Logie Jan: Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 15 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17954. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to speak again in this process of urgency on the Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill. I would like to just pick up ona couple of points made by the Minister of Labour—or one primarily about the fiscal responsibility that has enabled the Government to support this initiative at this time. I really do want to remind New Zealand that this bill we are being told is going to cost about $172 million a year. That is while the tax cuts that this Government introduced have cost this country $5 billion over the last term of Parliament. The $61 billion of debt that this Government has got the country into—up from $14 billion—has now meant that we are paying $1 billion a year in interest off that debt. That is so much lost opportunity for the children and the families of this country that it really puts this $172 million bill in perspective for me—although I celebrate it because it is a step on the journey and at least it is going in the right direction unlike those tax cuts and unlike the profligate spending on American-style motorways.But to get to some of the specific points of the bill again the Green Party as I have said believes passionately in an economy that serves the people and the environment because basically that is what the economy is there for. It is a tool to serve people and the environment. This is a chance to use our shared resources to look after our children. The Green Party wants to see every single child in this country thriving. We want to use our economy in the best way that we can to deliver that for our children. Paid parental leave is a key part of that mix and we are very pleased to support it.We are also pleased to be supporting with a caveat—and I am hoping that others in the House will support my amendments—the extension or increase in payment of the parental tax credit. This tax credit recognises the need for extra financial support for lower-income parents so that they can spend time with their newborn babies and helps with the cost of things like nappies clothes and other essentials in those first few weeks of life. That is a worthy thing to do. That is going to help take some of the pressure off some of the families who are struggling so much at the moment. It will increase the payment from $150 to $220. Seventy dollars a week for lower and middle-income families is a huge amount and it will make a really big difference. The tragedy of this provision though is that it is not being extended to the families who are in the most need and who could really really make the most out of that $70 a week and for whom it would make a substantial difference to their quality of life and their ability to care for their newborn baby.The regulatory impact statement tells us that the intent of this policy provision is to increase the amount of financial support available and that is the primary objective. Secondly the intent is to target this additional support to the period around the birth of a new child. Thirdly the intent is to target this additional support to lower and middle-income families. Fourthly and sadly part of the policy intent of this measure for the Government is to minimise any impacts on work incentives as if parenting is not a job that we should be valuing above all other jobs and as if parents who are out of the paid workforce should be thinking about being in the paid workforce while their baby is a newborn. Surely—surely—that is not something that we want to be encouraging.I really would remind the House of some of the submissions—for those on the Government Administration Committee who sat through the submissions—on Sue Moroney’s Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill on paid parental leave and some of the stories that we heard about the importance of it the difference that it made not having it and the heartbreak that was wrought. We heard from a nurse working in the intensive care unit who was shocked to discover that so many parents had to leave their babies during the day to go to work because they could not take leave. That has been the reality for families in this country. The extension of paid parental leave to casual and seasonal workers will mean that that is not the reality for some women now and that is incredibly important. The same concept of need applies in this situation for the parental tax credit.We heard of one woman who could not afford to take leave as her partner was unable to be in paid work at the time so she had to return to work 24 hours after giving birth. She told us how she now has to look at photos of her babies to remember those early years and of the deep sadness of missing all of those key milestones of her baby. It is heartbreaking to think that that is how our society has been operating for so long and that we are now in 2014 where families can be torn apart in that way when we make policy choices that could prevent that. This paid parental leave provision is a step towards that. It should be 6 months because that is the breastfeeding milestone and it is the point at which the research tells us so much can be done. We actually support 13 months because that is about the establishment of the full family at that time. The parental tax credit is also a way of indicating how we want to support our families and those in the most need. When 285000 children in this country are living in poverty and when the families in most need of this financial support at the time of a newborn baby in the family are excluded it is hard not to see cruelty in that as well as a level of discrimination which the courts have recognised as others have.Mike Sabin: That’s right—discriminating against people who work.JAN LOGIE: Yes—Mike Sabin says cynically: “Discriminating against people who work.” Some people are not in a position to work and I would like to let the member know that in America there has been research done to look at women on the DPB and the reasons they are on the DPB. Over 50 percent of those women overseas were there because they were leaving violent relationships. I would like to ask the member whether he wants those women to get to a place of safety to be able to support their children and to stay out of that relationship. If the answer is yes then you should not be discriminating against those families. We should be nurturing and supporting those families. If you support ending family violence then you should support universal provision for families.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!JAN LOGIE: He should. I am sorry Mr Speaker—he should be supporting those. Of course Mr Speaker would support that. I am sorry for bringing you into the debate. I would like to finish finally by telling another story that came through in the select committee when it considered Sue Moroney’s bill around the importance of this issue about a woman with twins who had to go back to work when her twins were 5 months old. She had to leave work every 2½ hours to breastfeed all while her babies were both still waking at different times of the night to be breastfed. Not surprisingly this was not sustainable for her so she resigned after 5 weeks back at work. Three years on she is still working part-time outside the industry that she is trained in. She has estimated that that has cost her family about $70000 because we did not have the policies in place to be able to support her to stay in work at that time. Sadly the 18 weeks is not quite getting us there either. We can do better as a country. Imagine if we had not had those tax cuts how much more we could be offering to our children and our families right now.