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

Thank you for the opportunity to speak during the second reading of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. We in the National Party, just like all other New Zealanders, care about parents being able to look after their children. That is why ever since we have been in Government the amount being spent on providing parental leave has constantly increased. This was further strengthened in the current Budget when the Minister of Finance allocated a further $500 million support package for families and children. As promised by the National Government, these are the dividends of a well-managed and growing economy that hopes to continue its Budget surplus in the years to come. The focus of this additional spending of $500 million is towards helping young families and vulnerable children who need the utmost care and protection. Specifically for the purpose of this bill, can I add that the package provides $172 million towards extending parental leave by 4 weeks. What most practical New Zealanders care about is attaining a balance between parents looking after their children without adding to their and the country’s fiscal constraints. To extend parental leave to 6 months is an unsustainable position—one that I believe will further create intergenerational debts. With these words, I oppose this bill.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I hope that members of the National Council of Women and the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women and the 52 percent of the voting public of New Zealand who are women have been watching the debate this evening. I hope they have noted the behaviour of National with regard to this bill, and its attempt in the first instance—even raising a point of order—to collapse this bill. I have been here for 3 years. It is the first time in 3 years that I have seen that behaviour used to try to close down a bill that over 3,000 New Zealanders asked to be considered. And yet the Government tried to not even address it.

I am stunned by the way the National Party has chosen to deal with this issue. It is surprising and it is disappointing—certainly as previously we had such collegiality in this House with a National Party member’s bill. I think it is really disappointing that the National members were unable to rise to their feet. They attempted to close down a bill so that they did not have to stand before the public of New Zealand, particularly the 52 percent of the voting public who are women, and explain to them why the Government will veto this bill. It has the ability to veto it. Stand up in the place where you are and answer to the public why you will ignore their overwhelming submissions in support of the bill.

You say paternalistically that it is all very nice and lovely that the New Zealand public whom we are supposed to represent support this bill. It is all very nice and lovely—even though it is the money of taxpaying New Zealanders who have come through the select committee process to this House and have overwhelmingly said “This is what we want the Government to do with our money.”—to then stand and say “We know better. We know better.” That is at the same time as spending $27 million on charter schools that not a single New Zealander who needed to be here came to this House and submitted on, and at the same time as spending millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money on other things that the Government needed to actually give it the ability to rule, but that were not asked for by the public of New Zealand. To then try to shut down the conversation is beyond belief. It is incredibly disappointing. So I do hope that those women’s organisations are watching today and taking note of how this has been dealt with.

This reminds me of the Kōwhai Festival in my town. Around about 15,000 people come. At the last Kōwhai Festival we ran a survey. The survey that we ran was not a very scientific survey. We stood there, we stopped people, and we said “What would you like your Government to do with your taxes?”. The answers were quite interesting, and there was a clear division. Most of the women actually stopped and said “I’m quite happy to pay taxes, but I want the social contract to be there. I want the support for my family. I want the health care. I want the education for my children.” They wanted their children to be supported. They were prepared to work. They were prepared to pay their taxes. They were prepared to do everything that the State asked of them as long as their children were cared for. That is what this bill is about.

There is an old saying that where there is a will, there is a way. This Government says that this bill is unaffordable. The Government pushed through, in the Budget, the smallest amount of support it could give to newborn babies, to try to convince the public of New Zealand that it cared. Whereas the reality was that the pressure placed upon the Government by Sue Moroney and by the 26 for Babies campaign made it almost impossible for the Government to say no. That is why two speakers, after they were unable to close down this debate, stood and read out their own Act. That is the only comment the Government members have made—they have read out their own Act. It is an attempt to ignore what the public of New Zealand asked them to do, which was to support Sue Moroney’s bill. Where there is a will, there is a way. There is no will here for the women of New Zealand. There is no will here and there never has been from this Government. It has merely taken this moment and given the small crumbs that it could give, because it was forced to, to try to stay in the game.

