Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill

It is my pleasure to speak in the Committee stage of this Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill, which, as my colleagues have pointed out in their previous addresses, yes, Labour is supporting. How could we not support the bill? It slowly inches ever so slightly towards the ultimate goal that we have always put forward before this House, which is that paid parental leave should be extended to 26 weeks. How could we not support—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s not the ultimate goal; that’s a decent interim position.

My colleague is absolutely right. Twenty-six weeks is what we were putting forward before the House—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s fiscally responsible.

—as a fiscally responsible point that we could reach within budget whilst returning to surplus. We had mapped out how that could be done. Our ultimate goal, based on research, evidence, and feedback from parents, was 1 year. But we said that at this point of the game we cannot see how we are able to manage that yet. It remains a goal for us, but 26 weeks is where we believe we can get to. So having the Government stand before us today and say that it wants to go to 18 weeks’ parental leave—of course we were going to support that. But we certainly have some pointers for the Government on how it could have improved the bill.

We are speaking today, during the first part of the Committee stage, on Part 1 of the bill. Before I go into some of the detail, which essentially is around stepping through the time line for the extension, I want to clarify some questions around the overall cost of the elements of the package—the phasing in from 14 to 18 weeks.

The Government has set out the implication in the first and second reading that we simply cannot afford to do any more than that. That is absolutely false. As even the evidence and advice provided by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has set out, and as Peter Gluckman, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, has pointed out, we cannot afford not to move to 26 weeks. Not only is it about the outcomes for mother and baby around breastfeeding; it is around issues like resilience for the child and attachment issues. We know that if a child experiences attachment disorder, the consequences of that down the track can cost a significant amount to the taxpayer.

Infometrics in fact carried out some research into the issue of poor outcomes for children, particularly looking at the effects of child poverty. It found that it costs the New Zealand taxpayer up to $6 billion per annum as a consequence of poor investment in a child’s early years. I do not use the words “poor investment” lightly. We under-invest in New Zealand in our children’s earliest years. That is based on OECD comparisons of the amount that OECD nations—developed nations—invest in children aged 0 to 5 years. New Zealand, on average, spends roughly half that, and I do not mean parents; this is as a State. We spend roughly half what other OECD nations spend—roughly $20,000 versus $40,000—half. That picks up a bit once you get beyond the early years and once you get into the period where a child enters State education.

One of the biggest defining features as to why New Zealand spends less than other countries is our poor paid parental leave. Most nations have recognised the benefit of investing in paid parental leave and have rightly invested in those early months of a child’s life.

There is perhaps no better evidence than what you see coming out of groups like the Brainwave Trust. The Brainwave Trust is not a political organisation. It does not purport to represent any particular ideology. It is simply based on science. It emerged in the 1990s, around the period when we started being able to base more of our policies around the fact that in health we could see now what was going on, and learn what was happening with the brain, not just from doing scans and work once has someone had passed on. We were able to do analysis whilst someone was alive. CAT scans, etc., and the ability to analyse neurological function, provide a wealth of evidence about what the most important stages of development are.

The most telling thing of all is that we learnt that the first 3 years of a child’s life is the most critical period of development, and in particular that first year. Not only from a physiological development perspective do you see the brain grow the most in that period but you start moving beyond just the functionary stuff around the cortex to actually what goes on in your frontal lobe development—judgment, trust; all of those important things that we need for a child to be able to respond to the world around it.

If you are a child who is deprived of decent attachment and the ability to build trust with a parent or a caregiver, that then flows on to your ability to even concentrate when you are in school, the ability to trust that your next meal is going to come your way, and whether or not you revert to fight or flight. The Brainwave Trust tells us that frontal lobe development is optimal—it is optimal.

I hear members on the other side of the Chamber laughing at what the evidence tells us. I find that particularly interesting from a member who belongs to a trust that is involved in a child’s early years—the Home Interaction Programme for Parents and Youngsters, in particular. I am sure Dame Lesley Max would be very interested to hear that Sam Lotu-Iiga is laughing about the evidence around a child’s early years of development. All of that evidence points to us making sure that no child is deprived in their earliest years, and yet we know from the Child Poverty Monitor that the time when a child spends the most continuous period in poverty is when they are under 4 years old. That is why Best Start extends to the most deprived families for 3 years, because we know that that is where we can make the biggest difference.

Part 1 sets out the phasing for paid parental leave moving from 14 weeks to 18 weeks. I want to compare that with the phasing that we would have had under Labour’s Best Start policy—

💬 Sue Moroney: Will have, when we’re elected.

