Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill.

In Māori Language Week I want to start with the profound Māori proverb “He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata”—what is the most important thing in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people. That proverb describes the basic principle behind the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, which I bring to Parliament today.

New Zealand can be the best place in the world to raise children. That is the vision that Labour has for this country, and that is the origin for this bill, which I drafted in 2009. It is a lofty and ambitious vision, but it is achievable in a peaceful country like New Zealand because we are not war-torn, we do not suffer from famine and drought, and just look at the natural riches and resources we have. We really do have a head start in making this a reality. We really can be the best country in the world to raise children, but it seems National does not like that idea, at all.

There are many things that we need to do in New Zealand to fulfil that vision.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Where’s the money coming from?

If Mr Smith would like to listen, I am talking about a vision. I am talking about a vision that I know he cannot get, but he should listen. We will not get there unless we are prepared to put children at the heart of our policy making, unless we decide to prioritise investment in those early years—that is right, I say to Mr Smith, and to the rest of the National members—and unless we make an investment in those early years. That is what my bill calls for. Extending paid parental leave is just one measure that the Government can take to invest wisely in those early years.

This bill proposes extending paid parental leave by 12 weeks, to reach 6 months over the course of the next 3 years. It is Labour policy to reach 12 months’ paid parental leave over time, but I have drafted my bill with this global recession in mind. This bill stages the introduction of extended paid parental leave over the next 3 years, and the good news is it does not reach full implementation until National—National itself—says that it will have the country’s books back into surplus, in 2015. That is still the plan, is it not? Is that still the plan? Nick Smith is not sure that that is still the plan. But I tell you, there is an old saying “Where there’s a will, there’s a way”, and that is so very true of paid parental leave, but it does require the political will to do so.

I said at the outset, when my bill was drawn, that all political parties say that families are a priority, but how parties vote on my bill will show whether they really mean it or not. At the end of this debate it will be demonstrated for all to see.

This bill does not require the Government to borrow any more money for paid parental leave. Instead, it should be funded by reprioritising other spending. My personal favourite would be the cancelling of tax cuts for those earning over $150,000, which would more than fund this initiative. But I would also—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is that Labour policy?

It is, indeed, Labour policy. It is, indeed, Labour policy. But I would also settle for cancelling the $1.76 billion construction of the “Holiday Highway” north of Auckland, where traffic volumes do not warrant the spend; the money being paid to investment bankers for advice on privatising our profitable State assets; the millions being squandered on flawed restructuring plans like the one for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; or the millions being spent on designing ghost roads—any of those would do. My point is that investing in paid parental leave is affordable, if there were the will from this Government to do so, but the National Government has other, bad, spending priorities.

Ironically, the day National threatened to use a financial veto against families needing extended paid parental leave, National also announced that it was keeping agriculture out of the emissions trading scheme for longer. The cost to the taxpayer of that decision alone is estimated to be $400 million. That decision alone would pay for extended paid parental leave, with plenty of change for other worthy investments. But there was no mention of a financial veto when it came to that decision, was there? Why does National insist that it would have to borrow to pay for extended paid parental leave when it can make a decision costing the taxpayer $400 million, at the height of a global recession, with apparently no further borrowing? Answer that question, Mr Smith, for us. This Government’s priorities were spelt out loud and clear on that day in April. It has money to incentivise farmers to pollute for longer, but not for hard-working families raising our next generation.

But here is the real clanger: the Minister of Finance, Bill English, even stooped to heavily inflating the cost of my bill when he threatened a financial veto on it. That is how strongly National opposes supporting families in this way. He claimed it would cost $500 million, but he had received official advice that the most it would cost would be $285.6 million over 3 years. He almost doubled the cost of it, to justify using a financial veto.

Working families deserve a fair go. They do not deserve a Minister of Finance who makes up figures to use against them and their needs. But, then, he is the same Minister who had Treasury work out the cuts to education in the form of increased class sizes. He was out of step with the needs of families then, and he and his party are out of step with them again now.

The same week my bill was drawn out of the ballot, the Government decided it would spend an additional $11 million on adolescent mental health services—fair enough. Sadly, there are more of our young people needing those services. It was interesting, though, that there was no hand-wringing over having to borrow money to afford that. But here is the question I want to pose: how much better off would our young people be, and how much would the rest of us get to save, if we invested money in their early years instead?

The Prime Minister’s own Chief Science Advisor, Sir Peter Gluckman, had this to say on the subject: “The early years of life have a unique and formative impact on child health, development and relationships throughout life. Secure mother-infant attachment is an important predictor of resilience in later life including high self-esteem, reduced anxiety and reduced hormonal responses to stress.” He went on to say: “Social investment in New Zealand should take more account of the growing evidence that prevention and intervention strategies applied early in life are more effective in altering outcomes and reap more economic returns over the life course than do … strategies applied later. This will require long-term commitment to appropriate policies and programmes.” If only the Prime Minister would listen to his Chief Science Advisor.

There are now several pieces of research showing that for every dollar invested in supporting children and their families in those early years, the rest of us get to save $12 to $17. I come from a horse-racing background, and I know the odds of getting back at least $12 for every $1 invested. That is what I would call a dead cert—that is a dead cert.

Researchers and scientists like Sir Peter Gluckman know that if we get it right in those early months and years, then we do not have to spend as much money on remedial education, on health problems, or on youth justice, for that matter. But making that smart investment requires a Government with vision. It requires a Government with courage and a real commitment to a brighter future. Tonight Labour is stepping up to show the leadership required for that type of Government—a Government that understands the stresses on working families, a Government that really does have a plan for the future, a Government that is fiscally responsible, one that promotes more choice for families, and a Government that puts children ahead of tax cuts for high-income earners.