I say to the women of New Zealand, the 52 percent of the voting public of New Zealand: do not feel guilty about asking for things that support your children and do not hold back your vote. The women should say to this Government “We gave you our voice. Support us. Support our newborn babies.” The Government tells you that this bill is far too expensive. So let us just go to another nation. Swedish parents are actually entitled to 480 days of paid parental leave when a child is born or adopted. The one thing that the Government did do inside the Budget legislation that was very good with regard to newborn children was when children are placed in a Home for Life. It extended that to a Home for Life. That is absolutely appropriate and I applaud it for doing so.

Of those 480 days of paid parental leave in Sweden, 60 days are reserved for fathers. In 2012, 24 percent of Swedish dads took the whole of the parental leave. For 390 of those days, parents are entitled to nearly 80 percent of their normal pay. The remaining 90 days are paid at a flat rate. Those who are not in employment are also entitled to parental leave. Why? Because it is parental leave. It is not an in-work family tax credit; it is parental leave. It is for the benefit of the child. We keep having a conversation about adults. The whole purpose of bills such as this is around the benefit of the child. Yet we keep talking about—and Mr Simon O’Connor was the very one talking about it over there when Ms Logie was talking—the adults in this conversation, and that the women themselves should be standing up and being independent. I am sure Mr O’Connor is going to rise to his feet, or perhaps he will not, because we are not sure how many calls the National members will actually take on this. They did not want to discuss it to start with, so they may not take any now. But we are yet to see.

One of the great things about extended parental leave, apart from what we know are cost savings around the health of the children, is the long-term benefit and economic benefit for families because those women who can are able to breastfeed longer without stress. Anybody who has been a mother and been able to breastfeed will understand what stress does to the quality of that breastfeeding. To remove stresses from mothers gives a better start to the baby. That is what this is about. It is about babies, not about women wanting to skive off and take some time off. It is not about women asking any more from their Government than they deserve. They are taxpayers too. It is about the best start for babies.

This Government will veto this bill. That is obvious. Government members have stood up and said it. They have tried to shut it down already. But, New Zealand, do not allow the Government to tell you that we cannot afford it, because look at what else money is being spent on. Do not let the Government tell you that you do not deserve it. Do not let it tell you that it makes no difference. This was an opportunity. This Government has no will because ideologically it does not believe in it. It got forced to do something in this Budget. Good on you, Sue Moroney. New Zealand First will support the bill.

I am proud to take a call in the House on this bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, which is very different from what the New Zealand First speaker preceding me, Tracey Martin, said. I am proud to speak on this bill because this side of the House does oppose this bill. That is not the same as opposing paid parental leave. We are extending paid parental leave. Like it is for this Government, sound, responsible fiscal management is a priority for hard-working New Zealanders in this country. Part of that is extending paid parental leave from 14 weeks to 16 weeks and then from 16 weeks to 18 weeks. It is somewhat ironic that that side of the House is making some argument about breastfeeding being a core part of this bill. Having had my first child in Auckland, I am proud to say that Herne Bay is not the only suburb in Auckland in which you can breastfeed your children.

I am proud that we are extending paid parental leave—we are extending paid parental leave. We are extending it in a way that hard-working New Zealanders see as responsible and fair and affordable. Not only that, we are also putting in provisions for extending the parental tax credit that mean that there is more flexibility for those most vulnerable parents. I know that that side of the House may have different views from us, but on this occasion we are going to have to agree to disagree, and I will not be supporting this bill. This side of the House will not be supporting this bill. That does not mean that this side of the House is not supportive of paid parental leave, because this side of the House has just extended it.

I am absolutely delighted to take a call in the second reading of this bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, and I am delighted that I am also going to have the opportunity to speak on this bill in the Committee stage as one of the last things I do before I leave this Parliament. As I start my speech, may I first of all acknowledge my colleague Sue Moroney for the fantastic work that she has done. Can I also acknowledge the chair of the Government Administration Committee, another wonderful Labour woman, Ruth Dyson. I also want to acknowledge all the women up and down New Zealand, the child advocacy groups, community organisations, business organisations, unions, and working families who have got behind this idea of the 26 for Babies campaign.

