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

You cannot begin to understand how relieved I am to take a call in the Committee stage of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill tonight. It has been a long time coming. I am sorry for everyone who has had to sit through the bizarre performance that we have seen from the National members this morning as they have again—

💬 Mike Sabin: This morning?

—this afternoon, this evening—as they have continued to play these political games around something as simple as supporting families at a time when they need it most, which is when they have a newborn baby. I think it is very disappointing and I am sure that families up and down the country will feel ashamed of what they have seen the Government doing tonight. I certainly do.

But before I go on, can I acknowledge my own parents, Mary and Denny Moroney, who are here with me this evening, hoping to hear this bill being debated and voted on. It is their 59th wedding anniversary, so happy anniversary, Mum and Dad. This bill is about families. You have been a wonderful, wonderful example of the sort of support that children can have, and look what you produced—look what you produced. This bill is not about me and my family, but I just did want to acknowledge that very special occasion for my parents this evening.

I really hope that the National Government will honour my parents’ wedding anniversary by now ceasing the game. Let us just cease the game. I want to get this bill passed through its Committee stage tonight. I would love to have my parents here tonight see that occasion occur, but, more important, I want to see families throughout New Zealand actually have this issue heard, and actually have it debated in this Parliament in a democratic and civilised manner.

This is not a controversial bill. This is a measure to actually extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks, but not immediately. I have an amendment to my bill that will bring paid parental leave to 22 weeks on 1 July next year and then to finally get to the 26 weeks on 1 July 2017. It is a very affordable way of bringing forward this very important measure. This measure is important because, as Plunket says, when we give children that best start of bonding and attachment with their parent and when we give them the best opportunity to have 6 months’ exclusive breastfeeding, then we know that as a country we can support those children. They will have a better life. We will all get to live beside these better-balanced and more productive citizens, and we will all get to save money. We will not have to spend so much money on remedial education. We will not have to spend so much money on those children’s health care, and actually a lot of the research and evidence tells us that we will save money on our youth justice system as well. Would that not be a great thing?

This is what the brighter future for New Zealand really looks like, New Zealand. I want to thank all the parties and independent MPs who are supporting this bill, because they know that investing early, investing in those early months, is going to be the thing that is going to make us a better country. That is what this bill is about. People listening to this debate will be able to hear which other parties are truly prepared to put their money where their mouths are and prioritise families and children. The one party, the National Party, that is now voting against this bill in this Committee is showing that it does not prioritise families. That is what it shows when it opposes this bill.

I just want to make one more quick point, and it is this: if the National Party truly believes that this bill is not affordable, then use the financial veto. Stop playing political games and use the financial veto. Stand up and be counted. Stop the political game-playing.

It is indeed a pleasure to follow Sue Moroney as we begin the Committee stage of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. This is a bill that I like to think we—the Government Administration Committee that worked on it together—can call a bill that can be shared. I do not think Sue Moroney has said anything that we would not agree with in a different financial situation.

I would like to say, at the very beginning, that it was a bill that received a lot of attention from the select committee. We received excellent advice from the advisers we had, and Sue Moroney put a huge amount of personal effort in, which I would like to acknowledge. There was also a really good atmosphere at the select committee and everybody worked very hard to, I guess, make the best of it that we could.

Perhaps the difficulty with it—as I started to say but I think the member Sue Moroney was engaged in conversation—is that the timing, perhaps, is the crucial part of this bill in terms of the political climate that it is born in. We have just seen a—

💬 Mike Sabin: No pun intended.

No, no pun intended. We have just seen a Budget that has come through. It is forward-looking, positive, inspired, inspirational, and inspiring. It is a Budget that we can all be proud of and participate in, in the knowledge that it is targeting and it is targeted. It is selfless in that it does not seek to glorify the author; rather, it seeks to authorise attention being given to discretely measured sections of our population, and our overall New Zealand family—people who need help. I honestly think that the parts of the Budget that I am referring to, and we will look at those in detail in a moment, can be embraced by both sides of the House because they are very sensible things to do—they are very sensible things to do. Let us examine just a few aspects of the Budget that are of particular benefit to families. There was that “do not play political games” remark, and I accept that Sue has been through a difficult time with this bill, but—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Sue Moroney has been through a difficult time with this bill, and I understand that. It was difficult for all of us, but it is $500 million we are talking about in terms of family support.

