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

Do you have authority to speak on behalf of Sue Moroney?

💬 Carol Beaumont: Yes, I do.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call on Carol Beaumont.

on behalf of Sue Moroney (Labour): This is a really important—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, no, you must move the motion. You cannot start the debate without moving the motion.

Sorry. I move, That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This is a very important bill. This is a bill that has been waiting for some time to receive its second reading, and that is a shame. It is a shame that we have had to wait so long to get to this point. But I am delighted to stand here and acknowledge my colleague Sue Moroney, who will be speaking on this bill, for the work that she has put into this very important piece of legislation and the work that has gone on in the community to support this legislation.

This is a bill that is about children. This is a bill that is about our families. This is a bill that is widely supported in the community. This is a bill that New Zealanders want. This House should deliver on that bill.

Children and families are at the heart of Labour’s thinking. My colleague Sue Moroney put this bill in the ballot because New Zealand has not dealt well with the issue of paid parental leave of recent times.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. The member whose name is on this bill cannot be in the House when it is her bill. She must leave. You can come back after, but you cannot be in here when the bill is in your name and you were not here to lead off and to move it.

As I was saying, the matter in this bill, paid parental leave, has not been progressed in the way that it should, which is why my colleague Sue Moroney put this bill into the ballot and has worked so hard on it.

Under the former Labour Government, paid parental leave was introduced. It was introduced in 2002 and extended in 2004 and 2006. But where we sit at the moment, with 14 weeks’ paid parental leave, is inadequate. It is inadequate to meet the needs of modern families. The reality is that in this country now, in most families there is a need to ensure that there is income from more than one source to meet the family’s needs. Often, women, particularly, who have children are going back to work before they might like to, before the very important bonding with a young baby and before the very important breastfeeding has been established and continued for an adequate period of time, purely and simply because of financial reasons.

None of us, I believe, in this House should think that that is appropriate. What we want as a country is to ensure that every child gets the best possible start, and that every baby is able to be born, to be loved, to be looked after, to bond with their parents and their family, to be breastfed where at all possible, and to really have that start in life. This is what paid parental leave enables us to have. It provides women with choice.

Many women, as I have already said, go back to work before they would like to, because of financial reasons. Paid parental leave helps, but 14 weeks is insufficient. New Zealand is lagging behind other OECD countries in relation to paid parental leave. In fact, I think we are second to bottom in that group of developed countries with the amount that we currently provide. So this bill, providing for 6 months, is very, very important. The way that it is being put into place, or suggested, is to be staggered in over a period of 3 years to ensure that we are being fiscally responsible in how we do this, but to give a very clear message that we will move from 14 weeks to 26 weeks over that 3-year period.

It is interesting to me, and I spoke on this a lot immediately after the Budget, that we saw National making a move in this direction but not going nearly far enough. The cynic in me says that that was purely and simply in response to the head of steam that has been built up around this bill, around a bill that makes a real change and a real improvement to our families. It is a head of steam that means that out there in the community, people have strongly supported this 6 months’ paid parental leave bill.

In the Budget we got a pale imitation. Paid parental leave was extended, and we voted for it because it is an improvement and because National has obviously finally realised that paid parental leave is important, is a reality, and is a need. But we get 2 weeks next year and 2 weeks the year after, to 18 weeks’ paid parental leave, and the possibility of an extension to a broader group of people.

This bill talks about 26 weeks—6 months—and that 6 months is vital. The World Health Organization has long argued that, where possible, exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months is important to give children the best start, to ensure that their immune system is well developed, and it assists with the bonding process. It is very, very difficult indeed for those women who manage to continue breastfeeding while they are back in the paid workforce, and I want to acknowledge all of those women who do, in fact, do that. They go to quite heroic lengths to ensure that, because it is so much better for our children.

I want to also say, as Labour’s women’s affairs spokesperson, that an issue like paid parental leave is very good for women. It is really important for women because the reality is now that more and more women do want to and do need to manage to balance both their family responsibilities and their responsibilities in the paid workforce. Having something like paid parental leave provides a real choice and a real opportunity to have time away, but to have time at a reasonable level means they can have that real bonding going on, and know they can go back to their workforce and maintain that attachment to their workplace. It really does assist.

Lots of women at the moment end up in situations where they do not maintain that link with the workplace they are in when they take leave, because the 14 weeks currently provided is inadequate and the unpaid leave of 52 weeks is not sustainable financially, and so you get people making decisions based on that.