Extending paid parental leave has gained broad support from the community, and I think this demonstrates significant progress since the bill was introduced by a Labour-led Government. Tomorrow a coalition of community organisations will be launched in support of extending paid parental leave. It is called 26 for Babies. It involves organisations like Plunket, Every Child Counts, the Council of Trade Unions, Unicef, and the Breastfeeding Authority. I have heard from grandparents, from older parents, from younger parents, from those contemplating parenthood, and from those who were once babies themselves—that is right; everyone has got a stake in getting this right.

Both unions and business representatives support the extending of paid parental leave, and I was very pleased to hear public declarations of support in principle from both Phil O’Reilly of Business New Zealand and Michael Barnett of the Auckland chamber of commerce. It demonstrates the growing recognition of the value of women in the workplace by employers, and that is not before time.

In fact, the 2006 evaluation of our paid parental leave scheme noted that there is widespread support amongst mothers, fathers, and employers for paid parental leave. And just last week the United Nations chastised the New Zealand Government and the Minister of Women’s Affairs, Jo Goodhew, for our low level of paid parental leave, as part of the UN’s concerns about discrimination against women in New Zealand. We ranked second to last in the developed world for the duration of the paid parental leave we offer. Only the United States is below us, because it has none at all. Australia used to be below us, but in January last year it introduced 18 weeks’ paid parental leave.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Ten seconds to complete.

Ten seconds. In my maiden speech in Parliament I said I wanted to improve work-life balance for New Zealand families—

Order! Your time is up. [Interruption] Order!

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I actually probably should have called a point of order during my speech. The barracking from that side of the House—

Please sit. Members know that when points of order are taken, they should be taken at the time. I gave the member some generosity over her time, so when I call that the time has gone beyond, the member should sit immediately.

Tēnā koutou katoa. Ngā mihi nui o Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. Let me begin, in speaking to this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, by asserting that the Government supports parents being able to look after their children. What is more, we spent $157 million on providing the current 14 weeks’ paid parental leave in the 2011-12 year.

I understand completely why community groups will express tomorrow—and have already expressed—their support for paid parental leave, but, equally, at the same time as they will say that they support it, those same groups have a sense of understanding of the tight fiscal constraints that this Government is in at the moment. That is why we are still seeing such strong support in the polls for the options that this National Government is taking, not the continual string of “Let’s spend on this, let’s spend on that, let’s spend on something else.” Just because it is a good idea does not mean that the money is magicked up out of fresh air to deliver it. We are concerned at the financial implications of nearly doubling the amount of paid parental leave, which has been proposed in this bill.

This National Government is completely focused on responsibly managing the Government’s finances. It is a pity that the previous Labour Government did not do the same for the 9 years that it was in Government. We want to get back to surplus. We want to get debt under control. And what seems anathema to the other side is that you just cannot spend what you have not got, without going into more debt and placing the responsibility for getting rid of that debt on to the generations to come. It is a choice we have made, a choice we can live with, and a choice that we believe our grandchildren will live with as well.

We have been dealing with the biggest deficit New Zealand has ever had. It is too soon for the determinations to be made about what new entitlements will be offered when we get back to surplus. I am going to focus on our priorities, which will demonstrate that this Government has a strong commitment to children and families, as well. So that side should never accuse us of anything less. Go on, get on your hind legs. My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker—not you, of course.

We have worked hard during the last 3½ years, through a large recession, to preserve income and support to families. We have—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am having extreme difficulty hearing the member. I would just ask members to contain themselves, somewhat.

It is great to see the others on the other side are alive and well. We have increased the maximum paid parental leave payment by $67 a week since taking office. On 1 July this year the maximum parental leave payment available to eligible employees and the self-employed increased from $458.22 to $475.16 a week. The minimum parental leave payment for the self-employed also increased. Employees with at least 12 months’ continuous service with their employer are also entitled to up to 52 weeks of employment-protected, unpaid parental leave, less any paid parental leave taken. This can be shared between eligible spouses and partners. Up to 2 weeks of unpaid partner’s paternity leave is also available.

I believe it is very important that I describe this, because this is about what the scheme currently offers. I would also like to reflect on some work that is currently being undertaken—some conversations I have had with members of the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust. They tell us that it is all very well to have paid parental leave, but the important thing about paid parental leave is that it has to be managed in a way that supports the reintegration of that person back into the workforce. It is not just about the money, actually. It is about feeling valued in the workforce. So when the employer goes out of their way to make that person feel supported, there is much more chance—irrespective of how much paid parental leave there is—that they will return to the workforce. That is about flexibility and staging re-entry to the workforce. That is about encouragement, support, and, again, I say, flexibility. That, in fact, will gain more than just chucking more money at it, but then chucking more money at it is certainly something the other side of the House is familiar with. And, boy, are their promises mounting up.

We are continually improving the Working for Families scheme, which offers tax credits to help families get ahead. We are committed to providing better health-care for families, including free after-hours general practitioner visits for under-sixes, and delivering record rates of immunisations for under-twos. Again, what might that look like? Children at the heart of policy is what that looks like. We have provided $54 million to boost maternity services to support new parents. What might that look like? Children at the heart of policy—children and families. PlunketLine is fully funded 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to support new parents. Did that happen under the previous Government? No, that happened under this National Government. Labour cut PlunketLine. There has been a 34 percent increase in early childhood education funding since 2008. The Government spent $1.4 billion on early childhood education.

One of the things that I learnt when I was overseas last week is the unenviable, the absolute—[Interruption] Last week, when I was away, I was made aware of what an incredible record this country has for the provision of early childhood education—95 percent of New Zealand’s children have been engaged in early childhood education prior to going to school. And, we, the National Government, have set a target of 98 percent. The UN committee could not believe that a Government would show such commitment to early childhood education. [Interruption] The other side of the House are hating that a lot; they certainly are. We have set aside an extra $19.1 million over 4 years to support Māori-medium early childhood education services.