—absolutely; as my colleague points out, which we will have, come September—instead of having this 14 to 18 weeks phased in from 2016. If the Government had not vetoed Sue Moroney’s bill, as it clearly intends to do, by what it is doing today, we would move from 14 to 18 weeks from July 2014.

From July 2014 we propose that we would have exactly what the Government is proposing to do in a couple of years from now. We would then move to 22 weeks from July 2015, and to 26 weeks from July 2017. The Government says we cannot afford that. The Government, I must point out, has spent $40 million on private schools. Private schools have got $40 million out of this Government, and yet it is telling us that we cannot afford to invest a little bit more in children and babies, and invest to save. I heard Tracey Martin saying this as well. This is about investing to save, further down the track.

I have already talked about the Infometrics report, which is predominantly based on the amount we save from, for instance, preventable hospitalisations, remedial education, etc. But what about the simple fact that we spend $19,000 on imprisoning someone in any given year? An amount of $19,000 per year is what we spend on imprisoning someone. Some may say to me: “Well, what’s the link between that and a child’s start in life?”. Well, there is the fact that 90 percent of our prison population has literacy issues, and an estimated 60 percent has contact with Child, Youth and Family. Of all of the things that we are spending a ridiculous amount of wasted taxpayers’ dollars on, you could spend a tiny, tiny proportion on a child’s early years, on supporting families, and on early childhood education, where if you invest $1 you save $11. All of these areas are about investing to save.

The Government’s argument that we cannot afford to do it is absolutely untrue. We cannot afford not to do it. These are the areas where we can really make a critical difference—not only to a child’s potential and a family’s well-being but so that we ultimately save every single taxpayer money down the track.

I want to speak in my next address—I have every intention of speaking at least in total for an hour on this bill. I look forward to Simon Bridges making at least that kind of contribution. In fact I challenge him to match me, call for call.

We will see whether I take up Jacinda Ardern on that wee bet. What a great day for the Government and, more important, what a great day for New Zealanders. After projections of a decade of deficit in the public accounts, we as a country are back in surplus. We are now managing the growth of this economy. What that means is that with the good management of the economy that Bill English and John Key have given us through disciplined decisions, day after day, year after year, we can now invest more in families. This is not luck. It has not happened by having some magic tree down at the bottom of the garden that we pluck money off, according to the Greens. This has happened through good management of the economy, which is allowing us to invest more money in Kiwi families. We are prioritising those families, first and foremost. Those families are getting the first dividends of good management of the economy today.

Paid parental leave is, of course, part of a much bigger package—$500 million for families is at the heart of this Budget, and paid parental leave is, if you like, the heart of that heart. It is a $172 million package—this Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill, which I think is $141 million, and then the rest is in a wider reform package. What a great day for Kiwi families.

But let me tell you this. Unlike what we have seen in other proposals, this is a considered and responsible package.

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: And a good one.

And a good package. It is more and more—more entitlement than the status quo, going to 18 weeks in two affordable steps, and more eligibility. You know, actually, I have to say that that is perhaps the key of the wider package here. Fundamentally, it is more choice for Kiwi families to decide what is best for them. What a privilege it is for this Government to be delivering this for New Zealanders—extending paid parental leave in two affordable steps, widening eligibility to caregivers other than parents and, of course, to people in less regular work, and then increasing flexibility. Twenty-six thousand people get paid parental leave now; we are increasing that by 1,400 families with what we are doing.

That is 1,400 families who under Sue Moroney’s proposals would get nothing. They would get nothing from Sue Moroney’s package. Unlike the Sue Moroney package and unlike what we have heard from Labour and the Greens, this is a considered, responsible package—

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: And minimalist.

—which reaches more people who deserve the help, Mr Prasad. Sue Moroney—she did the easy bit, but she had not done the hard policy work that was required to reach more people, and she had not done the thinking on the things that matter. Just extending the length of paid parental leave is not the right approach for this country. That is not what this is all about.

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: Yes, it is. Why not?

Mr Prasad says that it is. Well, actually, go back and listen to or read what was said by people who actually normally support Mr Prasad. Academics Susan St John and Jonathan Boston made very clear pre-Budget that more important than the length of the entitlement was targeting it to the people in need. That is what Labour and the Green Party have forgotten with their glib thinking and with their lack of hard work in this area and, actually, across the board in policy. This Government—and I thank the officials for their help, as well—has done that hard policy work. We are doing the work to ensure that the law is going to reflect the modern and increasingly diverse families and workplaces of New Zealand so that more New Zealanders who deserve paid parental leave and the tax credits get what they deserve.

