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

Kia orana, Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Meitaki.

Meitaki maata, Mr Chair. I rise to take a call on this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I want to begin by saying that we know that families are important, and children are important to us. I know that in the last Committee debate on this bill there were a number of accusations coming from across the Chamber. I wanted to stand to speak because one of the accusations was that we as politicians on this side of the Chamber, in this Government, do not care for families and do not care for children, and that is absolutely not true at all. I also want to make the point that the comments that seemed to keep coming from the other side were that because we oppose this bill, we do not care for children, we do not care for families, and that is not true at all.

It is not true at all, because when we look at the record of this Government, and at the things that are absolutely important to this Government—at a time when we had the global financial crisis and at a time when things were difficult—it has been said time and time again that this Government actually stood firm and stood strong on the things that were absolutely important, and that is our children and our families and the things that matter most to most Kiwis. So I just want to put on record that we absolutely do not agree with the comments that have been made from the Opposition at all.

So how do we show that? This Government has actually said quite clearly in regard to paid parental leave that it was not against the aspect of the time period. In fact, it has shown in Budget 2014 that it has been extended by another 4 weeks. Why? Because the fact is that, as in all Governments and in governance, you have to balance your responsibilities along with the rights that are actually important, and that is what this Government has absolutely done. These are the things that actually show.

For those who are New Zealanders out there, those who are Kiwis out there, those who are mums and dads and families out there, who want to know what this Government has done and is doing in that regard, Budget 2014 was really clear. We wanted to continue that role of working for families in New Zealand. So what is important is around health—free general practitioner visits and free prescriptions for children under the age of 13. We have increased that ability so that the mums and dads who are out there know that when their child is sick, they can take their child to the doctor and can get a prescription. In fact, it was Mr Faafoi who was talking about being down in Porirua where he saw prescriptions sitting on a chemist’s shelf, waiting for parents to pick them up. Mr Faafoi actually talked about that. He talked about prescriptions in Porirua—you will remember that in his speech—and about how parents were waiting to pick them up, but they could not afford them.

It is quite clear that the extension by this Government to have not only free general practitioner visits but also the ability to pick up those prescriptions, Mr Faafoi, is important. We do care to ensure that families do get the medication they need, as well. He is getting ready now. I can see a speech coming from him, but there is more to come.

The other thing that is important is that 4 weeks’ extra paid parental leave has been extended to a number of caregivers who were not traditionally eligible, and that becomes important. We have increased the parental tax credit by $70 a week to $220 a week and extended it by 2 weeks to 10 weeks. That, we know, is truly making a difference to those families out there.

What is also important out there is the issue around education. We know that ensuring our children can get into early childhood education makes a difference to their ability to go from the non-compulsory sector into the compulsory sector. We think that is important. In order to be able to do that, again the party of actions has ensured, Mrs Martin—the fact is that we have increased early childhood education services, to get more kids participating and to keep fees down, so that parents can access those services, like Nukutukulea, for instance, in Māngere, where we took the Prime Minister, and where he met with that Niuean preschool and where they celebrated and enjoyed the fact that we have extended those hours as well.

💬 Le'aufa'amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: Same name, last one.

That is right, Mrs Asenati Lole- Taylor. They made sure that they enjoyed the opportunity to extend their care. This is what they actually said. They said: “Thank you, Prime Minister, because under your Government we have thrived as well.” So we know that participation in early childhood education has grown as well under this Government.

The other thing that is important is to say that we care for our children. I have been involved in a sector where we know that our children are vulnerable. The issues of abuse and neglect have been of great concern to this Government as well, so we have extended support for vulnerable children. It includes eight new children’s teams to work with at-risk children and families, and to support children in care as well. That becomes absolutely important as well. With extended and expanded paid parental leave, and increasing the parental tax credit, this will give parents more choices about what is best for them at an important time for their families as well.

The other thing we have done as well that is important is around, again, extending the ability for health, early childhood education, and secondary education, and I know that becomes important. I know that Ms Martin is talking about the fact of charter schools and so forth, and we know that that becomes a point of difference, because it gives communities—[Interruption] Here we go again.

