Families Package (Income Tax and Benefits) Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair Tolley. I’m pleased to rise to speak in support of my amendment, which introduces a new part, Part 4, and changes to the functions of the Children’s Commissioner. I am hoping that the Government, although they weren’t interested in measuring the impacts of the well-being of retired people, will be interested in measuring the impact of their legislation on children. So I’m very pleased that the Minister in the chair, Grant Robertson, is nodding and agreeing, and agreeing that this amendment is important and that measuring the impacts are important.

So the amendment that I have tabled is to require the Children’s Commissioner to report on the impact of Part 1 of the Families Package (Income Tax and Benefits) Bill on the well-being of children. There have been lengthy debates in this House today, as there should well be when a bill is being debated under urgency without the public’s input. The debate has been not so much on the objectives of this bill but how the objectives can best be delivered through legislation. This side of the Chamber has put forward a number of suggestions, and this one is quite simple and quite straightforward, and that is that a new function is added to the Children’s Commissioner to provide an annual report on the impact. In this House, and across New Zealand, actually, we understand and respect the important role that the Children’s Commissioner plays, a very important role, both in terms of their independence but their advocacy for children.

I know this Government has made a lot of children and that the Prime Minister has taken on a role herself in terms of reducing child poverty. So I’m sure that’s why the Government will be giving serious consideration to supporting my amendment to ensure that such a significant policy—such a significant policy—that the Government has introduced actually delivers. I think that annual report by the Children’s Commissioner and the ability to report openly and transparently on the impacts—because it might well be that in the first year it’s not been as successful as the Government may have wanted—the ability, in measuring the impact, means you can then adjust. I think it’s a sign of a responsive and responsible Government who measures, reports, and then is able to adjust where necessary. It might be by providing greater levels of support in one area than another.

Using the Children’s Commissioner and having this annual report into the impact, I think, provides a fantastic way—it’s a fantastic barometer—for the Government to be able to then say, “Right, in the next Budget, we’re going to put even greater amounts of support in this one area.” By using social investment, for example, by having greater levels of data and analysis, they may then say, with the support of the Children’s Commissioner’s report, that it might be that we need to put more into paid parental support, or it might be that the Government may backtrack on the unwise decision they’ve made today that those who are on paid parental leave can’t get the baby bonus, for example.

And it may well be that in the annual report on the impact of this policy and the implementation of this legislation might highlight that that’s been an opportunity that should then be taken up. I would really encourage the Minister in the chair to answer any questions around this new Part 4 that I’m proposing in terms of measuring impact, because there’s been a lot of talk but there is nothing in the legislation currently, which is why I think this amendment fills a much-needed gap in terms of being able to measure and report on impact. This is, probably, of anything the Government does, probably in the next three years, the most expensive. So I do think that there is a duty and obligation on the Government to report on its impact, and to do that independently through the Children’s Commissioner, I think, is the best avenue available. At the end of the day, the speakers on the other side—and there haven’t been that many, to be fair—have talked about the fact that this is about increasing the well-being of children and some that have been in poverty they want to lift out of. Well, I think the New Zealand public deserve to know if it’s worked or not.

Thank you, Madam Chair Tolley. Look, I want to take, I think, a relatively brief call on this, but we’ll see if that ends up being true. I think the concept of this is a good thing, and why it’s quite positive—it’s in a very similar vein to the previous one in terms of having someone do an overview. But why this is particularly important, and why I believe the Hon Louise Upston has put it forward, is that it is an acknowledgment, first and foremost, as we would expect, that the Minister, his officials, and the various ministries will be doing their reviews. We can anticipate that the Ministry of Social Development, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and so forth will actually be reviewing, and that’s excellent. I imagine various select committees will be looking at this; that’s excellent too.

So I think it’s important in the initial context that we understand there are some reviews. But, really, there isn’t much better than having an independent source, and I know from both sides of the House that there is respect for what the Children’s Commissioner does. We’ve heard throughout the course of the day—in fact even in the policy development over all this of this entire bill, which this particular amendment addresses—the talk about reviews and evidence base.

Well, I think—and I would hope, but we would welcome the Minister’s reply—that a little bit more evidence would be a welcome thing. Again, “evidence-based” is being used many, many a time here, and if you couple that with the respect that the commissioner has, regardless of the particular person, then here is a great opportunity. So even though someone like myself is broadly opposed to a lot of what this bill is doing—or more the how it’s doing it—I am supportive that there is going to be, if this tabled amendment is accepted, a further mechanism to review.

Now the Children’s Commissioner will have a very prescribed role. The fact that it’s every year, I think, again is positive. It could have been for longer. It could have been a three-year cycle, but when we’re talking about our children, in particular, they grow up and they grow up quickly. For those of us with children—or, in my case, inherited—you realise that they change very quickly in a short period of time, so I don’t think it’s unreasonable of the member who’s put this amendment forward to make it a yearly report.

As it says, it’s there to look at the impact of every element of this bill. It’s not here to be particular on any part; it’s an overall impact. I think, and I would hope for—and it’s perhaps something outside, effectively, what the amendment needs to be—is actually a conversation between the Minister and the Children’s Commissioner for what that review might look like in coming in front of the House. And, look, there’s always the chance that the Minister or the Ministers responsible for this will get challenged.