Let me give you a couple of examples here to flesh this out. Caregivers other than parents—at the moment we know that it is mum, her partner, and an adoptive parent who are the only people who get paid parental leave. We are modernising the law to reflect the reality of families today so that permanent guardians are there and, of course, those like Home for Life guardians who perhaps are in a permanent foster relationship. They are currently not able to get paid parental leave. They wanted to be at home nurturing their child, but they were not included, and nor were working grandparents, who will now be able to get the assistance they need.

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: How many babies in Home for Life?

Mr Prasad asks how many. Well, 600—600 more people will be receiving this entitlement by widening the caregivers category to a primary carer - type concept like we see in tax credits that are already in the law. That is something we will be consulting on so that every child who needs it and whose parents are meeting the other eligibility criteria, like working, are getting it under this bill. That is an area where Sue Moroney, Jacinda Ardern, and others on the left there had not done the policy work. We want to see people who are in less regular work also getting this entitlement.

This is another area where Labour has not done the work, because at the moment you have got to have consistent, regularised, and, effectively, if not full time work, then certainly permanent work with one employer. Effectively, middle-class work is where you get paid parental leave, but we are intending to make this much more fair so that if you have been in full-time work for a good chunk of the year and part-time work for most of the year—and we will consult on this—you will be eligible. That will see seasonal and casual workers, perhaps, being eligible. We have seen examples of this. Someone who is a fish processor—a woman fish processor—for half the year who then moves on to fruit picking for the other half of the year is not currently eligible. She may have been doing that for 20 years, but she is not eligible under the current scheme. But we are changing that and making a difference in that regard.

Those who have recently changed jobs—a real example is when the Canterbury earthquakes meant that a woman lost her supermarket job. That same week she went to work for the very same supermarket in a different suburb in Christchurch, but because it was a different franchisor, she was not eligible for paid parental leave, despite being several months’ pregnant. We will consult on that and change it. Again, we will be widening the eligibility for workers with more than one employer because we have done the policy work and we are making sure that this is a fairer package.

Finally, we are increasing flexibility in the wider reforms in this area, in addition to this bill, which increases the length of the leave. The work that Labour and the Greens have not done—

💬 Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That is very interesting but it is not in Part 1 of the bill, nor is it, in fact, in the bill at all—at all—what the Minister is talking about.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am—

💬 Dr David Clark: It’s wide-ranging.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, it is not wide-ranging. I am listening very carefully to what is being said. It is in context and is building a picture for the overall bill that is before us. So I am allowing him to continue.

Currently, the law on paid parental leave is an inflexible, all-or-nothing position. You start your paid parental leave. You have the 14 weeks, increasing to 18 weeks. You then have the option of going unpaid for up to 12 months. If a woman goes back to work for half a day—there are examples of women going back in for IT training—they lose all eligibility for the paid parental scheme. That is wrong and we want to change that and ensure that there is increased flexibility for the benefit of women in this scheme. We want to see days at work for training and those sorts of purposes, and also after that 18 weeks the ability to perhaps look at part-time options—always at the woman’s discretion.

It is great to be speaking on this important set of reforms that this Government is leading for the benefit of New Zealanders.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. I welcome the opportunity to make comment on the Minister in the chair’s statements. I hope that it will please the Chair that I make comments on the Minister’s statements, unlike a situation that happened with a colleague of mine earlier in the week.

I think the Minister has made some very, very good points. It is a good thing to widen the criteria by which parents can gain parental leave, because it is parents whom we are talking about. I think, Minister, that as long as we continue to genderise it, we have a danger of making this only about women staying at home. Although, certainly—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am very reluctant to do it to one of the people on my side of the Chamber, but I have now looked very carefully at the provisions of Part 1 in this bill, and the matters to which the member is referring are not part of Part 1. Part 1 is a relatively narrow debate. It might be OK to respond to a Minister who made some comments, but normally it is a narrow debate around what it is in the part, not about what is in a subsequent bill. I think what everyone has been talking about in the last two speeches is a subsequent bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I hear what you are saying. If we look at Part 1 it is about the duration of paid parental leave. There has been some flexibility. I have allowed the Minister some licence there, and I would just ask the member and future speakers to be mindful about what is actually in Part 1.

Speaking to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, no. If you want to speak, it is your call.