I want to again note that we could have passed this bill already but there has been filibustering by members opposite to stop us doing that. Why is that? Well, the reason why is that there is support in this House for this bill. The majority of members of Parliament in this House support this bill, and that is because it is the right thing to do. It is because there is the demand in the community: 99.6 percent of submitters to this bill submitted in favour.

I am standing here urging members of Parliament in this House to do the right thing, because what we understand is that the risk is that the majority of members of Parliament will support this bill but that the Government will veto it. The Government has a choice here. National has a choice, and that is to do the right thing, to extend this bill, and to do it because it is affordable. It has been structured in such a way to be fiscally responsible, while meeting a very real need.

The Government Administration Committee has done some very good work on the costings to show that, and I understand that the select committee has worked very effectively together to do that work, to look at the policy implications, to look at the costings, and to say that for the cost, the benefits of investing in this way far outweigh the costs. So I urge members opposite to consider that and to think about voting in favour, and certainly to not veto this bill.

On behalf of the families of this country, the people who support this, I say: “Support Sue Moroney’s bill.” Certainly, Labour strongly supports this bill. I look forward to hearing the debate in this House tonight on the second reading of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. Thank you.

The question is that the motion be agreed to. The question is—

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call—

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You started the vote.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, I did not. I am accepting a call and I am calling Jacinda Ardern.

It is my pleasure to speak on this bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, and to create a resounding build-up to the moment when Sue Moroney will have the opportunity to speak to her bill. Some may be confused as to why she has not already. It is simply because the National Party appears to be trying to collapse the debate, which is entirely indicative of how it has treated this bill. The fact is that it is absolutely extraordinary that we face a bill tonight that has majority support in the House—majority support from MPs in this House—and we still face the prospect that it may not pass. That has not happened yet, but I sincerely hope that we have a situation where the will of members of Parliament, who are here to represent New Zealanders—who have resoundingly said “We support this bill.”—is listened to.

I want to begin, though, by acknowledging the work of Sue Moroney. I remember when Sue proposed to our caucus an extension of paid parental leave, because that is the process we go through when we have members’ bills. It was clear to me at that time that there is a fantastic evidence base behind what has been proposed by Sue, in conjunction with the Labour Party—a fantastically strong evidence base. Everything that she needed to present in order to get this bill through was there. She had costed it out as far as we were able with those resources, and again that is costing that has been extended by the work of the Government Administration Committee.

But what was really clear to me was Sue’s absolute passion and commitment to this issue. She has been joined by members of the community, and I particularly want to pay homage to 26 for Babies. The passion within that group comes from a deep understanding of the pressures of parenthood. That is what struck me—the pressures of parenthood and the deep desire for all parents to do the very best they can by their children and, in particular, their newborns. Those two groups, Sue and 26 for Babies, have done such a fabulous job and I acknowledge their work here in the House tonight.

I want to highlight what it is that this bill actually does. We know that currently—and it remains currently in New Zealand—paid parental leave is stuck at a relatively low 14 weeks. Yes, the Government made some changes recently, but they are not coming in for a little while yet. That is probably one of the reasons why, when you compare New Zealand with other OECD nations, we spend roughly half what other OECD nations do on the early years of a child’s life. It is around the $20,000 mark, and that is when you take into account health, education—every bit of spending that goes on in those first 5 years. So we spend half in terms of that investment. You can put that down to things like the fact that New Zealand does not really have universal credits, family tax credits for families with newborns. We do not have a particularly lengthy period of paid parental leave. Those are the reasons, predominantly, why we spend so much less than other OECD nations. But there is good evidence to suggest why we should.

We know that the most important period of a child’s life is the first 3 years—and, in particular, the first 6 months and first year of that child’s life. We know that paid parental leave at 6 months is based on strong evidence from the World Health Organization. All of that evidence is there and is strong and is irrefutable. That is the reason why Sue ultimately brought this bill forward and why Labour has supported it every step of the way.

I think, as I have said, the strength of support you see for this bill from families, in particular, is probably borne out from personal experience. I do not have children but my sister very recently brought into my family the first grandchild, and it was the most exciting thing for my family. But watching my sister struggle with choices around work and being a caregiver, I can only imagine what that feels like when you are a mother, and a new mother. I think that that has really brought home to me the importance of this bill, which is ultimately about trying to give families more choices when they are in those very early stages of a child’s life.