But I want to go back a little bit further than that, if I can, because paid parental leave is not a new notion. It has been around for decades. It goes right back to that wonderful woman, that wonderful Labour MP, Sonja Davies, when she got involved in the working women’s charter in 1974, I think it was. Women began saying that if women were going to be treated fairly in the workplace and carry out their responsibilities and were going to be part of the economy but at the same time had to raise the babies of the future, they needed paid parental leave. There has been a very long history of paid parental leave advocacy from women in this country, and I acknowledge my sisters in the Green Party and my sisters in the Labour Party because many of us have been together over many, many years—many, many years—advocating strongly for paid parental leave.

I am proud to say—very proud to say—that it was a Labour-led Government in 2002 that finally implemented 12 weeks’ paid parental leave. That was fantastic. And then we extended it to 14 weeks’ paid parental leave, and then after that we extended it to the self-employed. In fact, now we are in a situation in this country where almost everybody supports paid parental leave.

The National Party has never supported paid parental leave. It has come to this debate and to the Budget in a very grudging way. It has been forced by the women and the mothers and the fathers of this country to accept that having paid parental leave, having time off when your baby is born, having time to bond with your baby, and having time to breastfeed is something that is not only about women; it is about children but it is also about the workforce. It is about the contribution that women make in the workforce. It is about the contribution that fathers make in the workforce. It is about accepting that raising our children is as important a part of our future as anything else we do in this country.

As I said, National has been incredibly grudging about this. It has voted against every paid parental leave provision over many years. It even voted against, as I recall, extending it to the self-employed when Labour introduced that. It seems to me, as I prepare to leave this Parliament, that good ideas are not welcomed by National. If it is a Labour proposition, it says there is something wrong with it and it must be opposed. Let us look back at some of the abhorrent comments that were made by National Party members—going way back now to 2002—and from some of the Ministers of the National Government who we are supposed to believe have now had a change of heart. The Hon Anne Tolley in 2002 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 women of the 21st century.” Can you believe it? I would like to know from the Hon Anne Tolley whether she still thinks that. Does she still think that?

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: I still think Labour is stuck in the 1960s and 1970s and the man ban proves it—absolutely.

You still think that. So you do not support your Government’s pitiful move to increase it from 16 to 18 weeks. Then there was Nick Smith, that father of I am not sure how many. He said in 2002: “I say that if a member went out of their way to draft a dumb bill, this would have to be it.” He said the bill in 2002 introducing 12 weeks’ paid parental leave was a dumb idea. Now, here we are, more than 10 years later—how many years later? More than a decade later, and suddenly it is not such a dumb idea. Finally National has caught on.

Look, I could go on. The Hon Judith Collins—we have been quoting her quite a lot—in 2004 said: “It is another example of this Government using taxpayers’ money to try to win some votes.” That is what the Hon Judith Collins said. That is what she did, and yet she has been part of a Cabinet that has just brought forward a Budget that has grudgingly increased paid parental leave, and it has grudgingly increased it because the women and parents of New Zealand have forced this Government to accept that it is the one that is behind on this issue.

Look, one of the most important jobs that we ever have in this country is being parents and raising children and future generations. Having extended paid parental leave will give parents the opportunity to give their babies the best start in life. I am sitting here with some of my colleagues who had children when we did not have paid parental leave. My only complaint about this is that I had a child without paid parental leave, so I would quite like it to be backdated.

💬 Tracey Martin: Me too.

Yes, I reckon a few of us, I think, would like it to be backdated, except for Anne Tolley, of course, who would turn paid parental leave down for herself—well, actually, for her daughters and her grandchildren—because she still thinks it is from the radical feminist era of the 1960s and 1970s.