I am sorry, I am now going to have to seek your guidance. I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am seeking your guidance. I am not trying to argue with you; I am actually trying to understand what has just happened here. For the second time this week a Minister has stood up and brought a series of things into a debate. I am responding to those things, and I am not quite sure now where I am at with regard to how I respond.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is fair comment. You are responding on a rebuttal basis to comments that were made. On a previous point of order that came from Sue Moroney, I said that the Minister was putting in context about where the bill was and how it related to this, so there was some licence there. I accept that the member can make rebuttal points about what the Minister has said, but then I would ask the member to come back and focus on the length of time—the duration—of paid parental leave, which Part 1 is about.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Again, just to clarify with regard to the Minister’s comments, there are some very good things with regard to what the Minister made comment about. We are pleased to see the widening of the criteria because we recognise, just as the Minister mentioned, that the workforce has changed. It is probably the first time, actually, that we have had acknowledgment from a Minister in this Government that there is a casualisation and an underemployment of New Zealanders in this country. The need for them to move from one period of temporary work to another period of work is quite marked, and so this needed to happen. I will, hopefully, address that at some stage in the future.

With regard to the extension of the period of time in Part 1 of the bill, New Zealand First can only reiterate its great disappointment at the fact that the Government has chosen to do the least that it could do—the very least that it could do—for the newborn babies. I did not come up with the word “newborn”. I am not here trying to get anybody’s sympathy or create a weeping workforce out there. The title of the bill is the Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill. So it is very disappointing from New Zealand First’s perspective. We say, again and again and again, that this is the very least that the Government felt it could do.

Other members of the Government have mentioned that this is a time frame, and they have joked about different time frames that have been put forward by the Green Party, and so on and so forth. This is almost the least that any Government is doing—any Government that prides itself on governing a country that strives to be its best. If we look at some of the Nordic nations, which I was referring to previously, a year has been acknowledged as the time line in which true bonding takes place. I think Sir Peter Gluckman himself has actually pointed out on many occasions that the benefit to New Zealand as a nation from truly supporting young babies and young children in their bonding with a parent—and it does not matter which parent—is vitally important for the nation and its long-term savings in health spending and other spending.

So with regard to Part 1, although we appreciate the Minister’s comments—and they certainly have addressed other anomalies that need to be addressed, particularly because of the casualisation of the workforce under a National Government—we are disappointed that the Government has gone to the minimum it could do, to attempt to keep a voting public behind it at the next election.

I am going to call Grant Robertson.

Thank you, Mr Chair—very enthusiastic I am to take a call, too. My colleague Carol Beaumont and others will no doubt be taking a number of calls on Part 1 of the Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill.

Firstly, I want to address a couple of questions to the Minister of Labour and, in particular, I want to just help him, in many ways, understand what is in Part 1 of the bill. People listening around New Zealand to the debate tonight could have gained the impression, if they were, as he described, the woman who worked part-time, processing in a fish factory and picking fruit, that the legislation in front of us tonight, here in Part 1, was going to bring them into paid parental leave—it was going to bring them into that. It does not. I do not understand why the Minister who apparently is responsible for this bill actually does not know what is in Part 1. Perhaps he has been kept out of the process—that is possible up to now—but I think that the Minister should probably get up, take a call, and say to all of those people whom he has just said are going to be brought into the paid parental leave regime by this legislation that they are not. They are actually not. So the Minister could get up and—

💬 David Shearer: Why did he say that, Grant?

Well, that is a good point, Mr Shearer. Why did Simon Bridges tell New Zealanders that this bill does something that it does not? [Interruption] Yes, and do the costings that we have heard about today about paid parental leave actually include those? So there is a second question for Simon Bridges.

I have got another question for him—and I know that three questions will be about as many as the Minister can handle at once, so I will ask only three on this occasion—and it is this. We are here under urgency on a Thursday evening passing this legislation. The Labour Party agrees that paid parental leave is something that is important—

💬 David Bennett: Get on with it.

—and is something that we want to see increase. Members on the other side of the Chamber say: “Get on with it.” All right, then. Who was that? It was Mr Mitchell. All right, then, Mr Mitchell, get on with it. How about bringing this in some time soon? How about bringing it in this year? How about bringing in 18 weeks next year? No, 2016—

💬 Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am not sure why Mr Robertson has chosen to bring me into the debate. I was busy doing my work. He has chosen to do that.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, no—[Interruption] Order! When I am standing, there will be silence. [Interruption] I am standing. That was not a point of order, all right?

I apologise to Mr Mitchell, particularly because it was Mr Bennett, so I really do owe him an apology for that. If members on that side of the Chamber are telling us to get on with it, how about National gets on with paid parental leave? How about it gets on with bringing in 16 weeks now and 18 weeks next year? How about it actually commits to 26 weeks? One thing we can say is that the Labour Party has been consistent about this. Sue Moroney’s bill came in—what year did it come in; 2012, was it?

💬 Sue Moroney: Oh no, I think it was drawn in about 2013, actually.