So let us see the sorts of things that we have got in the Budget. The Government is committed to doing its part to give children the best possible start in life. Extending paid parental leave could certainly do that, and nobody whom I have heard has ever said it is a silly idea. No one has said that. I do not think it is right to paint the Government in that particular colour. It is a matter of time, affordability, and priority. Investing almost $500 million more in this Budget in the well-being of New Zealand’s children and families is at the heart of Budget 2014. Families will benefit from a growing economy offering more jobs and higher wages. It is also appropriate that they are amongst the first to benefit from extra Government spending as the economy picks up.

Budget 2014 provides a comprehensive package of practical measures focused on young families and those vulnerable children who most need our care and protection. The things that are included are free general practitioner visits and free prescriptions for children under 13. I remember when I had children under 13, and it is a huge lift to know that that care is there. There is 4 weeks’ extra paid parental leave, and that is extended to caregivers other than parents. There is an increase in the parental tax credit by $70 to $220 a week in total, and it is extended by 2 weeks to 10 weeks. There is $155.7 million more for early childhood education, to get more kids participating and keep fees down for parents. There is $33.4 million extra to support vulnerable children. It includes eight—

I see from the number of members that are jumping up on that side of the Committee that they have suddenly felt a rush of interest in the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. It is a level and degree of interest that I do not recall having seen until now.

💬 Mike Sabin: We’ve got a good story to tell.

And the member claims they have a good story to tell. I assume by that he means the story that was created by the National Government only in response to the excellent story that Labour wanted to tell. But actually, if we are taking an analogy of paid parental leave being a story of some description, what the National Government has written is the preface and what Labour has written is the actual story and conclusion, because National has not gone far enough. It has not actually gone beyond the tokenism of acknowledging that, yes, we need a lift in paid parental leave, but all of the evidence suggests that we need it to go far beyond the 18 weeks that National has proposed.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: When we can afford it.

When we can afford it. If what the member just said then were the case, why would the National Government not introduce a stepped plan for the introduction of paid parental leave to 26 weeks? If the true story is that it is not about the principle of going to 6 months but the affordability of it, why did the National Government not set out a staged plan for reaching that goal? Because—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: We have.

You have not. Your policy is not 26 weeks. Unfortunately, National does not seem to understand what it has actually proposed, which was a tokenistic, 4-week increase staged over time. That is the National policy. I am sorry that I have to remind you of that. You are obviously disappointed by it, but it was Labour that has actually said that we believe that 26 weeks is possible. We have set out a timetable to do it. We have staged it. But ultimately—

💬 Mike Sabin: Of course you do, because you’ve got great form for spending taxpayers’ money, haven’t you?

Mike Sabin seems to think that it is affordable to go 4 weeks, but anything beyond—is 19 weeks unaffordable and a reckless spend of the taxpayers’ money? What about an extra 14 days? Where does the line sit, Mr Sabin, between reckless and fiscally prudent? Wherever National decides the line sits, that is where it is. That is why this was never a policy of principle for National; it was a policy of politics. That is exactly what National has done, because if it was a policy based on principle, those members would have read the research by the World Health Organization, which does not say 18 weeks. It does not say that bonding and attachment can be achieved in 18 weeks. It does not say that you will improve health outcomes at 18 weeks. It all points to 26 weeks. I would be generous enough to say that I believe the National Party members in the Chamber tonight know that, and they know that they have made an unnecessary trade-off.

On this side of the Chamber you might see that we were taking more succinct calls, and that is ultimately because there were 3,809 submissions on this bill—overwhelming. Of those, 3,794—over 99 percent—were in favour.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Well, that’s natural.

It is natural, because it is the right thing to do, which is why the majority of MPs in this House are in favour of this bill passing.

I would just use the time that I have available to me to make a plea to the National Government—a plea. We have gone through a rigorous process. We have set out a timetable that is eminently affordable. The only thing standing in the way of this bill passing is National’s veto. It is not a vote, and it is not another member, an MP; it is National’s veto. Be it on those members’ conscience if they deny the democratic right of this Parliament to pass a bill that an overwhelming number of New Zealanders are in favour of. That is the plea that I make to those members tonight. Do not veto something that this Parliament has a majority of support for, because that reflects entirely badly not just on the National Government but on the democratic process of this House to start with. In doing so tonight, it is not just about voting in favour of what the evidence says, what the research says, and what is best for children, best for families, and ultimately best for babies; it is also about maintaining the faith that people have in the democracy of this place, and the people have strongly sent a message to this place to pass this bill. All I ask is to let the votes stand for themselves, and that is the plea I make.