The Growing Up in New Zealand study demonstrates again, I think, that, actually, most families are trying to get to that 6 months’ leave mark as best they can, even if they are given only 14 weeks’ paid parental leave. When you look at some of the statistics and the work that has been done, you see that families are cobbling together whatever sick leave they might have, whatever holiday leave they have, and even unpaid leave, to try to get to at least that 6-month mark. That sends a strong signal to us that—and, actually, it tends to look more like 6 to 9 months—that is kind of the marker that parents want to reach, at the least, before they have to even consider going back into the workplace. So that should be the marker for us of what we should be looking at in terms of a policy response.

I acknowledge that there are a range of views on paid parental leave. Some people out there in the sector have said that if they were picking an initiative, they would do X or Y or Z first. It is our view that the evidence is overwhelming for paid parental leave, and that having that and undertaking other initiatives that assist families not eligible for paid parental leave are not mutually exclusive. We do not have to make a choice between the two, and, in fact, Labour has not made a choice between the two. That was one of the reasons we brought in our Best Start package. We acknowledge that 40 percent of families would be eligible for paid parental leave of 6 months under a Labour Government, but for those who are not, we want there to be a little bit of extra support for them as well. That is our $60 a week payment for almost every family. Ninety-five percent of families are eligible for that payment.

What I would highlight as well is that the Best Start payment for someone on paid parental leave kicks in after their paid parental leave has finished, and it continues on for another 6 months. So, in all, those families would receive a year of support from Labour. And why is that? Well, it is our belief that actually giving parents that choice, that extra support for the first year, is our ultimate goal but one we know is going to take us a little longer to get to when it comes to extending paid parental leave. So this is a way that we can bridge that and provide a little bit of extra support for those families in that first year, while we look to be able to extend paid parental leave. That also, I think, highlights the fact that we have been fiscally responsible in the way that we have rolled out this policy. We costed it, we decided we could not go as far as we might want to, we put that on hold, and we have gone as far as we can in a staged way.

I do find it interesting that, actually, when we brought out the Best Start package as a whole, the National Government called it unaffordable. It was not that far off the costings of its families package in the Budget, but, apparently, that is totally affordable because National came up with it. You would have to explain to me the differences between the two, because, as far as I can tell, it seems to be that National is just playing into rhetoric and attempts to slate what I would say—I am holding a little promo here—is an excellent package and one that Labour is very, very proud of.

I will save my very last words for the National Party. As I said at the beginning of my address, it is a rare thing that we have majority support for a member’s bill in this House. When it happens, it is fantastic. We see it with the odd conscience bill. Marriage equality was a fantastic debate to have, because it showed that we could come together on bills that were, for want of a better phrase, for the greater good. I would put this bill in that category. There is majority support for this bill tonight. That should mean that it passes. In anyone’s view of democracy, the simplistic view is that if you believe in democracy and the majority of people vote for something, it should get through. I would hope that that is the outcome tonight, because that will be the best outcome not just politically—not just for politics—but for kids, for families, and, in particular, for mums. I commend this bill to the House and I look forward to seeing the National Party allowing it to be seen through to the end.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I refer you to Standing Order 136(1) and Speaker’s ruling 66/4. Standing Order 136(1) indicates that “Except where otherwise provided, as soon as the debate upon a question is concluded the Speaker puts the question …”. Speaker’s ruling 66/4 says “Once a vote is commenced, it has to be completed.”

No, no. My ruling is this: there was no member who accepted a call at the time when the next call was to be taken, and I was moving to put the motion for the vote, but I never completed it. Until the words I use to put the vote have actually concluded, I can accept a call at any stage during that time, and that is exactly what I did. So the ruling that I made at the time is correct, and that was the end of the matter.

I had hoped to be following Sue Moroney, and I do not say that with any sense of criticism or disrespect—hence the delay in taking a call—because it would be logical and, I think, courteous to hear what Sue has to say on her Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. As it was, we have had it introduced very clearly in the second reading by Carol Beaumont and spoken to very thoroughly by Jacinda Arden. So, in anticipation of Sue taking a call, I will perhaps say the things I would have liked to tell Sue—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Full name.

—Sue Moroney—had I heard what she wants to say. We have got to know one another quite well over this bill, so I think none of it will come as a surprise.

I guess I would say that this bill is a little before its time. I think the events that we are seeing at the moment are indicating that that is the case. Carol Beaumont and Jacinda Ardern both commented that they understand there was a lot of work done by the Government Administration Committee in a very non-partisan way, and there certainly was. It was a very, very interesting exercise that we went through as a committee and as individuals and in working together. I do not doubt that there will be criticism levelled against National, but I am afraid that I do not colour up and feel guilty, because we worked very sincerely in the hope that we could see whether we could avoid the financial veto with the work that was done, and whether it could be incorporated into National’s version of the bill.