Since early 2013 that bill giving 26 weeks’ paid parental leave has been before the House. The Labour Party has said that. We have a policy of going to 1 year. From the beginning of last year we have said 26 weeks, and National finally wakes up. It finally wakes up and, under pressure from groups like 26 for Babies, from Sue Moroney, and from all the submitters on her bill, says yes, it is going to do paid parental leave—and then it says maybe not until 2016. So we are here tonight under urgency for something that is not going to happen until 2016.

I would like the Minister to get on his feet, apologise to all of those people he has misled about the fact that this legislation actually does nothing to bring them into the paid parental leave regime, and then explain to New Zealanders why we are here under urgency for a bill whose Part 1 does not actually come into force properly until 2016. The thing here for the Government is that Simon Bridges and National are doing this under urgency tonight only to try to spike Sue Moroney’s member’s bill. That is it. It is pure politics. It is politics as usual from National—putting us under urgency to try to claim that there is something urgent about its commitment to paid parental leave. Well, National’s commitment to paid parental leave is timid. National is late in coming to the party. That is National on paid parental leave. I believe that Part 1 of this bill should be supported because it is as good as it is going to get under National.

Sue Moroney has an amendment on the Table to do the right thing today, and that is to go to 26 weeks now, in this bill, by 2016—26 weeks. That is the right thing to do. We know it is affordable. Simon Bridges, when he got on his feet to take his call earlier on, said that National has done the work to do this. Well, actually, the reality is that it is Labour and the interest groups like 26 for Babies that have done the work, that have been able to come up with the costings that are real—not the imagined costings that Bill English had in 2013, but the real costings, which are affordable.

We have heard from other speakers on the Opposition side during the first and second readings of this bill about why 26 weeks matters. It is because that is the minimum bonding time in terms of breastfeeding and the minimum time for creating the bond between mother and baby. It puts New Zealand just up into the bottom third of the OECD. Earlier on, the National backbenchers were saying what an outrageous thing it would be to go to 26 weeks, and how utterly unaffordable, odd, and unusual it would be. Well, right now we are second to last in the OECD on paid parental leave. We are second to last. The only country behind us is the United States, which has none. It has no paid parental leave. We are second to last. So this timid response from National crawls New Zealand up the OECD rankings in terms of paid parental leave, but National members could be here tonight with a bill that would give 26 weeks by 2016.

I want to challenge, towards the end of this call, other parties in the Chamber to support the amendment in Sue Moroney’s name, because parties like United Future and the Māori Party have said they will support 26 weeks. I understand they have agreements with the Government, but here on the Table is something that is not actually in the Budget legislation right now. We are on a separate piece of legislation. It is not the Budget debate. Here is the opportunity for Peter Dunne and the Māori Party to support Sue Moroney’s amendment on Part 1 of this bill to take it to 26 weeks, and to do the right thing.

What we have seen through this year is the politics as usual of the National Party. Every second Wednesday night, National members are filibustering, spinning out the debate, making sure that we do not get to paid parental leave. They have made sure that Sue Moroney’s bill does not come up. Today National thinks paid parental leave is urgent. Two Wednesdays ago it wanted to stop a bill on it. That is not good enough. New Zealand families, the parents and the children who will benefit from this, need some decisive action. They need a Government that is actually prepared to stand on principle. That is what the Labour Party has done on paid parental leave, going back to 2002. National opposed it in 2002. National has filibustered throughout this year to stop it, and suddenly it is urgent to timidly step forward to 16 weeks and then to 18 weeks. Do the right thing, I say to National members. Vote for the amendment. Peter Dunne and the Māori Party should vote to take this to 26 weeks.

Today is a good day for parents around New Zealand because they will get an extension to paid parental leave, and we should celebrate that extension, timid as it is. But today could also be the day that members across the Chamber say that New Zealand parents deserve and need 26 weeks’ paid parental leave, and those members should support Sue Moroney’s amendment.

I move, That the question be now put.

I would like to follow on from the previous speech and also offer my support for Sue Moroney’s amendment to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. Obviously, as I have been saying, the Greens’ policy is 13 months, but 26 weeks would be an honourable step towards a society where we are looking after our new families and our babies, and giving the best start. Sue Moroney’s bill so far has been through the Government Administration Committee, which received almost 4,000 submissions and heard from so many people. The select committee heard such personal and compelling stories that convinced the majority in this House that 26 weeks was a fundamental. We as a society were saying that if we are choosing between costs for things, actually, New Zealanders choose 26 weeks. We have heard that message so strongly. I absolutely support extending the entitlements. Sadly, this bill does nothing to do that; it is just about the length of time. Tonight, we have the opportunity to deliver those health outcomes, those economic outcomes, and those well-being outcomes to our mothers and babies and fathers by virtue of 26 weeks.