I seek leave to have the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill debated as one question.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is perfectly entitled to do that. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

I am very pleased to take a call on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill and speak to some of the points that Jacinda Ardern has just raised. I can understand that the member has a passion about this particular bill, as the member who introduced the bill has. Of course we all, right across this House, see absolute merit in giving every child the best start possible. It is right, it is absolutely right, that there will be passion in this debate, but it is also right that the Government has the opportunity to, and does, enact changes that it believes are prudent and right for the time and that address need. Although in a perfect world every mother would be able to stay at home and have the Government support them to do that—I mean, why stop at 26 weeks; the member Jacinda Ardern said 26 weeks—it is all about 26 weeks. When my children were growing up it was 5 years, but there was no paid parental leave. There is actually nothing to say that the Government has to support parents to bring up their children well. That is not the case. It is not necessary. There are plenty of people—sorry, what is the member saying?

💬 Carol Beaumont: Go on, scrap Working for Families then.

Well, you see, there is something that that party has introduced. I personally actually believe that there is a balance to get in terms of where the individual’s responsibility to plan, to take into account the costs that may be associated with having a child, and to ensure that the requisite care, support, nurturing, and so forth can be provided for.

One of the interesting calls that has been made, right from the get-go, is around playing politics. There is a word beginning with “h” that I could probably pull out of the hat, but I am not going to as I am sure members know it. There is a degree of irony about the fact that what we know is that for children who are living in vulnerability or families who are struggling, one of the best things that can happen to them is they have an economy that is growing, that is job-rich, and that has well-paid jobs, so that families have the opportunity to increase their income and therefore increase their freedom of choice and their ability to make choices that will be fit for purpose for them—for the needs of their family. When we talk about playing politics, what we have seen from the Labour Party, the Green Party, and a plethora of mixtures on the Opposition benches, is essentially parties that have consistently voted against the Government’s economic programme.

I would challenge the member Sue Moroney to stand up and say—if she is so concerned about supporting families; often the ones who rely on support, who are at the margins—why she opposes the efforts of the Government to grow the economy. Why is that? I would like the member to tell us. I suspect it is because what the Labour Party wants to see, what the Opposition parties want to see, is for the Government to fail, so that they can get on to the Treasury benches. The cost, of course, of that is that ultimately, when they are not voting to support measures that will help grow the economy, they are actually hampering the very people whom they say they are there to support. If we are talking about playing politics, then I would suggest that members might want to consider what they do at all times, and not just when it suits them on a particular bill.

That is the other interesting point, because what we are doing around paid parental leave, with the steps process to 18 weeks, is what we believe to be fair and reasonable, meets needs, and is prudent in terms of the fiscal conditions. We have heard successive comments about Government debt, about high Government debt. There is a certain member in this House who keeps going on about the worst economic record in 50 years. I cannot remember what his name is—

💬 Louise Upston: David Clark.

Of course. That is right—Mr Clark. The reason that debt exists is that this Government has ensured that for the most vulnerable people we have taken the sharp edges off the recession and the Canterbury earthquakes. Again, I would put it that members cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, they cannot say that you need to do more and it is about 26 weeks—it is about basically spending more, because this matters—but then ignore the fact that that is exactly what the Government has done, particularly since the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquakes. This Government has absolutely been prudent and responsible in ensuring that those most vulnerable people are well looked after. Let us not forget that people out there in the real world, on $50,000 with two children, are tax-neutral. They pay as much in tax as they get back in support.

I am pleased to take a call for the Green Party in support of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill in its Committee stage. I am going to keep my contribution quite short. I think the public does not really want to hear us debating economic visions, Mr Sabin. For every example you can give, I could give others of wastage. The truth is that the 3,795 submitters who submitted in support of this bill submitted in the knowledge that this Government was talking about using a financial veto. Those people said that this bill is an economic priority. This is affordable, and we want you to do it. They convinced us. They convinced the majority of this Parliament. The fact that this executive is looking at extending its power to override the legislature is really dodgy.