The money that this Government has prioritised is prioritised into those who need it the most. The best bang for buck in terms of early childhood education spend is on the children who do not currently get any—that is nil; no early childhood education. The best bang for buck will be there. That is why we have allocated $18.9 million for 1,039 new places in high-need areas. New Zealand has a proud record in regard to early childhood education.

I want to move on to the Labour Party’s costings. The phased policy in this bill would cost $450 million extra over its first 4 years. Labour’s own costings: an extra $50 million in the first year, $100 million on top of that in the second year, and $150 million more in each of the third and fourth years. We do not have that money. New Zealanders know we do not have that money. The dangers of running up high deficits through unaffordable government are simply not worth it.

The leader of the Labour Party, David Shearer, promised to run a thrifty Government if elected. Actually, this is not a good way to get started, Mr Shearer. In 2007 the Families Commission gave Ruth Dyson, then Minister of Labour, a report that recommended paid parental leave provisions be increased to 13 months by 2015, including a month for fathers. Labour did not do anything with that. But now those members sit on the other side of the House and berate us. I believe that I have demonstrated, and I know other members on this side will continue to demonstrate, that children are at the centre of our policy, and we have put our money where our mouth is. We cannot afford this policy at the moment, and therefore we are putting money into other things that we believe will benefit children and the families of New Zealand.

We come to the 5-minute calls.

I want to come back to a member of this House who has a true focus on women, on children, and on families—I want to pay tribute to Sue Moroney. This would be one of the first occasions I have stood up in this House and felt truly proud to speak to a bill and a policy that I think will contribute to children and to the betterment of their families, and I thank Sue for being the champion of the bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I think she demonstrates her and Labour’s belief in, and focus on, children. Our vision is that New Zealand not only be the best place in the world for children to grow up but also the best place in the world to be a child, and that is key to our vision.

What did we hear from that side of the House, from the Minister of Women’s Affairs? Her vision, during Sue Moroney’s speech, amounted to her yelling across the House “Will you mine?”. That was the interjection we heard from the Minister of Women’s Affairs: “Will you mine?”. The Minister of Women’s Affairs is essentially asking us the question, coal or children? Well, I have an answer for that Minister, and my answer is this: stop subsidising heavy polluters and we can back kids; build one less road of national significance that we do not need and we can help kids and their families. This Government has proven that its priority is not children. It has proven it time and time again. To hear the Minister of Women’s Affairs stand up and justify the Government’s position that it will not invest in children was absolutely appalling. It was shallow, to say the least.

According to the OECD, New Zealand spends roughly 50 percent of the OECD average on kids. Primarily that is because of the money that goes unspent on the early years. Changing our paid parental leave would go a long way to addressing that deficit. But it is not just about investing in paid parental leave because that is what families have told us they want; it is also about the evidence. Sue spoke strongly to that evidence, but I just want to reiterate it. The first 6 months are known to be the most crucial period of a child’s development that we could possibly invest in.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: You don’t say!

Tau Henare points out “You don’t say!”. Do something about it is what I say to the Government. You have got the evidence. Listen to your own Chief Science Advisor and do something about it. The WHO has told us that it is not only about necessity, trying to encourage and assist women to breastfeed, but also about attachment. We have seen more and more that attachment disorder is something that we, as taxpayers, are picking up later on in service provision. We have heard that conduct disorder, in itself, costs up to a million dollars across the course of a child’s life. Those first 6 months are crucial.

This policy is about investing to save, so you would have thought we would hear something about it in the policies of the Minister for Social Development on the Green Paper for Vulnerable Children. Well, one thing that you do not hear the Minister talk about is the fact that, in reality, all children are, by default, vulnerable, particularly in their very, very early stages, and that some universal policies pay extraordinary dividends. Paid parental leave is in that boat and so is early childhood education, and the Minister of Women’s Affairs feels content to talk about the importance of that, even though that Government cut early childhood education spending—blatantly. Now, it refuses to budge on this. They tell me that that is investment in children in their critical years. Well, all of the evidence sits counter to that.

John Key himself has acknowledged that we are no longer giving families the choices about caring for their own children. We are in a race to the bottom in New Zealand for our families. We have a chance to turn that round. In fact, the evidence that has come out of the Growing Up in New Zealand survey demonstrates that 87.4 percent of women took paid parental leave when they had their newborn. After that, they then started taking other mixtures of leave—unpaid leave, holiday leave, sick leave—because it was so important to them that they be able to stay at home with their child in those early months.

There is a better way. Sue Moroney and Labour have presented that to the House today. The fact that that Government will not support it shows its vision for children, and shows that Labour will put children at the heart of its policy.

Tēnā koe e te Kaiwhakawā. Me mihi au ki te Whare nei.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. My acknowledgments to this House.]

I am pleased to stand in opposition to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I want to go through it with some quite clear reasons. I do want to be very clear from the outset of this debate that this is not a debate about the merits of paid parental leave. This is not a debate about whether this Government has children at the heart of its interests. This is not a debate about our commitment to children—it is absolutely not. I want to go through that in quite a lot of detail.

It is kind of interesting that the member who has had this bill drawn from the ballot has been a member of Parliament for 7 years now—3 of those in Government. So if this bill was so important, if it was her one sole purpose for being, I am highly surprised that it has become such a priority now, 7 years later, when Labour is in Opposition. But, you know, I think that is part of existence on “Planet Labour”. Labour does the most important things when it is in Opposition—or at least it can promise them, because it does not have to pay for them. That is what happens on “Planet Labour”, because money grows on trees.

National is focused on responsibly managing the Government’s finances. We have children at the heart of our interests. One of the things we are committed to not doing is leaving our children and grandchildren with mountains and mountains and generations of debt, which is what that side of the House is happy to do. This side of the House has more interest in making sure that we do have an economy that is managed responsibly.