I would like to remind this Committee again of some of the stories that came to us at the select committee that I mentioned in the second reading only a few minutes ago. Another story I would like to offer is that we heard from a woman who was in a well-paid job and was able to take 10 months’ leave because that was in her contract. She talked about what a wonderful time in her life that was, and how privileged she felt to have had that time. She had not really wanted to be a mother, and she had felt quite ambivalent about becoming a mother, but that time had enabled her to learn to love and connect with her child in a way that she might not have been able to do otherwise.

Actually, what we are talking about is giving some families, some mothers, and some babies that ability and that gift of time to connect. Once they have connected, that is something that you cannot undo, and the good that flows from that is something that you cannot undo. That is something that this society has said it values and it wants. It would prefer us to spend our money on caring for our children and looking after our families. People would rather have that than a larger surplus. They would rather have that than motorways. They would rather have that than most other things because it really, really makes a difference.

Another story that we heard was from a woman who had extended leave, again through her contract, and she talked about some of the difficulties that she had had with breastfeeding and post-natal depression. She said that if she had not had that time, that 6 months of extended leave, she did not know how she would have coped. It is a really difficult time in the lives of so many women and babies, and it is a time when we should be investing in and really providing those fundamental supports so that we show that we care and get the best outcomes as a society.

I am well behind the amendment from Sue Moroney that would enable that to happen, and I am quite excited at the possibility that this Parliament may be able to deliver that for New Zealand tonight. The Green Party is right in there with that vision for a better society.

Part 1 of the Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill obviously is exciting a lot of attention—and it should, because this is an important matter. In Part 1, we are talking about a staged process of making a very small but incremental improvement to paid parental leave. For that, I have to say that it is a very good thing. It is good that we are making that improvement. Over a 2-year period, 2 weeks of paid parental leave will be added from 1 April 2015, and another 2 weeks will be added from 1 April 2016. Finally, it would seem that National members have got their heads around paid parental leave, so that has to be a good thing, and maybe that provides a basis to do a whole lot more.

Maybe National should think, now that it has got its head around it, about whether perhaps it could do the right thing tonight and support Sue Moroney’s amendment on this part, which actually does what is really needed—that is, a good solid movement to 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. This is something that has been well considered in the Government Administration Committee deliberations on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I found it somewhat disturbing that the Minister of Labour could say that there had been no work done on this and no policy considerations and all of those things. Actually, the select committee heard many submissions. The select committee looked at matters like the cost. One of the reasons the Government is saying that it is doing only 2 weeks in one year and 2 weeks in the next is that that is the financially responsible thing to do. Well, actually, a lot of work was done on the costings—a lot of pretty robust measures—and the costs were not that significant when you offset them against some of the savings.

If you add on top of that an understanding about the investment that is being made here—the investment in the people of this country and the future of this country—then this has to be a priority, surely to goodness. Paid parental leave has to be a priority. It is good for the babies. It is good that they get that best start in life. Labour has very strong policy on giving children the best start, including 26 weeks’ paid parental leave, because that bonding, as others have said, is so important in the very early development stages of that child. It is time to establish breastfeeding and to try, for people who are able to, to have a child breastfeed exclusively for the first 6 months, which has long been the World Health Organization standard. That is for good reason—it gives children immunity. It is proven to be useful in things like ensuring that there is less chance of things like asthma, and in a whole bunch of other positive health outcomes.

I have to say, though, that I do think the motivation of the Government in making the moves that are signalled in Part 1—these very small improvements to paid parental leave—is quite cynical. It is cynical because it has tested the waters, it has heard what the public is saying, and it can see there is a very strong desire for change. Families need this. As well as babies needing this, families need this and women need this so that they can make ends meet and manage their household budgets, so that women can manage their paid work and their time as a primary carer for a young baby, and so that they can have a choice about spending time with their baby. The Government has heard that and cynically has put up something, but it is very, very small.

I think it is interesting when one looks at the Minister’s media release on this. It goes to the conversation we had right at the start of this part where there was some discussion about what the Minister was covering off in the debate. I just want for the record to be very clear that Part 1 is essentially saying an extra 2 weeks’ leave from April next year and 2 weeks thereafter. It is not talking about extending eligibility to anybody who is not currently eligible. Maybe the Minister was just getting a bit excited and putting the context there and all of that; perhaps that is what it was about.

But, actually, I think it was more cynical than that, because when one looks at the media release around this, it is the same—what would you call it—fudging, really. It is fudging, because it talks about extending parental leave payments to more workers—in particular, to people who have recently changed jobs, seasonal and casual workers, and workers with more than one employer. I have to put on record that I absolutely think that that is the way we need to go, because there are people who are currently excluded.