But let us see where we are at the moment, because we are not just talking about this bill; we are talking also about the entitlement basis we live with. Today the Minister of Labour, Simon Bridges, announced that parental leave payments will increase from 1 July 2014. The maximum payment for eligible employees and self-employed persons will increase from $488.17 a week to $504.10 gross per week. The minimum parental leave payment for self-employed people will also increase from $137.50 per week to $142 gross per week. National’s website states: “ ‘We have increased parental leave payments to reflect the 3.3 per cent increase in the average weekly wage over the past year,’ says Mr Bridges. Under the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987, parents eligible for the scheme are entitled to up to 14 weeks paid leave at a rate calculated on the basis of their average weekly earnings. The maximum rate is adjusted every year to account for any increase in average weekly earnings.”

Minister Bridges adds that “In addition to this increase, the Government announced a significant overhaul of parental leave as part of Budget 2014, which will make it available to more people, for a longer period, and with increased flexibility.”—and that, I think, is a considerable advantage. “The current 14 weeks’ paid parental leave will increase to 18 weeks in two stages—to 16 weeks from 1 April 2015 and 18 weeks from 1 April 2016. The eligibility of paid parental leave will also be expanded to include caregivers other than parents (for example, permanent guardians),”—and that is a wonderful development—“and to extend payments to people in less-regular work or who recently changed jobs. Some flexibility will also be introduced to parental leave to allow, for example, an employee to attend a course or work an occasional day. Supporting children and families is a priority for this Government, and the changes will ensure New Zealand’s parental leave framework better reflects modern working arrangements in today’s diverse family structures.”

I think that was a concurrent thought that we have running through our discussions at the select committee. In fact, the previous system before the alterations that came through the Budget was very much about sector payments—very much about sector payments.

💬 Darien Fenton: What? Who’s a sector? Which sector?

A sector, yes. Which sector? The ones who benefited from it, and there were not lots of them. It was fairly isolated. So all that we have achieved in the Budget would not have occurred, because this is part of a suite of changes that are a real benefit to parents.

I was moved listening to Jacinda Ardern celebrating her family’s production of a grandchild. I can well remember the pressures of parenthood, when we were blessed with our two children. It is tough—it is tough. Things like doctors visits being free until the children are 13 are a huge thing for parents—they really are. They really are. We do not want to do without any of those things. So I think we examined this bill, which we are talking about now, very thoroughly—we considered it very thoroughly. It has never been a goer, as far as National is concerned. Previous speakers have been saying how there was a majority of people and therefore it should pass, must pass. Well, I think Labour and every party in the House acknowledges that the Government has to have fiduciary control over legislation, and therefore I do not think anyone has criticised Mr English for having the power of a veto. We were unable to produce a convincing enough argument for the indication of a veto to have been removed.

I think Sue Moroney should be proud of the work that she has done on this bill. I think the committee members can be relaxed in the face of criticism because we did do a very thorough job. It was enjoyable and it was certainly something I think we all learnt a lot from. From that point of view, it was a satisfactory bill, but we will not be supporting it going through Parliament. Thank you.

Talofa lava, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to again offer the Green Party’s support for Sue Moroney’s member’s bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, to extend parental leave to 26 weeks. I would like to acknowledge that we believe that this is a perfectly reasonable and affordable initiative alongside the changes that this Government has signalled in terms of extending the entitlement as well as the amounts that are coming from this.

I would like to, firstly, address some of the comments made by the previous speaker, Chris Auchinvole, and his comment that this bill is, unfortunately, before its time. I would like to ask him what he thinks the suffragists would have said to that, when they were fighting for the equality of women and for this Parliament to recognise the role of women in society. Now, well over a hundred years later, would they be saying that a measly 6 months’ leave is before its time? I do not think they would.

New Zealand has the second-lowest provision of paid parental leave in the OECD. Denmark, Italy, and the UK can afford between 9 and 15 months. Those powerhouse economies of Estonia, Finland, and the Czech Republic can somehow afford up to 3 years, and yet this country—the country that led the world in providing the vote for women—is saying that we cannot afford 26 weeks’ leave for our families. That is just blatantly ridiculous, particularly on the same day that we have heard in this House that the Government is throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars to polluters without even reporting to the public on who is getting that money. The fact that we would suggest that women’s employment conditions are unaffordable is ridiculous.