Given that a previous speaker made some comparisons with other countries, I thought it was worth touching on where the other countries sit with this currently. There are countries that have longer paid parental leave entitlements than New Zealand’s. Portugal has 17 weeks, Italy has 5 months, Greece has 17 weeks, and Spain has 16 weeks. I think those countries would be familiar to more than a few of us in the House and those listening, and the disastrous economies that they are running currently. It is an example of some of the Governments’ spending that is not sustainable. There are actually some countries that are currently looking at cutting their paid parental leave—they are looking at cutting their paid parental leave. This Government is protecting the existing entitlements. Even Germany, which is one of the stronger economies in Europe, has had to make savings in its paid parental leave entitlements. So it is not something that is unique for us.

We have been protecting the interests of parents in New Zealand. The Minister of Women’s Affairs, the Hon Jo Goodhew, spoke about the array of things that this Government is doing in terms of investing in children. That side of the House might not be interested in listening, but there is a significant amount of work that we have done. I do not think that it should be belittled that in these difficult economic times we should be protecting entitlements. I want to give you an example. When paid parental leave was introduced in 2002 the uptake exceeded predictions. Some would say that is a good thing—absolutely. But the difficulty is it is yet another example of a spending programme that Labour introduced with no reality in terms of what the financial cost would be. It increased 175 percent between 2003 and 2010. So there was a 175 percent increase and only 14 percent more babies.

I am proud to be a working mother. I was staggered to hear Labour member Mr Prasad, in a debate last week, basically imply that mothers were not capable of doing two things at once. In the debate on the social security bill that member suggested it was too difficult for mothers to work and that it was hard on their children. Well, this side of the House believes that women are capable of doing more. The Minister of Women’s Affairs has given you our record, and so I am more than proud to say that we are opposing this piece of legislation. We are managing the economy in a strong and sensible way. We are protecting our children, supporting our families, and making our communities stronger. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou ki te Whare. The Greens will be supporting this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. Our policy is for 13 months’ paid parental leave, and this bill to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks is a good start in progressing that. If we are going to look at where we are going, we should look at where we have been. The provision of 1 year’s unpaid parental leave was introduced in 1987, and it was a major breakthrough for families. Although it was not paid, it meant that, if they could afford to, a parent could take a year off to be with their child and be assured of having the same job there when they came back. That is the crux of the matter: being able to afford to take time off to have your children and have enough time to bond with them. The State sector at that time tended to lead on good employment practices, and it still does, and I hope that it continues to do so. It had some provisions for paid leave during that time.

It was not until 2002 that the Labour-Alliance Government, with the then Minister of Women’s Affairs, the Hon Laila Harré, introduced the first provisions for 12 weeks’ paid parental leave. By 2006 that had extended to 14 weeks of paid leave. Since 2002 an estimated 190,000 people, mostly mothers, have accessed those 12 or 14 weeks of paid leave. Looking at the trend over the last few years, more people every year are using it. Its introduction has gone some way towards easing the financial shock that happens when a newborn enters the family and the income of the parents plummets. I remember my own experience when my son was born in 1994. His father and I shared 12 months of unpaid leave, and, as well as adjusting to the new circumstances of having a helpless infant that we were responsible for, we also had to manage halving our income. We extended the mortgage to cover that time off.

Today we are hearing the same arguments against 20 weeks’ paid parental leave that we heard back in the 1990s—that we cannot afford it. That was the same argument that we heard in the 1970s about equal pay. We got those measures introduced, and guess what? The economy did not grind to a halt. The country did not go broke, and the sky did not fall in. We have become so used to thinking in the short term that we no longer think of the long-term benefits. These long-term benefits will outweigh the costs.

There is no doubt that 26 weeks’ leave is good for babies. The World Health Organization recommends 6 months’ breastfeeding as a way of improving and ensuring physical and emotional health for the child. Kids who have a parent at home in their first year or so actually have better cognition and fewer behavioural problems as they grow up. That child-parent attachment is critical to the child’s longer-term prospects. That child-parent attachment leads to less abuse, and less neglect of children. That is the cost that we all bear as a society. We must create healthy, strong families as soon as a child is born.

Twenty-six weeks’ paid parental leave eases a family’s immediate financial stress. Research has also shown that generous paid parental leave results in more women returning to the same job they left, which pays off for employers, who have invested in those workers. It also means working mothers are able to maintain their ability to provide for their families.

We really are slipping behind international best practice with our paid parental leave provisions. Last year Australia introduced 18 weeks’ paid leave, giving working parents the opportunity to choose between that or opt for a “baby bonus” of $5,000. As our population ages, it is crucial that we are able to attract workers and a skilled labour force. To compete, we need to be able to provide the same, if not better, provisions than are enjoyed elsewhere. We must get over our short-term thinking. If we invest in paid parental leave, we will get good returns. It is good for the economy, it is good for babies, it is good for families, and it is good for our labour market. Tēnā koutou katoa.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora anō tātau katoa tēnei rangi. Ki a mātau o te Pāti Māori he rangi whakaharahara tēnei. E tautoko ake ana i te āhuatanga o te pire ki tōna mutunga mai. He aha tā tātau, tā te pakeke i tēnei ao? E ai ki tā wētahi ko tā te pakeke he tiaki i te tamaiti, i te mokopuna. Nō reira kāre mātau i te whakahē i tērā āhuatanga katoa. Ki a mātau, he taonga te tamaiti, he taonga te mokopuna. Nō reira me aro tonu tātau katoa, ki ngā painga ka puta ki wā tātau tamariki, ahakoa kei hea rātau. Ko te mea nui kia tiakina paitia rātau e ngā whānau. Ana kua puta te kōrero i te pō nei mō te āhuatanga o te putanga o te tangata āta titiro ki ngā tūpāpaku mō tēnei mea mō te whānau me ōna raruraru katoa. Koinei te tikanga o tā mātau aronganui, kia tiaki i wā tātau tamariki.

