will tell you what is urgent: child poverty is urgent. Newborn babies of beneficiary families urgently need support. There is no margin of error for those people. For some of those mothers it is the most urgent experience that they have ever had and they urgently need our support. For those who are less in need but who will benefit from this bill—and that is good—they are not going to get it until 2015 so this is not urgency is it? This is not. This is an election year but it ain’t urgency. Why do we not sent this bill to a select committee and have the conversation about why the bad babies of the poor are not going to get anything? That is what I would like to have a discussion about. I think there are many many people and organisations that would like to hold the Government to account through the select committee process on this very issue.I am proud to be a member of the Green Party because we have never discriminated. We have always supported through our support for the court case that the Child Poverty Action Group took extending in-work tax credits to beneficiary families and their babies.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): There are two issues that we are currently debating. The first is whether the Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill is appropriately titled. I think we are beginning to develop a consensus—in fact I think it has been unanimous amongst all the speakers in the Chamber on this particular phase of the bill—that this bill is not appropriately titled. I think it could have been titled “An Election Attempt to Steal a Wee Bit of LabourGreen and New Zealand First Policy Water it Down and Pretend it is Appropriate and to Mis-phase It - Type Bill” or there are a number of other points. I think that certainly the implication that the newborn children who most need support are getting anything at all from this bill is wrong.I want to refer to the question of timing and commencement. This bill is coming in across quite a wide range of time. There are parts of it that come in from April next year—not very much; about $3 million worth I think—there are parts of it that come in from July next year and there are parts of it that come in from July the year after. I think that there are bits that come in from April next year and April the year after depending on which particular part it is. The question I have got—and it is a technical question on which the Minister in the chair the Minister of Labour might need to get advice—is why it cannot all be brought into force tomorrow. Even if we are sticking with the dates that were previously agreed as to when the payments are to be made why is the bill being brought into force with some parts coming in as it is approved by Royal assent and others not coming in until dates that are much later? I just do not see the need for it.Within the bill there is very clear phasing and very clear very well-set-out transitional provisions. They are wrong because of course things should have been brought in much much more quickly and they should have been much better but even if one accepts as the Committee appears to be accepting the timing of the actual provisions the question I have got for the Minister is this. Why has an unusual format been used in the drafting in order to bring some of these provisions into force on the legislation getting its Royal assent and some do not come into force until a long time later?I just want to be a little bit cynical. Is there some ulterior motive here? Is there a motive in the provisions that bring these measures into force to reverse this out at some stage after 20 September? I am just feeling a certain lack of love and a certain lack of trust with the Minister. If the Minister had been upfront and defended Part 2 and even if he had defended Part 1 then I might have been slightly more inclined to go along with these provisions. Normally of course you do not argue with them but it is a genuine question. I have been around this place for a little while and normally when there is a delay in the bringing into force of provisions there is a reason for it. The fact that a bill does not come into effect until later—and that is clearly set out in the clauses of the bill—is not a reason for the bill to be broken into different parts for the commencement clause. There does not appear to be a good reason for it.We know that for example with the parental tax credit measures that are sitting in the bill the Inland Revenue Department has to be prepared to do some things in April next year and in April the year after. There is no reason why given what is in the bill it cannot actually do that. You do not need to phase in the bringing into force of provisions which on the face of them cannot be brought into force anyway—CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I actually feel slightly sad having come to the Committee stage that we have seen attempts to make this a better piece of legislation but they have just been rejected out of hand. Here we are dealing with something that really should be a cause for celebration. This bill the Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill should be a cause for celebration because finally National has got it. Finally it accepts that paid parental leave is something worth supporting. It has taken a while.This bill is quite a small measure but National voted against paid parental leave when it was introduced in 2002. It voted against extending it in 2004 and I think National members might have abstained in 2007. Then you know National has been playing all sorts of silly silly games with Sue Moroney’s very excellent piece oflegislation—well supported by many members in this House—which tries to really make a difference and extends paid parental leave. We have had all sorts of requests by Mr Auchinvole to extend the time for reporting back with a view to reach some decision and then reneging on that and we have had filibustering basically for weeks and weeks and weeks to try to stop a vote from happening on that bill. Then of course finally we have had the Government putting something forward in the Budget.I assume that the Government’s intention