But you know what? The Minister too might even get—to put it into a little bit more childish parlance—some warm fuzzies. He might even get some—not literal ones, but, you know, some warm fuzzies from the Children’s Commissioner. And, actually, perhaps if I could even float this as a small token, a positive set of reports from the Children’s Commissioner as a result of this amendment may provide that Minister the opportunity to ask this side of the House to reconsider its position. So think of the opportunity—think of the opportunity. [Interruption] That member too, but I’m sure it wouldn’t go to his personality, might be able to take such reports, which would be glowing of his families package, and beat the Opposition around the head. Now, I know that’s not his style. He’s a very quiet man, but there is that opportunity.

Look, I think overall this does sit—and I’m sorry that the previous amendment was defeated down, but this one is particularly looking at our young people. Maybe as a way to try and influence the other side in thinking about this—while we may be looking, in the previous part, at superannuitants, and there isn’t necessarily a lot of change in their lives, this is about the young people in those first years of their life, which this overall families package is addressing and seeking to embetter. There is an enormous amount of change, and perhaps, just perhaps, the initiatives being put forward in this bill aren’t quite landing in the space that they’re required. So I’ll conclude by returning, as I often do in my speeches, to where I started from, acknowledging that there are a lot of good speech tactics.

💬 Hon Member: A very small circle.

Oh no, not a whirlpool—going up, actually. But, no, seriously, I understand the Minister will have many people providing him advice, but the Children’s Commissioner provides a very particular if not unique perspective—one that is independent, and, dare I argue here, it actually could be that independent type of review and commentary that all sides of the House would be able to take, respect, and understand. So I commend this amendment to the House and certainly urge members to give it serious consideration.

I rise to speak on this amendment, which inserts a new Part 4. I’ve sat here this afternoon listening to the contention around the winter energy payment. The real reason for that is it’s both untargeted and a “spray and walk away” type of approach. Actually, what we need to do is if we’re doing things like this we need to be able to measure them. So to have the Children’s Commissioner reporting on an annual basis on how this winter energy plan is going to work, I would think, would be a very useful thing for this Government to have. If you look, and I’ve done a bit of research and I think—[Interruption] Sorry. If we look at what’s involved here and you look at what the Government has proposed, then, actually, you will find it’s very similar to the UK model, only very different.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Before we left for dinner, I was talking about the UK winter energy package, of which I presume this Government has chosen to follow a similar example. But in the UK, it’s a lot more targeted. There is actually also a cold payment—for really cold days, you get an extra amount. Actually, the older you are, you get an extra amount. So it is way more targeted than what we are doing here. As part of the winter energy package and Part 4, we are talking about the Children’s Commissioner having a role in managing and looking at and monitoring what the winter energy package does. We think that’s important, because when you look at the laudable goal of lifting people out of poverty and making sure they live in warm homes, then there are a number of things that are really important: insulation; heating; clothing, as already said by some of my colleagues earlier in the day; and even curtains. So how do you know, actually, if this winter energy package is going to do anything to alleviate poverty or improve living conditions if you don’t measure it?

The Children’s Commissioner is an ideal way of measuring it, and this side of the committee—and I’m sure you are really important about the welfare of our children. Unless we measure it, we don’t know this is going to work. There is actually no guarantee that this package will achieve what the Government wants for the most vulnerable people we’re trying to look after: our young children and their families. It will work for many, but we cannot be guaranteed it’ll work for all, and the Children’s Commissioner is actually a perfect way of measuring this.

I’ve sat in this Chamber this afternoon and listened to hours of debate, actually, and wonderful contributions from my side of the Chamber on the winter energy package. The reason I say that is because if the winter energy package, and this part of the bill, had gone to a select committee, then many of the suggestions that this side of the Chamber has recommended today may actually have been incorporated into the bill. So our amendments and Part 4, which has been added, are a genuine attempt by this side of the Chamber to make a difference to the children that we in this Committee are caring about. If we’re not careful, if we do not measure it, we will end up in exactly the same situation as in the UK, where next year there will have to be another amendment to it, where, in fact, there will be different variants of it. Actually, while most of this day has been spent on superannuitants as part of the winter energy package, there is a big hole in this unless we measure it. So whether we spend money on heating, clothing, curtains, insulation, or paying people more, there actually has to be a robust way of measuring this or, actually, we have no guarantee whatsoever that this scheme will work.

When I entered this House, I did so on the basis that we could make a difference to things, and I think this Government is trying to make a difference to things in a positive way. But what I’ve seen and observed this afternoon is that, actually, we’ve spent a lot of time talking about something quite small and yet when we’ve tried to offer solutions, that side of the Chamber has been dismissive, hasn’t been interested, and hasn’t even taken notice of it.

OK, members, Barbara Kuriger’s amendment inserting a new Part 3 amending the Children, Young Persons, and the Families Act 1989, now named the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

Sarah Dowie’s amendment inserting a new Part 3 amending the Family Proceedings Act 1980 is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

Nicky Wagner’s amendment inserting a new Part 3 providing funding for IVF treatment is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

The Hon Jonathan Coleman’s tabled amendment inserting a new Part 3 extending the eligibility of the community services card is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

The Hon Louise Upston’s amendment inserting a new Part 4 creating a Better Public Services bill is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

Schedule 1

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maggie Barry to schedule 2 be agreed to:

in Schedule 2, Part 1, new Part 7, delete clause 30(2)(e) and (f).

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to schedule 2 be agreed to:

in schedule 2, Part 1, new Part 7, replace clause 30(1) with:

For the purpose of Part 1KA and Schedule 18A, winter period, for the 2018 calendar year, means (despite section 61FF) the 22-week period starting on 1 May.

in schedule 2, Part 1, new Part 7, delete clause 30(2).