Me manaaki i te tamaiti, koinei te mea pai o tēnei o ngā pire, hāngai tonu ana ki tēnei pire. Arā, kia whakarahi ake, kia roa ake te āhuatanga o te, me kī te wā whakatā o te mea tiaki i te pēpi mai i te 14 o ngā wiki ki te 26 o ngā wiki. He mea pai tērā. Me whai wāhi anō rā ngā mātua, mēnā i tō rātau ake kotahi, ki ngā kuia, koroua, ki ngā matua kēkē, matua whāea rānei, ngā pakeke, kia taea ai e rātau te whiriwhiri te huarahi e tika ana mō rātau. Kia kore rātau e herea i ngā momo pire. E hia kē nei ngā kōrero kua puta mō te āhuatanga o te nui o te moni. Kua raruraru katoa tēnei pire nā te āhuatanga o te moni. Heoi anō, ko tā mātau titiro kē ki te painga o te tamaiti, o te mokopuna. Kaua ko te moni i tōna kotahi.

Nā, pīrangi ana au ki te whakaara ake i tētahi kōrero, e hāngai tonu ana ki tētahi kupu i Te Reo Māori. Ko te kupu, ko tēnei kupu ko te “whāngai”. He aha te whāngai? Ko te whāngai, he mea tiakina e tētahi o te whakapapa o taua tamaiti. He rerekē ki tērā o te kupu “adoption” e ai ki tā te kupu Pākehā. Ko te whāngai anō te whāngai, ko te adoption anō te adoption. He aha te rerekētanga? Ko te whāngai, he tamaiti ka tiakina e tōna whānau ā-whakapapa. Engari anō te adoption, ka taea e te tamaiti te noho nei, i te taha o tētahi ō waho ake o te whakapapa. Nō reira ko tāku ko te whakaara ake i tēnei take o te whāngai, i te mea ehara tērā āhuatanga i roto i te ture i tēnei wā.

Nā, hei tauira ake. Ō roto i a au, ō roto o te Waiariki, nōnātatanei i tae mai tētahi wahine ki a au. Me kī mō tēnei wā ko tōna ingoa ko Hine. I a ia tētahi pēpi whāngai. I whiwhi a ia i te wā i whānau mai tēnei pēpi. I mua o te wā i whānau mai te pēpi, i tono ia kia whiwhi ai ia i tētahi pūtea hei āwhina i a ia, engari, kāre tērā i whakaaetia. Ka haere ki te tono pīra, arā ki te pīra, engari ko te kupu whakamutunga i hoki mai ki a ia i Te Tari Mahi, e kāo. Kāre i te whakaaetia. Anei tana kōrero i te reo Pākehā: “Whāngai are adoptions in accordance with Māori custom and are not legally recognised until an application for adoption is lodged in accordance with the Adoption Act 1955.” Nō reira i raro i tērā āhuatanga kua raruraru katoa a Hine.

I roto i Te Ao Māori, ko tēnei mea ko te whāngai he mea nui. He mea ō nehe, me kī i tōia mai ki te whai ao, ki te ao mārama i tēnei ao hōu. Engari, ka taea i roto i te āhuatanga o tēnei kaupapa o te whāngai, kia tiakina. He aha te tikanga o tēnei kupu o te “whāngai”? E ai ki tā te Pākehā, “to feed and nourish”. Koinei te tikanga o tērā kupu. Arā anō ētahi atu kupu. Ko te āta whai ko te tamaiti whāngai. Engari, ko tā mātau ko te kī atu, ā, he aha te hē o te whakaae, kia pērā rawa te āhuatanga o Te Ao Māori, ki tērā o Te Ao Pākehā. Kia whai tonu tēnei mea o te whāngai, ki tērā o te adoption. Mēnā e taea ana e tētahi tangata te whiwhi pūtea mō te adoption, he aha te rerekētanga o tērā o Te Ao Māori, me kī, o te whāngai? Ko tā mātau ko te kī atu, karekau he paku rerekētanga.

E ōrite ana te tiaki o te tamaiti. Arā anō te oranga o te tamaiti kei mua i te aroaro. Engari, he rerekē te ao me kī, te tirohanga o Te Ao Pākehā me Te Ao Māori. Nō reira kei te whakaara ake tēnei kaupapa ki a koe otirā ki a tātau kia whai wāhi tēnei kupu ko te “whāngai” ki roto i tēnei pire. Kei te tautoko ake i te pire, tēnā koutou kia ora tātau katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Greetings once again, everyone, today. This is an important day to the Māori Party. We endorse this bill until its completion. What is our role—the role of parents in this world? According to some, it is up to parents to care for children or grandchildren. Therefore we do not reject that stance, at all. In our view, children and grandchildren are treasures. So we all need to focus on the benefits that emerge for our children, no matter where they are. The main thing is that families take good care of them. There was a comment made this evening about the coroner’s report pertaining to a family’s plight. This is our focus: on caring for our children.

We must look after children. That is the positive focus of this bill, which will extend paid parental leave from 14 to 26 weeks. That is a good thing. Solo parents, couples, grandparents, aunties, and uncles should be able to make their own choice about the best avenue for them so they are not bound by various laws. There has been a lot said about the costs of the parental leave price tag, which hinders this bill. However, our focus is on the welfare of the child.

I want to raise an issue that relates to a Māori term. That is the issue of whāngai. What is a whāngai? A whāngai is a child who is cared for by one of their kin members. It is quite different from adoption. What is the difference? Whāngai are cared for by their kin, but adoption allows children to live with someone who is not related by blood. Therefore I wish to raise the issue of whāngai because it is not recognised by law at this time.