💬 Hon Hekia Parata: Well, since you’re against every growth opportunity, it’s not, really.

Against every growth opportunity is what we are hearing—well, I would say that supporting our children is probably one of the greatest growth opportunities that this country has in terms of investing in our families and women and employment conditions.

I would like to remind this House that there were 3,809 submissions made on this bill and 3,795 of those—a resounding 99.6 percent—supported 26 weeks’ leave. The benefits that they identified as their reasons for supporting it included that 26 weeks’ leave facilitates bonding and attachment between parent and the baby. It improves health outcomes for mothers, babies, and children. It reaches the World Health Organization’s guidelines of exclusive breastfeeding for up to 6 months. It supports families and ensures the stability of family incomes. It allows choice for women and maintains workplace attachment. It updates our employment conditions to recognise women’s participation. It improves employment retention and assists employers to manage leave and workflows. They are some of the benefits that were listed in the submissions that we heard on this bill. For the Government to say that those benefits are unaffordable to us as a society shows a very, very narrow view of investment and value.

This bill would have also offered us a chance to improve our really poor ranking in the OECD. The only country at the moment that is worse than us is the US. The Government’s recent legislation will, admittedly, take us up a little bit further on that scale, but not to a level that gives honour and credit to our foremothers. This bill would also have given a chance to deliver on something towards our international human rights obligations and documents that we have signed that have obliged us to review and, where possible, extend paid parental leave. It would have created more job opportunities. As employers told us quite clearly, in the shorter length of time they are just covering the work, whereas if it was 6 months, they would actually employ somebody to fill in that time and that space. This would have created opportunities, but the Government’s provisions probably will not, tragically.

I do want to just itemise the costs of the 26 weeks, which were worked out to be $138 million a year by 2016-17 when it would be fully implemented. That would have been offset by potential short-term savings, which is not even taking into account the long-term savings and benefits to society. The short-term savings would have been $28 million per annum, so it would be only $110 million a year. Remember, the Government is currently throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars to polluters without even looking twice. Some of that $28 million of savings that would have happened would have been from a reduction in early childhood education subsidies, an additional $8 million in tax from recipients of paid parental leave, an additional $5 million in tax from temporary employees filling in for those on paid parental leave, and benefit payments being reduced by $2.4 million per annum as a result of beneficiaries replacing paid parental leave participants.

For a Government that is saying that it is absolutely committed to getting people into paid work and off benefits, this is a lost opportunity, and that is a shame. I really do want to also challenge the Government a little bit more, specifically around saying that it is unaffordable, because the Government has gone beyond this bill and come up with its own options, but it has done it in a very, very limited sense and has not looked at all at the options.

There was a presentation to the Government Administration Committee around looking at paid parental leave as a basic employment right. It recognised that, basically, annual leave, sick leave, and bereavement leave are currently all funded at 100 percent in this country. Even ACC is funded at 80 percent. Yet paid parental leave is funded really at only about 26 percent of the allowed time for 1 year, and then that payment is up to only about 48 percent of the average wage. So we have a very gendered outline of employment conditions.

Our employment laws and employment protections are based on the old-school idea that there was one earner and somebody at home looking after the children. Paid parental leave offers us the opportunity to update our laws to recognise that, actually, we have parents and women in the workplace—just like annual leave protects and recognises that people deserve holidays. It is kind of basically the same thing.

ACC and paid parental leave also have a lot in common, which I think is worth noting. They are both contributed to universally but used only by a small percentage of people for limited periods of time. And it is worth noting that ACC has a marked gender bias in payouts, with $641 million more per annum being paid to men than to women through ACC. Actually, we could have looked at an employer contribution for paid parental leave, which would not have cost the Government’s fiscal outlook anything. When the Government was supposedly looking outside of the square to provide the best option, it did not even look at the option that would have cost its books nothing. So I really think that to use a financial veto when it has had such a failure of imagination or has not even actually listened to the submitters is disingenuous, and it does seem to me to be letting down New Zealanders.

Finally, I just want to finish on a lived story from one of the submitters, because at the heart of it this is about people and about families. It is of a woman with twins who had to go back to work when her twins were 5 months old. She had to leave work every 2½ hours to breastfeed, all while her babies were both still waking at different times every night to breastfeed. Unsurprisingly, this was not sustainable. She could not cope and she quit the job to look after her babies. Her family lost that income, she lost that attachment to her job, and her family is worse off for it. This bill gives a chance to redress that.

Debate interrupted.