Labour brought paid parental leave in back in 2002 and then extended it in 2004. Labour then extended it again to the self-employed in 2007—in fact, I think the Hon Ruth Dyson might have been the Minister at the time; indeed, the Hon Ruth Dyson has long had a commitment to this issue, as has the Labour Party. But, of course, there are further extensions that are required. The Minister’s media release covers some of those people—but very cynically. If a person was to pick up this media release, they would think this was all happening right now. Well, let us get it really clear for the record. What is happening here with this bill, the Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill, is 2 more weeks’ paid parental leave from April next year, and 2 more weeks the following April—no extension to new people. So it would be good if the Minister was able to get up and just clarify that himself to make sure that he has not misled anybody or caused any confusion on this important matter.

Like my colleagues, we do see that it is important to support any improvement in this area. To vote against something like this would be not only churlish; it would be tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater, literally. This is an improvement, but it could be so much more. We could actually be really meeting the needs of New Zealand families. We could be investing in our future.

Another person whom I think it would be very good if she got up and spoke, given that she is in the Chamber, is the Hon Anne Tolley. I have got a lovely quote from her. She may not have heard it earlier, but on paid parental leave Anne Tolley said: “This legislation … shows how the Labour-Alliance Government is stuck in the radical feminist era of the 1960s and 1970s … and is completely out of touch with the women of the 21st century and their diverse involvement in today’s labour force.” She said: “This is bad legislation. It is a travesty.” Well, Minister, I would love it if you could get up now and explain to this Committee why in 2002 paid parental leave was a travesty, but now this small move by National is somehow the best thing that the Government has done for some time. Of course, the Hon Judith Collins also had a similar sort of attitude. Hers is probably a little bit more timely in its kind of implication, because the Hon Judith Collins in 2004, when Labour extended paid parental leave at that stage, said: “It is another example of this Government using taxpayers’ money to try to win some votes.”

I wonder whether people listening to this debate might ask themselves whether this is a cynical move—a very small improvement because there is a really strong demand that has developed, particularly around the bill that Sue Moroney has been championing and that 26 for Babies has campaigned around, and because there is such a groundswell of support. We are so close to an election that it has to be questioned whether this is just a cynical election manoeuvre, particularly when you get a Minister who indicates that this legislation is going to do a great deal more than the bill before this Committee tonight is actually going to do.

But there is an opportunity. There is an opportunity for all of us here to make this right. Let us actually do what the people of New Zealand would love to see us do. Let us support 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. It is affordable; the work was done. The proposal in Sue Moroney’s bill was also to phase it in, but with a much stronger benefit to families. So from July 2014 there would be 18 weeks’ leave, 22 weeks’ leave from July 2015, and 26 weeks’ leave from July 2017. Let us actually do something really significant that the families of this country will really benefit from. Let us support the amendment on Part 1. Let us make a real difference.

I move, That the question be now put.

It is a pleasure to get a call on the Committee stage of Part 1, which is the part that does deal with the extension to paid parental leave—finally—by the National Government. So I am rising to support this step, albeit it is meagre, but from National’s point of view, it is a giant step. It is a meagre step for some of the rest of us but still a giant step for National to have this part, which extends paid parental leave by a further 2 weeks next year, and then by another 2 weeks in the following year.

I have got to say that that is giant steps for National, but I am rising to ask parties to support the amendment to this part that I am proposing, so that we can actually get to 26 weeks’ paid parental leave by 2016. That is what my amendment will do. That, as my colleague Carol Beaumont just said, is what the New Zealand public wants. We know that is what the New Zealand public wants, because when it did actually have an opportunity to have a say on paid parental leave, and when there was not a bill being rushed through under urgency, but there was a bill going through a considered process, as my bill—no, I am not allowed to say “my bill”; the Labour Party bill, I will call it—was doing. I know the National Party will like it being called a Labour Party bill, just to remind people where this idea came from.

I think what Part 1 reminds us about is that the National Government has no ideas of its own. This is its big Budget urgency item, and it comes from the Labour Party. What does that tell us about how lacklustre this Government is? The fact is that it has completely run out of ideas, it is tired, and it is now casting around. The only place that it can find ideas from is when it looks over this side of the Chamber. That is what Part 1 tells us.

My amendment will do what 99.6 percent of the 3,806 submitters on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill from the Labour Party, which would bring in 26 weeks’ paid parental leave, asked for. So I am urging all of the parties that have voted for 26 weeks’ paid parental leave to support that amendment, because in doing that they can bring about 26 weeks’ paid parental leave, as the New Zealand public has asked for. I am pleased to say that—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Order on the backbenches. I am trying to listen.

