Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill

I call Ross Robertson.

💬 Grant Robertson: No, you don’t.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry.

💬 Grant Robertson: That is normally followed by a withdrawal and an apology, Mr Chair!

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I withdraw and apologise! Grant Robertson.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I rise to speak in my very own identity on Part 2 of the Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill. Part 2 of this bill brings us to, I guess, the part of the bill that is somewhat disturbing for members of the Opposition. With Part 1 we are able to at least agree in principle on the question of paid parental leave, but when it comes to the changes to the parental tax credit, we come to a more difficult and deeper issue.

The good news here is the recognition that parents need more support—that parents who are undertaking the job of raising children, pretty much whoever they are, need support. We all know that the costs that are in front of all parents are great. Having children is something that when it is undertaken, parents realise the additional costs. All parents should get that support, and that is the problem we have with Part 2 of the bill. It is because a group of parents is being excluded. What Labour decided when we brought out our Best Start policy at the beginning of the year was that we would create a system that would provide support for children up to 1 year of age for everybody who earned up to $150,000 a year, and we would extend that support for children up to 3 years of age depending upon the circumstances of those parents. That is to support low-income families. That is to support vulnerable children.

That is what is missing from Part 2 of this bill: support for the most vulnerable children. What is missing is support for the 14,000 parents who are living below the poverty line and the 50,000 children who are living below the poverty line. Part 2 of this bill says that those children are excluded and those parents are excluded. The changes to the parental income tax credit do not support those parents.

💬 Jacqui Dean: What is the poverty line?

Jacqui Dean seems to have a problem with that. Jacqui Dean seems to have a problem with the fact that the Government could have come to the House today and said: “We get it. We get that all parents—all parents—need support.”—all parents need support. But, no, only those parents whom the National Government deem valuable get support tonight, not the parents who are living below the poverty line, not the people who are really struggling to bring up children. They are not deserving parents for the National Government. Once again, the National Government is deciding who are the deserving and who are the undeserving.

This was an opportunity tonight for the National Government to bring forward to the House some kind of support for all parents, or at least most parents, but, no, it chose to exclude—

💬 Jacqui Dean: More than Labour did.

“More than Labour did.”, said Jacqui Dean—more than Labour did. This from the Government that told us that Working for Families was communism by stealth, and then adopted it wholesale and takes credit in the House for the benefits of Working for Families. No, Jacqui Dean has got it wrong. The National Government has got it wrong tonight. A great opportunity has been missed to lift children out of poverty.

One of the disturbing things while listening to the Budget debate today was hearing that 285,000 New Zealand children are living in poverty. The National Government skirted round that today. Yesterday in the House John Key denied that that number even existed. Here is a very specific piece of legislation that could have dealt with that very issue, and the Government did not do so. I think that is a great shame.

I think there could have been amendments to this bill. I know that my colleague Jacinda Ardern, who is going to speak in the very near future, is interested in putting forward amendments that actually bring this bill into line with Labour’s Best Start policy. What we have got here is half a best start for children—a false start for children.

💬 Mike Sabin: Oh!

Well, no, it is. Mike Sabin disagrees. Why exclude 50,000 children, Mr Sabin? I want Mr Sabin and other National Party members to stand up and tell New Zealanders why it is that 50,000 children miss out.

Well, Mr Sabin finished there with an interjection, saying that the Government’s policy is targeted. That was in response to Mr Robertson asking why 50,000 children in poverty are not being reached by this policy in Part 2 of the Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill. That was a reference to the fact that Best Start covers the most vulnerable children with its Best Start payment when those children are not covered by the extension to the parental tax credit. Let us be absolutely clear. The parental tax credit does not go to beneficiaries. They are our lowest-income recipients and they are excluded. It is a cold, hard truth that members on that side of the Chamber do not want to accept. We have an amendment to expand eligibility on the Table. Alfred Ngaro is shaking his head. The parental tax credit has never gone to beneficiaries. They are excluded from the parental tax credit.

💬 Hon Member: That’s right, absolutely. That’s logical.

Yes, they are excluded. So they do not get the parental tax credit. They do not get paid parental leave.

💬 Jacqui Dean: They get a benefit, though, don’t they?

They get a benefit—yes, that is right, Jacqui Dean. How much is it? How much is it? How much is it? And that is why we have this issue. No one on that side of the Chamber knows how much someone on a benefit receives when they have got a newborn child. If members on that side of the Chamber want to tell me that when you have a baby, you can survive on $290—because that is approximately what you receive when you are a sole parent—then that is absolutely fine; all power to you. But that is why those parents are captured by the Child Poverty Monitor as the ones who are in poverty for the longest. They are in there from the time their baby is aged 0 to when their baby is around 3 or 4 because that is when it is hard to work and raise a child at the same time, especially when the baby is a newborn. Sure, they might want to supplement their income. They might want to raise more money by working, but if you are a sole parent and you have got a baby who is 1 week old, that is a big ask. So you are limited in the amount that you are able to receive, no matter whether you have got the best will in the world—the best will in the world. That is why this extension misses out those who need it most.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Friday)