is still to veto Ms Moroney’s bill if it ever lets it get back into the House to be voted on but what we have got here something that should be a cause for celebration is somewhat tempered by the fact that the changes are minor. Next year there will be 2 extra weeks of paid parental leave and 2 more weeks the year after. Of course in the parental tax credit provision we have seen that despite its being described as supporting “lower and middle income families” and I think that somewhere else it talks about low and middle income families it quite clearly excludes 14000 of the most struggling families. Those who are really struggling to make ends meet and those whose children are living in poverty are being excluded. So the changes are minor and they exclude the people who really need it.Of course we saw last night and this morning the Government vote against opportunities to fix those things and to stand up in this Chamber and say: “We all support families and we all understand that newborn children need the best start in life. Let us give them and primarily their mothers”—not always their mothers but primarily their mothers—“the best possible start in life.” We need to give them the opportunity to have bonding to have good breastfeeding established and to make sure that children have a very healthy and exceptional start to their life. We want all of our children to do well not just some of our children—Mike Sabin: Title and commencement.CAROL BEAUMONT: —and not just the wealthy or as Mr Sabin keeps referring to them the hard-working ones. We want that for every person and every child in the country. Children are not workers. Last night we had Mr Sabin talking about hard-working babies it seemed. But anyway this is something that we wanted to make real progress on.I have to say that this bill is deeply cynical—deeply cynical. This Government has done this only because there is an election in 4 months. It has done it only because it knows that it is so strongly supported. The campaign around Ms Moroney’s bill—the 26 for Babies people—has struck a real chord. There is a genuine need out there in the community. The Government’s measure is deeply cynical very small excludes many and is effectively an election bribe but at least it is some progress. As I said it should be a cause for celebration that National has finally understood that paid parental leave is worthwhile.What is also deeply cynical is that the Minister in the chair Simon Bridges stood there last night and started talking about how this measure is extending paid parental leave to lots of other people who are not currently covered by it. Well what the Minister was talking about was announcements about measures that were made in the Budget but are not being enacted in this bill and I understand will not be coming into effect until 2016. There were very good announcements about casual workers and seasonal workers and so on.I want to say that this bill should perhaps be called “Support for Some Newborn Children Bill”—JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I moveThat the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes53New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 11; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Motion agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Labour): I moveThat the Committee divide the bill into the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Taxation (Parental Tax Credit) Billpursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 448.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I just rise to support the Minister of Labour in this particular decision to divide the Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill. It is absolutely clear that this bill is one that it is very very necessary to divide. If it was not divided then we would have a separate Act that contained changes to the Income Tax Act and changes to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act that were together. Although of course they would stand as the law of the country it would make it almost impossible to reference those particular sections because they would not sit within the relevant legislation; they would be sitting outside it. It would be quite a problem—quite a problem—for people who were attempting to refer to particular sections. It would be a problem for people who were looking for these changes. They would go to the Act and they would find for example in their particular law libraries the 2004 or 2006 changes sitting within the Act but they would not be able to find these relevant changes because the cross-referencing would not be done at all.I find it slightly extraordinary that we are having a debate in this area. I think it might be described as unprecedented. I am not absolutely certain within the Standing Orders whether it is allowed. But I think it is an interesting test. I wonder whether in fact I should raise a point of order against myself because certainly if I was on the other side I would have raised a point of order to say that a speech on the division of a bill is not consistent with the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. But it appears Mr Chairperson Robertson that in the dying days of your role in the Chair you are setting precedents and this is an interesting precedent. I think it is fair to say that it is a precedent that a future Chairperson will no doubt overrule—will no doubt overrule.But it is not often that I can be 100 percent supportive of a Minister. In most of the stuff we have spoken on previously I have said he should have gone further or he did not go far enough even though we were voting for the particular clause. But the motion that he has moved that the bill be divided is something that we are totally supportive of. It is a wonderful thing to do. It is necessary for the law of the land to be properly interpreted and for this particular bill which refers to a number of Acts to be properly placed within that legislation. If we did not do this then of course that would not occur. But the idea that it gets debated is certainly novel.Motion agreed to.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.