💬 Colin King: It’s called democracy.

It is not democracy as we standardly know it. This provision has not been used before, and it is extending your powers much further than they belong. It is unbalancing our democracy. You are in power, in a Government, with parties that do not want you to do this. You are given power by this country in your collective votes, and your collective votes do not support voting this down. This House supports this bill going through, and for you to be opposing it when it is the will of the country to prioritise children and this piece of legislation, is shameful.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. I am going to take just a very short call on this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. It is always exceptionally good to follow Mr Sabin because he provides so much material to work with. This is for the New Zealanders out there who are listening to this debate—those of you who were brave enough to have sat through the last bill, those of you who stayed in front of your televisions and in front of your wirelesses and actually watched National members trying to push this bill so far down this evening that they hoped you would fall asleep. They hoped you would not see what they intend to do with regard to the majority vote of this Committee. They tried to delay this bill and filibuster it so that you would not hear the fact that they will not stand up for children at home. [Interruption] I beg your pardon, Mr Chair, but I know that you yourself sat through that last bill, waiting, waiting, and waiting for this very important bill.

This bill is important to so many New Zealanders. It is important to women, children, fathers, and mothers. It is important to all those people who actually value children before the jobs that Mr Sabin said this should all be about. Mr Sabin, in his speech, epitomised the problem with National’s line of thinking. He again referred to, or took us back to a place of, working, and completely devaluing staying at home and looking after children. Mr Sabin, really interestingly—listen to his words, New Zealand; go back and have a listen to his words—said that the Government should not have to support families. Mr Sabin suggested that he had never been supported by his country or by his Government.

When Mr Sabin was little, when Mr Sabin was a baby at home, his mother was supported by this country through the universal family benefit—by the universal family benefit. It was removed by the National Government in the 1990s. Mr Sabin does not know about that because Mr Sabin never asked his mother how her country had supported him and his family. Mr Sabin does not know because Mr Sabin never studies anything that he is supposed to get up and speak on; he just pushes the line that his whips tell him.

So, New Zealand, what you are going to find here is that this Government will attempt to force this bill past the end of this evening in the hope that you will forget about it and that you will go to sleep. No wonder a million of you—a million New Zealanders—decided not to engage in democracy, when you have the arrogance of a Government like this that votes down, on a financial veto, what you, the people, have said you wish—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

I apologise again, Mr Chair. This bill should go through this House. It will be only as a result of the undemocratic way that the National Government responds to this bill that it will be stalled. The New Zealand public will know about it. The New Zealand public, at this upcoming election, will hear it. That is why, New Zealand, National members are frightened that you are watching the television.

Ahn nyung ha se yo, Mr Chair. I would like to apologise to my learned colleague Alfred Ngaro, to my right, who very passionately called out so that he could have a say. It is a great pleasure to rise to speak on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. Although I am opposed to it, it is very interesting to listen to the members opposite. I know that they speak with passion, but sometimes it is really difficult to take in, especially when they start talking about the arrogance of the Government or the fact that we on this side are filibustering when in the past, members opposite have filibustered to the point that it has gone on for days and days and days so that some member’s bill would not come to pass. I have a vague memory of something to do with a heritage bill or a student union movement bill not actually coming before members’ day. So that is very rich coming from them, talking about filibustering, and I will not take that as a salient point of objection for members on this side of the Chamber to talk on something we believe in.

I would also like to take a moment to talk about what Jan Logie said. She talked about the economics of it all. I take objection to taking a lesson in Economics 101 from a party that wants to print money for the economic well-being of this country. The Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill—

💬 Tracey Martin: Tell New Zealand why you oppose this bill.

Tracey Martin can say whatever she likes, but when she talks about arrogance, she should look in the mirror, because her party opposes Asian migration to New Zealand every election time. This Government has always said that it was prepared to extend parental leave—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! There is a significant number of Standing Orders that grant us good grace and good order and an opportunity for all members to make a commanding contribution. I urge all honourable members to play the ball and not the member. Remember that, and we will preserve an excellent field for the full play of ideas.

