Roche Denise: Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoche Denise: Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 15 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17947. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENISE ROCHE (Green): It is my pleasure to take the second Green Party call on the Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill which I note having now had 10 minutes to read some of it is an omnibus bill that amends both the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act and the Income Tax Act.I note that in the general policy statement that is with the preamble to the bill one of the things it says is that it is targeted to lower and middle income working families particularly the extension or the increase in the tax credit. With this legislation the tax credit will rise from $150 per week for 8 weeks to $220 per week for the first 10 weeks following the birth of a child but the eligibility has been tightened and that does give us some concern.The other concern we have with this is that although it says that it is for lower and middle income working families it does nothing for the lowest-income families. Our policy has always been to extend that tax credit to those who need it most. We will be putting forward an amendment to amend this bill to ensure that we can have that happen for those most vulnerable families the ones that are most in need.What families need is enough to live on and although we support the principle of extending the tax credit essentially what would lift them out of poverty is increased wages. This Budget I have to note has done very little to ensure that working families and those who are living below the poverty line and are in paid employment are able to get ahead. These tax credit measures are basically the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff and we really do need to be starting to think in preventative terms about raising the standard of living so that we can address those poverty issues because the costs are socialised—we all pay for them in the end.When looking at this legislation you can tell that this is election year. I know that there are people on this side of the House who have said it but for the record I willstate it again. This is an attempt by the Government to take the benefit of Sue Moroney’s member’s bill which would have put in place 26 weeks’ paid parental leave take the credit away from her and basically introduce some small measures in the interim because it is election year. I do believe and I do agree with this side of the House that it is cynical.We do support the bill—we would be mad not to—because it takes some small steps towards improving conditions and provisions for particularly women who are bearing children while they are in the workforce. But our policy is for 13 months’ paid parental leave. Though this bill is a step in the right direction to some extent it does feel like lip-service. Others have outlined the benefits of paid parental leave but I will go through why 13 months is actually what we should be aiming for. We are at the lowest scale in ranked OECD countries for paid parental leave. Thirteen months would mean that there is a longer-term approach to child and maternal health.It is interesting actually to hear the arguments that are being presented by the National Government around the parental leave provisions that it is putting forward because they are quite oppositional to what it said some weeks ago when Sue Moroney’s bill was first introduced. But I take heart from the fact that the Government has started to recognise the benefits of paid parental leave. The Greens would seek to extend it well beyond 16 weeks to 18 weeks and then to 13 months.