Ardern Jacinda: Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 15 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17995. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA 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—