I would like to start by saying that this Government has always—and I repeat, always—said that it was prepared to extend parental leave but in a way that was affordable. Affordability is something that is very important to us, obviously. When we could afford more, we would do more. When this country is in a financial crisis, like the rest of the world, our focus is to get our country back in the black—get back in the black, not in the red—so that we can afford to pay for things for our New Zealand families. That is exactly what we did in Budget 2014.

Labour’s 26-week paid parental leave goes too far, costs too much, and is definitely poorly targeted. I would like to reflect back on what Mr Sabin has said: why do we just stop at 26 weeks? If the country can afford it, we would all love to be at home. As a mother, I would have loved to stay at home with my son when he was born. My son is now 15, and sometimes as a working parent I feel very guilty that I did not stay at home longer. Most mothers—most fathers also, probably—would want to stay at home looking after their children, but for them their desire cannot be fulfilled. I think all parents would want to do that, but they have responsibilities. Just like a good Government has a responsibility to its citizens, parents also have a responsibility to their children.

Only around 40 percent of families with newborns get paid parental leave, and Labour’s policy is not targeted on need. I would like to emphasise the word “need” because we want to do what is needed. When the people of New Zealand need something, we want to supply it for them, but the thing is that this Government is fiscally responsible. We want to be managing our books carefully so that when we can afford to do it, we will do it. That is what we promised and that is what we have delivered in Budget 2014. Twenty-six weeks’ paid parental leave—

I move, That the question be now put.

With the advances in modern science I have just had communications from the lady who brought me into the world and I happy to be able to inform the member Tracey Martin, who seems to have an uncomfortable fixation on me but I will go with it, that the universal benefit—what was it called? Actually, I did not know what it was about because—that is right—I was a baby at the time.

💬 Hon Members: Family benefit.

What is it? Family—family benefit. She informs me that it was—let me see here. With the wonders of modern science, I have it on my phone—$6 a week for a fortnight. Good heavens! There you go. So that brings things into stark reality.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: The same amount as what you just increased the parental tax credit by.

Sorry? Six dollars—

💬 Tracey Martin: Ask your mother.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Have you heard of inflation?

There is a lot of passion in this debate. So $6 a week for 2 weeks puts some perspective into how generous the Government of the day is now and how measured we are in terms of what the appropriate balance is.

💬 Tracey Martin: Go and do some research.

Just ease up on the fixation—ease up on the fixation. A very, very important point was made also by Tracey Martin, because she said that I was saying something about the Government—that it does not care about the children and does not have to pay for them, or something like that. The point I was trying to make—and let us just get back to some accuracy here—is that there are plenty of parents who actually do not need paid parental leave, even now when it is available, notwithstanding the fact that when it was not available, people actually got by. So it is not the case that the Government should always be the default mechanism in this equation. It is certainly the case that where there are those who are at the margins, who are struggling and have a family, that extra assistance makes all the difference, but it is about getting that balance right.

I want to just reflect on some of the other things that we are doing that would reflect the context of that balance, because the member also made some pretty interesting allegations about us on this side of the Chamber not really caring about those people. Well, a $500 million package announced in the Budget is far from not caring in my view. What we are looking at are free GP visits for those up to 13 years of age. That is a good thing. That is a good thing, because there are many who will not take their children to the doctor because of that additional cost, so that is huge. We are moving in a staged, careful, and considered manner from 14 weeks to 16 weeks to 18 weeks over the next 2 years, and that is what we think is prudent and appropriate at the time. We are also increasing the parental tax credit by $70 a week to $220 a week—

💬 Jacinda Ardern: The equivalent of the old universal family benefit.

Well, as I say, I am not in tune with the old days, because—that is right—we are forward-looking. We are forward-looking and it is about now. It is about what is appropriate for the context now. To come back to the point, it is an increase of $70 a week to $220 a week in total and it is extended by 2 weeks to 10 weeks. There is $155.7 million more going into early childhood education. This Government has had an absolute commitment to getting children into early childhood education because we know the outcomes for those children are much more positive if they can get themselves into that early childhood education.

The reason I am bringing these measures up is that our steps in terms of paid parental leave have been subject to some significant criticism and aspersions that we are playing politics with it, but it is about the balance that we have tried to achieve. So it is hard for me to discuss that balance, which has been highly criticised by the other side, without mentioning that. I am still waiting for the member in the chair, the sponsor of this bill, Sue Moroney, to stand up and tell us why she is happy to accuse us of playing politics but not happy to vote for the legislation that will help grow the economy. The economy is growing and as the economy grows, so does our support for people who are in need. It is about need.