The only little thing I would say about the Government, and the only slight kudos I would give the Government, is its extension of paid parental leave to casual, temporary, and seasonal workers. That needed to happen and that would have happened under a Labour Government. We also know that this is a tiny little move—a tiny little move—because the Government was forced to do it. We continue to be criticised internationally because of our record not only on progress for women but also on paid parental leave.

As other speakers have pointed out, we are still well behind. In fact, since the time when Labour was in office, we have had this long, long gap of 6 years—and, in fact, longer than that, because the last extension to paid parental leave was in 2004, I think—when nothing has happened on paid parental leave. In fact, all the Government has done is waste members’ day after members’ day on making sure that we never got to have the vote on this bill because it was too ashamed to stand up and say it did not support mothers, it did not support babies, and it did not support the parents of New Zealand having the opportunity to raise their children to have a good start in life, and to have a decent go at doing the most important job that has to be done, which is giving our children and giving our families the best possible start in life.

Instead, National would rather waste money on a whole range of foolish ventures. We have seen it in the last year or so wasting more on consultants, on crazy asset sales, and on tax cuts for the better off. Goodness knows what it is going to do should we have the misfortune to have National re-elected as Government.

I end by repeating what I said at the beginning: I am really proud to be able to speak on this bill on behalf of Labour and on behalf of all the women and men who, for decades, have fought for paid parental leave in this country. Shame on the National Government for being so miserable about this.

The National Government does not support the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. We will not be supporting this bill, just in case you did not get it the first time. This bill and Labour’s proposed 26 weeks of parental leave goes far too far, costs too much, and is poorly targeted.

What this Government does support is parents being able to look after their children. We spent $157 million on providing the current 14 weeks of paid parental leave in the 2011-12 financial year. Since taking office we have also increased the maximum paid parental leave payment by $67 a week. We also worked hard through a large recession to preserve income support entitlements for whānau. These include Working for Families and paid parental leave.

On 1 July last year the maximum parental leave payment available to eligible employees and self-employed people increased from $475.16 to $488.17 a week. The minimum parental leave payment for self-employed people also increased. The National Government does not support this bill.

I understand the next call is a split call—the Hon Trevor Mallard, 5 minutes.

I am going to make a relatively short speech and say that I am ashamed of this House today. I have been around for a while. I have been here over many years when members have had a lot of issues. When there have been deaths in families, when there have been serious illnesses, and when there have been births of children and grandchildren, this House has always been positive. It has always showed compassion. What has occurred is that there has been some flexibility.

On a number of occasions I have been called in from the Hutt to vote in order to let one of my colleagues go, but I also know that there have been occasions in the past when parties have had their vote go down by one in order to allow for someone on the other side to attend to a family member, a family birth, or something similar. In fact, the Muldoon Government from 1981 to 1984 survived only because of the integrity of the Labour Party at that time in voting one down. Jonathan Young is looking at me. He knows that his father stood up for a compassionate and a positive Parliament. To say that while the great-grandchild of the Labour icon Jeff Hond is being born, the child’s grandparent’s vote in this House is being denied by the National Party because that child’s grandparent, Te Ururoa Flavell, wants to go to the birth of his granddaughter is very, very low.

What sort of workplace are we? What sort of compassion do we have for the people, for the members who work here, when those members say: “Choose between your job and your grandchild.” Choose between doing your duty here and your grandchild. This place has flexibility if it wants it. Our rules have the flexibility to be able to say: “Te Ururoa, go to where you should be and be with your grandchild, because your vote will count here.” What do we have from the National Party? Nothing positive, no compassion, no caring, and no wish to make this a positive place at all.

Members opposite are catcalling, but I say to them that death, birth, and serious illness are the areas where we have as a community, in the past, worked together and been positive. We can differ heavily on policy. You know, there are members opposite whom I agree with a lot of the time, but much of the time I disagree with them. But, in the end, compassion and being positive is something that this House should stand for. This is a place where we should show that we care about each other’s families and where we do the things that are important. It is not the fault of the grandchild, the great-grandchild of Jeff Hond. I just think it is appalling.