Allow me to provide an example. Recently a woman came to me in my electorate of Waiariki. We will call this woman Hine. Hine had a whāngai baby, which she has had since its birth. Before the baby was born she applied for paid parental leave and the application was denied. She then appealed and received a response from the Department of Labour that denied her appeal. It stated this in English: “Whāngai are adoptions in accordance with Māori custom and are not legally recognised until an application for adoption is lodged in accordance with the Adoption Act 1955.” Hine was in a lot of trouble under that situation.

Within Māori society whāngai is a very important concept. It is an ancient practice that has been brought into the modern world. However, with this bill that concept can be protected. The term “whāngai” literally means “to feed and nourish”. What is wrong with bringing the Māori practice of whāngai in line with the Pākehā practice of adoption? If one can receive financial assistance for adoption, what is the difference from the Māori practice of whāngai? We say there is no difference at all.

The welfare of the child must be paramount. But there are differences between the Māori and Pākehā worlds. And so I raise this issue with you and I urge all of us to allow the term “whāngai” to be included in this bill. I endorse the bill. Thank you.]

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of this bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, but for reasons that are somewhat different from those that have been expressed to this point in the House. I want to pick up on a couple of things that have been said—firstly, on whāngai. Having come from a family who have benefited from whāngai, through my mother and my nanny, I absolutely believe that this is part of a conversation that needs to take place. I believe that by bringing this bill to the House, Ms Moroney may actually have accidentally provided a platform for that conversation to take place. That would be one of the reasons why New Zealand First believes that this bill needs to go to the select committee. The country needs to have a conversation. We need to talk about what is not in the current bill and how we can improve it, and however this bill comes out the other side of this select committee process, that is exactly what the select committee process is for.

We also, with all due respect to the National-led Government, do not happen to believe your numbers. We would like to see them. We had to base this on the numbers we have been given to date, such as our class size numbers, and we cannot get any numbers around our bonus scheme. So we would like to go through the select committee process so that New Zealand First can actually get some hard data from the officials here about how much this may or may not cost the country.

💬 Maggie Barry: Ask the reference library.

Nobody in this House disagrees—not the National Party, not Maggie Barry, not Labour, not anybody else—that mothers and fathers are important to children. None of us disagree on that. This is not a conversation about whether that is important or not, but this is a conversation that needs to take place, and that is why we believe that the bill should go to the select committee, and we will continue to support it to that stage.

I do want to say one thing, though, to Ms Upston—

💬 Louise Upston: Mrs. I’m Mrs.

Mrs. I beg your pardon. Thank you. It always needs to be clarified. I want to say that I was a proud, non-paid, and technically unemployed mother for 15 years. I am proud to have been that, just as much as you are proud to be a working mother. There should be no conversation between the two of us about which one of those is a better thing, because there is no better thing; they are both worthy. Part of the conversation that needs to take place is about—and I believe that it was Ms Goodhew who said it—value in the workplace. I would like to see some of the extended conversation take place at the select committee about value in the home.

This is about priorities. This is not about other countries—what other countries do, how many weeks they do it in, and how often they do it—this is about New Zealand and the things we prioritise and the things we value. We all say that we value children. We all say—and we all believe it—that we value those early years in that relationship with their parents. All that New Zealand First is suggesting to the Government is that it was arrogant, it was paternalistic, and it was dictatorial to come out before a conversation took place, where the public of New Zealand could participate, and say that it would veto this bill. We suggest that you change your mind. We suggest that if Ms Goodhew is right and the New Zealand public identifies the fiscal conditions that we are in, then they will come, they will present to us, and they will say: “Yes, it’s important, but we think it can wait.” If Ms Goodhew believes that of the New Zealand public, give them a chance to make that statement.

New Zealand First supports this bill to select committee, and we will continue to do so.

Tēnā koutou e te Whare. We are absolutely in agreement with many of the things that have been said in this House tonight about new parents. This is a Government that is extremely supportive of new parents, and I honestly believe that the intent of paid parental leave—that it makes life easier for working mothers to take a longer leave period from their job, which is good for both the parents and the baby—is an excellent thing. In fact, there is considerable research to say that it is greatly beneficial to most families. We are completely in favour of that and entirely supportive of new parents.

Let us have a look at the facts, because the misguided and misinformed moronics in other parts of the Chamber have not been paying attention to the facts. This Government has put its money where its mouth is when it comes to looking after children and families. We spent $157 million providing the current 14 weeks of paid parental leave. That is just in the last financial year. We have increased the maximum paid parental leave payment by $67 a week since we took office. On 1 July of this year, just over 3 weeks ago, we also increased the amount of money that is available—the maximum parental leave payment available for eligible employees and for the self-employed as well. These are big gains. Look at the figures: $458 has now gone up to $475 a week. The minimum parental leave payment for the self-employed has also increased. These are excellent measures.

Let us take a look at some of the moronic things that have been mooted in this bill: to extend paid parental leave from the current entitlement of 14 weeks to 26 weeks. But wait! There is more—there is more. Sue Moroney has actually admitted again that she wants to extend it up to 52 weeks. What does that mean? Let us just dust down the Labour abacus. Labour members do not have much call to add things up, because their maths is always wrong. They are always just thinking “Oh well, if we get it wrong we’ll just borrow a bit more.” Let us have a look at it, using their own costings for the policy. It will cost about $450 million over the first 4 years. We do not have that money. We just do not have it. The leader says that that is thrifty. That is their idea of thrifty? I do not think so. This is not a group of people who are going to be in Government any time soon, because the New Zealand public are not silly. Under Labour’s plan they would phase in this money.