I want to acknowledge and thank my mother, because it was not—

I move, That the question be now put.

It is a privilege to stand and take a call in the Committee stage of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I just want to reflect on an international study that was released earlier this year and championed by Harvard University, which is called the Social Progress Index. Many New Zealanders would think that as a country we would come up near the top of that sort of survey, but were surprised when, in fact, we came out as No. 1 in the world—No. 1 in terms of social progress on the entire globe. That survey canvassed some 60 to 65 measures, if I recall, and the fact of the matter was that New Zealand did not come No. 1 in each of those measures, so I am the first to admit that there are a range of things that as a nation we can do better. I think all of us would want to think that we can stay in the No. 1 position in terms of social progress as a nation internationally, because that bodes well. As my colleague said, there were 132 countries in that survey, and we came out at No. 1.

The point I make in regard to the fact that we were not No. 1 in each of the initiatives that were measured is that we can make more progress. To that point, I make this other point, which is that I truly believe that every member of this House comes in here with the goal of improving the lot of all New Zealanders. Tracey Martin, Jacinda Ardern, Alfred Ngaro, Mark Mitchell—all of us actually come in here with that goal. That is a fact. We all want to leave this place having left New Zealand in a better place than when we came here. The point I make is that we make different choices about how we achieve that progress, and that is just politics. It is about a scarce resource, which is taxation, the revenue that comes into the Government from taxpayers, and it is about how we choose to spend those resources. The fact of the matter is we are not all going to agree on the exact composition of that expenditure.

The fact of the matter is we have made choices over on this side of the Chamber to extend paid parental leave—because we think that is a good thing—from 14 weeks to 18 weeks. We have not agreed to extend it to 26 weeks at this point in time, but we have made other choices that my colleagues have discussed tonight. Free general practitioner visits—which we announced in the Budget—for children under 13 years of age, lifting that from 6 years, come at a cost. That is not free. It is one of the choices we made as a Government about improving the lot of New Zealanders. Another choice we made was to increase the parental tax credit. Jacinda Ardern said it is not that much. It is not a huge increase—I accept that—but it still comes at a cost, which means you have to make choices about other things that you are not going to extend in terms of a set level of taxation. We particularly made a decision to increase by $155 million the amount that is going into early childhood education. If there is one thing we can do in this country for all children, for our nation to lift their ability to climb the ladder, it is to invest and to continue to invest in education. I am talking about the ladder of opportunity. With early childhood education—

💬 Tracey Martin: The one that you’re pulling up behind you.

We have delivered on that, Ms Martin, and it is going to actually continue to ensure that we stay up at No. 1 in that social progress indicator. In that regard we have made huge progress for Pacific Islanders, for Māori, and for all New Zealanders.

💬 Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: Here we go. Dissing Māori and Pacific. Taking them for granted.

In fact, we are going to achieve that 98 percent target within the next few years. Ms Asenati Lole-Taylor, that is something you should be championing. For your people, the fact that we have lifted the number of young Pacific Islanders who are in early children education is an outstanding achievement and something we should all cherish. So my point is that we have choices.

Ahn nyung ha se yo. Sat sri akaal. It is very important that we are debating the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill in this Committee. My colleagues have explained a lot of things. There is one point that is missing so far. No one has touched on it, because these members were not on the Government Administration Committee. The point I want to touch on is that the Opposition members have time and again said that 99 percent of the people who submitted support the bill. But 1 percent were against it. Who were they? That 1 percent were business organisations that represent hundreds of businesses in New Zealand. They represent thousands of families who are members of those business organisations. They were opposing this bill because they can see that this bill is not viable in the present conditions. The global financial crisis has affected businesses. Before we decide such a measure as is proposed in the bill by Sue Moroney, it is very important that businesses feel comfortable about paying that to their employees.

It is not that this Government is not considerate about families. In the Budget we have many measures to help families, which have been very well discussed by members in their speeches. With these words, I conclude my contribution on clause 1, but I assure you that our Government is very focused on families.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question that clause 1 be agreed to.

Just on the issue of voting, I need clarification about United Future’s vote. I have it as a No.

No, I cast it in favour. I cast it in favour, Mr Chair.