I support this bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I actually support the changes that National made to paid parental leave, but they did not go far enough. I think some of the changes that it made that are not in our bill are actually good changes. I agree with them. They were on our list of things to do when I was Minister of Labour. They were part of the next round. But this bill gives something that is more immediate. It is important, and should be supported. The fact that it will go down and will not pass in this House because Louise Upston is so hard that she wants to try to stop a grandfather going to the birth of his grandchild is something that I think is shameful. National, be positive and let the vote count.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Denise Roche—5 minutes.

I rise to take this short call for the Greens on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I agree with the previous speaker, Trevor Mallard, that it is indeed a sad irony that one of the members of this House will not be granted leave for the birth of a child, which he wants to be at, and to have his vote counted. We will be supporting—

💬 Hon Hekia Parata: He’s got leave.

His vote is not counted. We will be supporting this bill because our policy is for 13 months’ paid parental leave and we agree that this bill—26 weeks’ paid parental leave—is a step in the right direction.

Parental leave was first introduced in legislation—and that was unpaid parental leave in 1987—and it has been baby steps since then. That was a deliberate pun. We have taken baby steps. In 2002 we first introduced paid parental leave. It was for 12 weeks. In 2006 we extended it to 14 weeks and it has languished there ever since, until, of course, the last couple of weeks, when the National Government signalled that from next year paid parental leave will be extended to 16 weeks and to 18 weeks the year after.

If we carry on at this rate it will be 2020 before we get to 26 weeks. Frankly, I do not believe that the women of New Zealand can afford to wait that long before the National Government—or any Government, for that matter—catches up with the rest of the world. We are behind the rest of the world. The average amount of paid parental leave internationally is 30 weeks. We are ranked about 24th out of 25 OECD countries for what we offer families who experience the birth of a new child. In Norway, which is probably the best place to be, I would say, it is 56 weeks. It is more than a year.

The benefits of paid parental leave have been well canvassed, and were well canvassed through the Government Administration Committee, where, I note, there were 3,800 submissions, with most of them supporting an extension to paid parental leave. It is good for families. The research is unequivocal. Twenty-six weeks—6 months—helps to establish strong parent-child attachments and that has longer-term benefits for families because the bonds are extended and established, which means there is less likelihood of abuse and neglect and that fathers are involved in those families. That is what we need—strong, healthy families. That is what we have not been getting from this Government.

Paid parental leave is good for babies. We have seen that with the World Health Organization research, which says that children—babies—should be breastfed, if they possibly can be, for at least the first 6 months of their life because it establishes and enhances the emotional and physical benefits and attachments that a child has with its parent. It is good for them in the longer term—for their cognition, I understand—and it usually results in fewer behavioural problems for the child.

I also think that paid parental leave is good just in terms of gender equity. We seem to forget that the work of women should be counted, so their jobs should be protected when they take leave to bear their children. We do not take that into account. It has been going on like this for years. It was a National Party member of Parliament, Marilyn Waring, who established that beyond doubt in her book Counting for Nothing.

We cannot afford not to invest in our families. It is good for the economy to invest in paid parental leave because we need to keep those jobs open and to be able to compete internationally on workplace provision, so that we attract the best and brightest to our country and to our workforce. It makes sense economically because it is good for businesses. They spend less on retraining and recruiting new workers. I implore the other side of the House to see reason and support Sue Moroney’s bill.

I am extremely proud of this Government’s record on protecting the most vulnerable, and of what we have done in the time that we have been in this House, on the Treasury benches, to look after the most vulnerable people in New Zealand. I am talking about our children. We see this in a range of efforts and innovations that we have made. Not only are we increasing paid parental leave but we have inherited a situation that was, quite frankly, an absolute shame and blot on the escutcheon of this nation. I refer, of course, to the Third World levels of rheumatic fever that we had in many of our communities in this country. I am referring, of course, to Manurewa, to Porirua, to places in Flaxmere and Hastings, and to other places across the country, in which we inherited problems when we came into Government as a result of the neglect of those in power before us.