Let us take a look around the world, shall we? Let us have a look at what other countries have done and what it has cost them. France pays 16 weeks of paid parental leave. It has just announced what? Spending cuts of €65 billion to eliminate its deficit. This is just what other countries pay when they have to borrow to give parental leave. Spain has 16 weeks’ parental leave, and a debt of what? Of €820 billion. Its unemployment rate is 24 percent. This is the kind of future that Labour has got planned for our children and our families. This is Labour’s wisdom. Let us have a look at the infamous Greece: 17 weeks of paid parental leave. What does it cost it? A bankrupt economy that has just had €240 billion of bailout money from other countries. It is borrowing for unaffordable policies and it is not sustainable.

Ireland has 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. It is cutting €6 billion from its spending. It has cut public servants’ pay—Labour would love that, would they not? They would use their union block vote pretty swiftly there. And it pays about 5 percent—it has put up VAT to 23 percent. The most generous of them all, the gold standard, is the United Kingdom, with 39 weeks of paid parental leave. Remember, this is not even close to the 52 weeks that those people actually want to bring in. They want to bring it in by stealth. It is unaffordable. The deficit in the UK is so high that the Government has just announced the largest spending cuts since World War II. Well, thank you Labour and the Greens for supporting these ridiculous policies. We are doing the right thing. As happens so often, Labour is out of step with the times. It is cocooned. It is unaware of cataclysmic upheavals and seismic activities.

I believe that there is a very good debate to be had on the merits of extending paid parental leave. I believe that we can do that once the books are back in surplus so we will not be joining the international examples who have borrowed to fund the extensions. This is an ill-advised bill for these times that is poorly executed and put through, and I am very, very glad indeed for the children of New Zealand that we are not supporting this rubbish.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in support of this bill, this very important bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I congratulate my colleague Sue Moroney, who I know has worked really hard on this bill. She is supported not only by the majority in this House but also by child advocacy groups, community organisations, business, unions, and working families up and down New Zealand. In fact, this bill is supported by everyone except National and ACT. But they have never supported paid parental leave. Maggie Barry perhaps needs to go and study her own party’s history. At every opportunity it has voted against paid parental leave, and you do not have to go back very far in the Hansard to find out what the National Party members were saying about it, including the current Minister of Women’s Affairs, who made a disgraceful speech—a disgraceful speech. She actually said in the debate in 2006 around extending paid parental leave to the self-employed that it was like a benefit, that women would be better off with a tax cut, and that it was just extending welfare all the time. I mean, it was disgraceful stuff that we have heard from the Minister of Women’s Affairs.

Then we have heard the National Party blaming women and children for the global financial crisis. Can you believe it? Can you believe it? I have heard everything now. The truth is that this Government would far rather waste money on tax handouts to people who do not really need them than invest in future generations by ensuring that they have the best start in life.

This bill will ease pressure on working parents, and, boy, do they need it at the moment. It will align us with entitlements in the OECD and help prioritise the early years of our precious children’s development. Extending paid parental leave will improve the health of mothers and children. It will help working mothers breastfeed until their baby is 6 months of age, which is the World Health Organization’s recommendation. It also helps prevent premature return to the workforce on the basis of financial stress. It enables women to stay connected to the workforce but have a reasonable amount of time off with their newborn babies.

Paid parental leave is an issue about families and children, but it is also a work rights issue. The need for paid parental leave has sharpened over the last 20 years as more women have entered the workforce, and here I want to acknowledge all the women and men throughout New Zealand who campaigned for at least 20 years for paid parental leave. And the campaign goes on. Paid parental leave gives a worker the right to take time out to recover from birth, to establish breastfeeding, and to bond with their baby. We do that by paying an entitlement that minimises the economic impact that forces parents to return to work before the time is right.

We now know from a number of evaluations that our current 14 weeks’ paid parental leave is too short. Parents are returning to work early because of economic pressures, and the negative impact of that cannot be exaggerated. There are strong and proven and employment reasons for having longer paid parental leave. The goal of paid parental leave is to support both the maternal health of the mother and the baby, but the current length of paid parental leave in New Zealand does not do it adequately.

People tonight have said that most other OECD countries offer longer periods of paid parental leave than New Zealand, and many provide leave at a higher proportion, including Australia, which has now moved to 18 weeks and it is paid at a higher rate than New Zealand’s. But unfortunately since National became the Government in 2008, it has done the bare minimum on paid parental leave. The amount has increased because it had to under the Act. It is an automatic increase. You are talking about $20 a week over some period of time. It is provided for cost of living increases only, as it had to under the Act.

After being a world leader when paid parental leave was introduced in 2002 and extended in 2005, New Zealand is now lagging behind, and we know that New Zealand was criticised internationally just last week at the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women because of our record not only on progress for women but also on paid parental leave.

All Governments have to make choices about priorities every day they are in office. We say this Government is making the wrong choices and priorities. It is wasting money on foolish ventures, on consultants, and on a crazy asset sale scheme. Well, Labour’s difference is that we choose families and children. I support this bill.

It is my pleasure to take a call on this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill tonight. Everybody in this House will agree that spending time with your family is important. I am a mother of three—a working mother—and every single moment I spend with my—

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: All mothers are working mothers.

Sorry, what was that—every mother is a working mother? They absolutely are. But I absolutely believe that every moment that we spend with our children is valuable, especially when you cannot always be in the home with them. We are lucky we live in a country that puts a value on children and supports their parents. I believe that families are the cornerstone of our society, and we need to strengthen them as much as we possibly can.

But this bill, this Labour bill, puts a cost on the taxpayer of $150 million a year, and with Labour’s own costings, that is $0.5 billion of taxpayers’ money over the next 4 years. Where is this money going to come from? Well, I can tell you exactly where it is going to come from. It is going to come from overseas lenders. We are going to have to go into the international market place, borrow money, and pay back interest, and this is money we cannot afford to borrow. The Labour Party wants to drive New Zealand further into debt. It wants the country to borrow more, it wants the country to spend more, and it is doing it thinking it is just going to be OK. Well, actually we cannot. Having the State running up debt does not help families. Borrowing more does not help families. What helps families is smart policies and sound economic leadership, and this is what this Government is delivering for the people of New Zealand and New Zealand families. We need to get back into surpluses. We need to get back into the black, and we are going to pay for the policies the right way, with money in the bank.