I am pleased to say that the amendment has been drafted in a way that will not compromise the National Government itself, nor will it compromise any of its support parties, because it has been drafted in a way that means there is no commitment to improve paid parental leave beyond what the Government is already proposing until 2016. That is long past when the confidence and supply agreement is in place for United Future and for the Māori Party. So this should cause them no concern in terms of honouring their confidence and supply agreement with the Government or with honouring the commitment that they have already made in this House to support 26 weeks’ paid parental leave.

I know that the Hon Peter Dunne, particularly, will want to support this. I am sure he will, because he is on the public record as saying that, yes, he is prepared to support 26 weeks’ paid parental leave but that he does not think it goes far enough. He does not think it goes far enough. So I am certain that he will be voting for the amendment that is on the Table to be voted on this evening. If he does not, I think there are some real questions to be asked about whether he supports his own party’s policy or not. So I look forward to seeing what happens when we come to the vote on this part, which I think will be some time away, because I am sure that the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Labour, has had lots of questions asked of him that he will be wanting to answer.

This part really does just two things, and it does them 2 weeks at a time in the next 2 years. Sadly, although I think the intentions are reasonably good, it will not actually address the submissions that were raised at the Government Administration Committee in submissions on that other bill. I want to talk about a particular submission that really resonated with me. It is the one that sticks in my mind out of all the 3,800 submissions. It was from a woman who gave us her submission in Auckland. She talked about the struggle that she had. She gave birth to twins, and this submission stays with me because when I looked around the room when she was describing what her day looked like when she returned to work, I swear that there was not a dry eye in the room. I think that included the officials as well, and they are pretty hard to get going.

What she described was that she had to go back to work after having these babies when these twins were 3 months old. At that time she had 12 weeks’ paid parental leave. Financially, she had no option but to go back to work. But what was happening for her was that the twins were feeding at different times during the night, so on four occasions during the night she was up feeding one or other of these twins—they were not feeding at the same time—and then she was getting up and going to work the next morning. She was taking the train and dropping the babies off at day care, which she found extremely difficult to do. She found it really hard to leave them at day care. She would then get on the train and travel to work. Two times, or I think it might have been three times, during the course of the day she was then travelling by train back to their day care to feed these babies, and so—

💬 Hon Member: What’s this got to do with Part 1?

💬 Jacqui Dean: Yeah, hello? Lots of people do that.

What has this got to do with it? I am not sure. Jacqui Dean does not know what this has got to do with it. What this has got to do with Part 1 is that this woman said to the select committee that the upshot was that she—

💬 Jacqui Dean: Women are more resilient than you know.

Oh well, look, I am sorry that Jacqui Dean does not empathise with this woman’s story, but after 6 weeks she handed in her notice. She resigned because she could not do it. What she told the select committee was that if there had been 26 weeks’ paid parental leave in place, she believed that she would have been able to actually go back to work and cope at that stage, and that would have meant that she would still have had her job. She would still have her job. When this woman came before the select committee, her twins were 3 years old. She said: “If I knew then what I know now, I would have got through that, but I didn’t.” Today she still does not have a job. She lost her attachment and her connection to that workplace because the duration of paid parental leave was inadequate.

It is still going to be inadequate for women in her position after this Government has passed this bill, because another 4 weeks in 2 years’ time is actually not going to help that woman in that situation. That is what it is all about. It is all about helping parents so that they can cope, so that they can actually focus on giving that attention to their child and to their baby, to get the bonding and attachment going really well. Another 4 weeks is not going to achieve that, and that is what all the submitters on the Labour Party bill told us. They told us that 26 weeks was what was going to actually start getting towards that.

So what we have here in Part 1 is a Government that recognises that it is in trouble over this issue and it recognises that it needs to try to respond and react, but it does demonstrate that it is a Government that really, truly still does not get it. It still does not get it, and it is a big step for National to vote in favour for any form of paid parental leave at all. I get that. I do get that, and I think that is a giant step forward. But please do not think that this bill addresses the issues that the Labour Party bill has been put forward to address. Those issues are the ones that have actually been supported by Plunket, by Barnardos, by Unicef, and by a whole range of other organisations.

Plunket put out a press release today, and it said that it was good to see paid parental leave being extended, but it begged the Government to do the right thing and go to 26 weeks. My amendment will give the Government the opportunity to do the right thing: vote for the amendment so that it does extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. That can be done tonight. It can be done tonight, and we can get it under way. But, even better than that—

I move, That the question be now put.