This Government is spending $60 million to protect those who are the most vulnerable amongst us, and I refer here to Pasifika and Māori children living in homes that hitherto had not been heated. We insulated about 250,000-plus of those homes along the way. We are putting out programmes at schools, drop-in centres, and the like so that these kids can be safe from the ravages of this appalling, debilitating disease.

Of course, it is all about triage. We have not got a magic wand. I went to the $2 Shop recently, and there was not one there. You cannot buy a magic wand. You cannot change things overnight. But you have got a lot of things that you have to be able to address, and we are addressing the problems of rheumatic fever. We are addressing the insulation of homes. We are addressing the vulnerable kids who are abused time and time again by their families, and that is why I am wearing a white ribbon. The work that Paula Bennett is doing on this is huge.

I cannot support this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill.

It is a great pleasure to rise and speak to the second reading of this bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. The first reading of the bill was on 25 July 2012, almost 2 years ago—almost 2 years ago. People listening to this debate might wonder why there is a little bit of heat in this debate. Well, there are very good reasons why there is a little bit of heat in this debate. The reason why it has taken so long to get to the second reading of a bill that supports families, that extends paid parental leave to 26 weeks, is that the Government—that National Party—has done every single thing in its power to stop this measure from taking place. That is the truth of the matter. That is the ugly truth of the matter, actually.

What has happened tonight, what has played out tonight, has been absolutely pure politics from the National Party, and it has been like this since day one. Since the time this bill was drawn it has been politics as usual from the National Party, while the Labour Party has been attempting to put people first. We have been attempting to put people at the heart of what happens in this Parliament, and what has the National Party done? It has filibustered. It has opposed. It has played dirty tricks all the way down the line. The National Party might think that that is quite an entertaining thing to do with the Labour Party, but it is a disgraceful thing to do to the families of New Zealand. It is a disgraceful way to treat the families of New Zealand. It is a disgraceful way for the National Party to show its contempt and its undervaluing of parenting.

Make no mistake about it. That is exactly what the National Party has demonstrated tonight. It is exactly what that party has displayed, and it has displayed it now for 2 solid years. Actually, the National Party has displayed it since 2002 around paid parental leave, because National voted against it then and it has consistently voted against it since. No one is going to be fooled about its little election-year ploy to give 2 weeks’ extended paid parental leave, but not until next year, and a further 2 weeks, but not until the year after. National has simply done the least it thinks it can get away with—the least it thinks it can get away with.

I say to the families who saw this tonight, and the families who will learn it from the front pages of the newspapers tomorrow, that the reason why the National Party will have this bill being voted down tonight is that it refused to allow compassionate leave for Te Ururoa Flavell’s vote to be counted for this bill. Te Ururoa Flavell has gone to support his daughter in the birth of his first moko—the birth of his first grandchild.

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is my understanding that the Standing Orders actually forbid members from referring to the absence of a member from the House.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Technically that is right. The member should not use the name in that regard.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. So let us be clear. Again National members tried to shut this debate down because they are ashamed, and they should be ashamed of what they have done. But there is a member of Parliament who is voting for this bill tonight but whose vote cannot be recorded because he is attending the birth of his first grandchild. What a disgrace! We are here debating paid parental leave, extending paid parental leave, supporting families, and the National Party members have decided that they will play politics—that they will put politics first, even though they know that this bill has the majority support in this Parliament to pass. Even though it knows that, the National Party has prevented that from taking place. Why? Because National does not value parenting. National members certainly do not understand the importance of 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. They do not understand what Plunket has called for, what Barnardos has called for, and what Every Child Counts has called for. They have not listened to those organisations, because if they had listened to those organisations they would know that their pitiful 18 weeks is looking like the election-year gimmick that, in fact, it is.

