Martin Tracey: Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 15 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17941. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much. Can I thank Mike Sabin for resuming his seat. Can I thank him for his contribution because every time Mike Sabin makes a speech in this House the women of New Zealand—52 percent of voters in New Zealand—recommit to not voting for that party. They recommit every time they see that man rise to his feet in his bombastic way and the way that he minimises those things that women do inside this workforce and the way that he minimises the value of women at home and the importance of what women put into this society. We thank you Mr Sabin. New Zealand First is rising well past 10 percent based on the speeches of Mr Sabin alone so thank you so much for your contribution. We look forward to more—we look forward to more. I will go back to the Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill. Mr Sabin unfortunately does not normally read bills and he has had very little time to concentrate on this one.Just quickly though with regard to the criticism of Ms Logie’s contribution the title of the bill is the Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill which means that it actually is supposed to support newborn children no matter where they are. That is what the title would suggest to you. I cannot say what New Zealand First is going to do with regard to any Supplementary Order Papers at this stage because I need to consult with my colleagues but the bill may have been misnamed by the National Government if it is very very against supporting every newborn child. It possibly needs to make that clear in the title before we go forward.I do want to say that it has been a very lucky year for parents in New Zealand. It has been a very lucky year and that luck has been because Sue Moroney’s bill was pulled out of the ballot. That is what forced this bill forward. There was no way on this planet or on John Key’s planet that this was going to happen without that pressure. You can see it in the regulatory impact statement. You can see inside that that the officials have said they have not actually been able to do any research on this bill but that thankfully—thankfully—there was already a bill there. Thankfully most of the work had been done. So I want to acknowledge on behalf of New Zealand First that this bill is here in the Budget not because the National Government has suddenly seen the value of mothers being at home—oh no. The National Government has been forced into it. So there are two reasons why it is a lucky year: one the bill was pulled out; and two it is an election year.I want to say thank you very much Sue Moroney for the work that you did on this for bringing this to the attention of the country and for making it incredibly difficult for this Government to back away from this issue. It was so difficult. The Government tried. By crikey it tried but the bill for 26 weeks of paid parental leave the campaign you ran and the women who stood up around this country and said they believe it is important that parents—not just women but parents—are able to bond with their children and that we as a country are better for it forced the hand of this Government.I am interested to see whether the ACT Party will be supporting this bill. Only recently on television we had the new leader of the ACT Party—his name escapes me; he is not well-known—stand up and say: “Don’t have children if you can’t afford it.” Do not have children if you cannot afford it. Only the rich people should breed is basically another way of putting that—only the rich should breed. So is this party—Mike Sabin: Very sensible.TRACEY MARTIN: Mr Mike Sabin is shouting out: “How sensible!”. Ladies of New Zealand Mike Sabin just shouted out: “How sensible!”. Please mark that down.Put it in theHansardin italics. Thank you. That is another 2 percent on the New Zealand First poll. Woo! Go for it Mr Sabin. Keep it coming Mr Sabin. Keep it coming. It is excellent work you are doing on behalf of New Zealand First.Can we just return to the regulatory impact statement for a moment. Let us point out the fact that the regulatory impact statement actually says that for financial reasons the return to work often occurs before a baby is 6 months old. That is why 26 weeks was important. That is why 26 weeks was the goal. But it has never been the goal. It is not the goal in this bill. It is not the goal anywhere else. Eighteen weeks is all that whoever over there actually truly believes that having a parent at home is good for a baby could eke out of this tight-fisted Government. That is all it could eke out for newborn babies because that is what the bill’s title is. It is not about parents. It is not about people working or not working; it is about newborn babies. The Government does not want to make it about that. Even when Simon Bridges stood up he made sure that he emphasised the amounts of the dollars. This was a conversation about money not about babies.If you extrapolate the figures out from this investment at the front end of life to the other end of life we will see that in those numbers an upfront investment in this part gives downstream return in multiple ways. For example it has been proven again and again and again that when women are actually given an opportunity to stay at home and look after their children and I say “women” because—actually we would have liked to have seen some sort of parity here perhaps like the Danish model where there is a requirement for men to take part in this parental leave. We are not going to push the point now. That is a conversation that the country should have and maybe that would go some way to actually minimising the pay gap. Maybe if we actually saw all these roles as equitable then we would not have this conversation that we have in business all the time because we would truly be equal when it came to the way we cared in our homes. I know that fathers are absolutely equal in the way they love and care for their children and I am sure they would like to have the opportunity to bond on some occasions with their children—to have the burden of that in most cases. So there you go. That would have been a nice conversation to have.But what we do know is that when women are well-supported when they are at home with their babies and when they feel that they have truly had an opportunity to make sure their baby is well and settled and that all is right with the world and their relationship is strong then they are better employees. Employers tell us that. Employers tell us that when women know that their children are well looked after and everything is going well and they have been given an environment of support then they are better employees. They are more loyal. They work longer hours. They stay through greater trauma. They are just more loyal. That is what businesses tell us is important especially when times get tough and you need to have conversations with your employees around needing to do some give and take.So it is a shame that the Government could not see its way clear to doing the 26 weeks’ paid parental leave to actually meet the World Health Organization’s targets to meet what has actually been designated by the World Health Organisation which says that this is the best start for newborn babies. What is this about if it is not about that? Is it about giving parents a little bit so they are grateful and letting National ride into the election? There is an awful lot of that.Simon O’Connor: That’s cynical.David Bennett: Very cynical.TRACEY MARTIN: Yes I may have a cynical view and it is because I have seen it. I saw it in the 1990s and I have seen it from this Government for the last 6 years. Drop $10 million over here into a pot and tell those people they are fine. We have seenit with the provisions on grandparents raising grandchildren and we are seeing it again here.We are obviously going to speak on all parts of the bill as we go through this evening so I would like to just highlight—Hon Trevor Mallard: Through to Saturday.TRACEY MARTIN: —through to Saturday—for the families out there who think that this is a win-win for them—all those families out there who have actually been getting Working for Families—that I think you need to tune in as this conversation goes on because there are amendments to Working for Families. The families who came to see me in 2008 and said: “We’re going to vote against the Labour Government.” which they did in 2008 also said: “Crikey we really really really hope that the National Government doesn’t touch Working for Families.” Well here we go New Zealand. Listen up because this bill starts to cut into your Working for Families. It starts to lower that support that you have had. Nothing is ever ever ever without hooks with the National Government. Nothing is ever without hooks with the National Government and as we go on to talk about this bill I believe that you will see more and more hooks come out.