Under this Government, we are going to spend the taxpayers’ money wisely and support families with holistic family policy approaches. So what are we doing for family policy, you might ask—not that those members are asking—but what would you do for family policy? This is what we are doing. We have got free doctor visits for most under-6-year-olds. We have got higher Working for Families payments. We are spending—listen to this, Sue Moroney—34 percent more on early childhood education than was ever spent under the Labour Government. We are fully funding PlunketLine 24/7, which that Labour Government cut. We are boosting maternity services by $50 million for new parents and vulnerable parents, so they can go and get more access to the services that they need to support their families. We have got the lowest inflation rate since 1999, and how does that help families, Labour would ask. Well, it is pretty obvious. Lowering the cost of living for New Zealand families is absolutely fundamental for them to survive in these tough times.

So what are we going to do in the future, you might ask, for families, instead of this $150 million one-off policy? Well, what we are going to do is target 98 percent of our under-fives to attend early childhood education over the next 5 years. What a fantastic start for our families. We are going to improve maternity services to get the access better for those families. What a great start for our families. And by 2017 we are going to increase infant immunisations to 95 percent for 8-month-olds. What a great initiative for families. There is a right time and a wrong time to implement policy, and this is not the right time to extend parental leave.

I just want to raise one issue about parental leave that has not been talked about in this debate, and that is about the signals and the trends that we are hearing about coming from the sector—from midwives and health professionals in the sector—about what is happening. The trend we are hearing about is that parents now believe—we are seeing a trend—that they are taking only those 14 weeks that the Government is paying for. Previously, families used to save. They used to plan to take the leave that they would like to take with their families. So when we have policies like this we have to be very careful to ensure that we do not send the message that parental leave is for only those 14 weeks; it is absolutely not. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.

As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted by the bell before, during my maiden speech in Parliament I said that I wanted to improve work-life balance for New Zealand families. This bill, the Parental Leave and Employment (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, will do that. It will do it in a way that helps New Zealand children get the best start possible, it will do it in a way that supports working families at that critically important time in their lives, and it will do it in a way that truly does value parenting. I want to thank those parties that have expressed their support for this bill in the House tonight. I think there has been some very rational and well-researched debate coming through from the parties supporting the bill. I was, though, alarmed and, I will say, actually surprised at the sheer venom coming from the benches opposite, as this side of the House strives to do something positive to support working families.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: To get us more in debt—more debt.

The sheer anger—led by Dr Nick Smith, I would have to say, but challenged very, very quickly by Maggie Barry—coming from that side of the House was something I was not quite prepared for. I have got to say that to me it demonstrated an anger and a resentment towards working families that I thought was quite ugly. I thought it was quite ugly, because that Government was on the wrong side when it came to the class sizes issue. It did not understand families’ needs then and it does not understand families’ needs now with paid parental leave. There is a bit of a theme coming through.

But look, I think there was actually a lawyer in Kaitāia who said it best. A Kaitāia lawyer by the name of Bryce Quarrie was quoted in his local newspaper, saying he was not entirely surprised by finance Minister Bill English’s threat to use his power of veto over this bill. He said: “When you’re a farmer in Dipton, you probably think women should be at home making tomato sandwiches for the shearing gang, anyway.”, and I think he has hit the nail on the head, because as much as those members might try to say that they support paid parental leave, the truth is and the fact is that the National Party has always voted against paid parental leave, even when Labour, when in Government, was running such strong surpluses. When we were in Government the National Party voted against it on every single occasion. This is not to do with affordability; this is to do with ideology. It is to do with the tomato sandwiches and the shearing gang, and that is where the National Party still sits on this issue. Yet it says that it wants to provide—in fact, it promised the voters at the last election—a brighter future. Well, I put that party on notice. Selling our State assets is not a brighter future. Increasing class sizes is not a brighter future. Investing in children in those early years by extending paid parental leave to 6 months is a brighter future. That is what New Zealanders are going to start to see through very, very soon. In fact, I think they have starting seeing through it already.

I think on the odd occasion the National Party did let its mask slip. Maggie Barry called this ridiculous policy, at the same time as I am sure her speaking notes, her research unit notes, were telling her “Please don’t say you don’t like paid parental leave. Just pretend you do, and say it is all about the cost.” We have already exploded that myth, because, as I said at the very outset, that Government spends money on people earning over $150,000—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: You still haven’t told us how you’re paying for it. Where’s the money coming from?

I am telling you now, Mr Smith. I am telling you exactly how. The tax cuts for those people earning over $150,000 that they did not need is money that should be spent on supporting working families. That is exactly the money. Mr Smith has challenged me to say where the money would come from, and I have said where the money would come from. But here is an even better idea. The paid parental leave allowance is $475 gross a week. We pay in childcare subsidies up to $588 a week for those same babies to be looked after by strangers. I say let us put that money into having their parents being able to choose to stay at home with them, and let them have a choice.

This debate is about families, and I want to take the opportunity now to thank my family for being here. Three generations of my family are here today to support me on this bill. My parents, Mary and Daddy Moroney, are here, who brought me up and, I think, did a pretty damn good job. Thank you very much for being here. I have my husband, Shane, who has come to support me for the first reading of this bill, and I guess who you might call the people who gave me the personal initiative for this bill: my sons, our boys, Quinn and Logan. It is great to have you here. You are all my pride and joy, and that is what it is all about. It is about a mother’s love for her children. I recommend this bill to the House. Thank you.