What Plunket has said is that it believes 26 weeks’ paid parental leave is the way to go. I will tell you why. It is the reason why I actually proposed 26 weeks in this bill. This is the reason. The World Health Organization says that exclusive breastfeeding to 6 months—26 weeks—is the way for a child to get the best start in life. It says that if mums are able to do that, if mums can do that, then that child’s health is going to be better for the rest of its life—for the rest of its life. That is great for that child and their family, but it is also great for the rest of us. We get a really healthy, productive individual to live alongside in society, and we do not have to keep building more hospitals and we do not have to pay for the bad health outcomes that would otherwise take place. I do not know what the National Party does not get about this.

But can I say that this bill is about people. It is about families and supporting them in the best way possible. It is absolutely clear now—absolutely clear—to everyone in New Zealand that it is Labour and a Labour-led Government that will truly support families in an appropriate way, and that the National Party members will try to be the pretenders who look like they care, but they really cannot do it, and they exhibited it again tonight. When it comes down to it, they exhibit that they do not care, and they proudly show that to the nation. Well, I think the nation already knows it, but now it doubly knows it.

I want to pay my respects to the 3,809 submitters who put their views forward on this bill. Those 3,809 submitters, almost without exception, supported extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks. They did not buy—they did not buy—the shonky argument from the Government that it was too expensive. They did not buy that because actually what New Zealanders know in their hearts is that giving children the best start in life is not too expensive. It saves money. They know that. The National Party, with its tiny 1-year accounting brain, cannot see more than a year in front of its own nose. It cannot see into the future. It cannot cost the benefits that the Government Administration Committee came up with, because National members cannot think more than a Budget year in front of their noses. That is not going to give the country the sort of future it needs. That sort of accounting approach, where they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing, is not going to get this country to the place where it needs to be. This Government thinks that children are a cost. It can see paid parental leave and extending paid parental leave as only a cost. It cannot see it as an investment. On this side of the House we are very clear that we do see it as an investment.

I want to thank the parties that have supported this bill, because they have recognised right from the outset that this is an investment in New Zealand’s future. They have not regarded it as a cost. They have regarded it as an investment. I will start with my own party, the Labour Party. Who else would come up with a bill like this? The support that I got from my colleagues when I took—

💬 Louise Upston: We passed one last week.

Oh yeah! Louise Upston—the Government has, yeah. The Government was pushed into it. The Government was pushed into it, begrudgingly, and it has proved it again tonight, so let us not be having that nonsense at this stage in the debate, Mrs Upston.

The Labour Party came fully in behind the bill. The Greens obviously are right in there behind it, and I want to thank Jan Logie in particular for her role on the select committee. New Zealand First was there right from the start. The Māori Party was there right from the start, even though the National Party will attempt to rob it of a vote tonight, to make sure that parents and children cannot be supported in this way. Mana has been on board from the start, and also United Future. I think I have got everyone. That equals a majority in this Parliament. That majority needs to be honoured.

💬 Carol Beaumont: Brendan Horan.

And Brendan Horan, who started out voting with New Zealand First and now is casting his vote as an Independent member.

So we have got the majority support. We have got the majority support, and I think the National Party needs to honour that. I think the National Party should honour that there is majority support. National members should not be the grinches who try to steal lollies from babies, take lollipops out of their mouths, because that is exactly how they are behaving tonight. It is the way they have behaved from the very first moment. They have threatened financial vetoes, they have stripped Te Ururoa Flavell of his vote, they have filibustered, and they have misled me in terms of extending my bill and saying that they were going to do extensions through my bill. They have played every trick in the book. This bill is about supporting families, and Labour is proud to do that.

A party vote was called for on the question that the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is not the vote for the Māori Party. The vote that was just cast by the Government’s junior whip is not the vote that the Māori Party wishes to be cast in this House. I think that if the Government whips check that, they will find that the Māori Party is in favour—

Order! I am bound to accept the integrity of the whip, and the whip knows the consequences of misappropriating a vote. The whip knows that, and he knows it now because I have said it anyway. So we accept the vote as cast.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to table an email from the Māori Party telling me that it supported this bill with its three votes.

Let us just conclude the voting and then we will take any leave to table anything after that.