I challenge Ms Martin to go to those communities, look them in the eye, and say to them that their vision for their children, young and old, and parents who are looking after their children—I challenge that member to go to them and say to them that, actually, their vision of a better tomorrow and a better outcome for their children is not valid. I challenge her to do that. She will not do that. Instead, she will sit here, with parliamentary privilege, and begin to quote all the things that she thinks go wrong, but she will not enter those communities. Why? Because they are the very communities that have actually asked for it, they need it, and they want it, as well. That becomes absolutely important to what we are doing.

I just want to begin to slowly sort of sum up what I want to say on this, because I think it is absolutely important. It is making a difference. I do want to say that those schools—and I want to acknowledge the Rise UP school as well—are really important. They have said there in Māngere that these are the things that they need for their children, whether young or old, children who have got parents, and parents with their children whom they are bringing along. They are saying that that is absolutely important to them as well.

We know that the fact is that as a Government we are doing all the things that are necessary and that are needed to care for children, from health to education. At the same time too, we want to say that caring for children is not just about extending parental leave. It is about a whole range of things that make a difference to our families in our communities as well. I stand on behalf of the Government to say that we oppose this bill, but what we do support is children. We do support parents in their role to care for their children as well, hence the stance that we are taking at the moment. I stand here as a father of four children and a grandfather of two, knowing the fact is that the things we are doing do make a difference. I am confident in knowing that fact. What I do support is the fact that—

I move, That the question be now put.

Sat sri akaal, Mr Chair. Thank you for your consideration of my call. It is my pleasure to discuss clause 2 of this bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. National is very concerned about the future of this country. That is why we have been working on very well-managed spending, where we can afford what we have achieved in these 6 years. What we can afford in the Budget is because of that well-balanced spending. However, at the same time I would like to say that children and families are at the forefront of every Budget. At the same time we want to ensure that as a country we attain a balance between the bringing up of our children and the financial implications for the nation due to the increase in the amount of paid parental leave. Also, we have to consider the intergenerational effects on the debt that this bill seeks to create for our children, whose well-being we are all seeking.

To share with you some facts, all of us know that the recent Budget announcement by our finance Minister invests almost $500 million in developing our children. Further, the investment made by the National-led Government in various sectors of the economy will no doubt result in more jobs and higher wages. The flow-on effect of this is that it will result in better lifestyles for our families. There is further facility for the Government’s participation in health and well-being of our children. The Government announced free GP visits and free prescriptions for children under the age of 13 years. We extended paid parental leave by 4 weeks, which we consider is affordable at this stage.

We do not think that this country can afford the reckless spending that this bill proposes. There is an increase in the parental tax credit by $70 to $220 a week, and leave is extended by 2 weeks to 10 weeks. These are some of the measures that we have taken now. New Zealanders understand that all this comes at a cost and that the Government is doing everything practically possible to look after each of our citizens, young or old. We debated all these issues in the Government Administration Committee and also considered them in the submissions. However, we were unable to reach an agreement. During the select committee there was huge discussion about these issues and whether the Government can afford these measures or not. Increasing paid parental leave to 26 weeks is unaffordable right now.

Families will benefit from the growing economy and from jobs with higher wages. It will also be appropriate that they are among the first to benefit from the Government’s spending as the economy picks up.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Narrow it a little.

Changes to paid parental leave and the parental tax credit, alongside other measures in Budget 2014, will provide increased, targeted support within the current economic conditions for working parents and newborn babies. In the first year of the child’s life, particularly in the first 6 months, it is important for the newborn baby’s development to get full-time personal care. It is also important for the parents and the caregivers to get support to manage budgetary and other measures. Encouraging the attachment of mothers and caregivers to the labour market has broad economic and social benefits and can support a stable family environment for their children to grow up in. I think this is appropriate for the Government, which has already made some real progress on this area, and I think we will continue as time proceeds.

I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question that the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member Jacinda Ardern has twice now taken a closure motion, once when it was rejected by you. It is my understanding that under the Standing Orders it is not possible to do that more than once for any particular clause, and I am wondering why you accepted the closure motion.

It is my understanding that a member can take more than one closure motion. It was a change by the Standing Orders Committee. I could be wrong, and I am happy to seek advice on it, but it is my understanding that the member can do more than one closure motion. I can check it for the member. I have been advised that I have already taken the question, so I need to proceed.

I leapt lightning-like to my feet there, Mr Chairperson. I want, firstly, to take a minute to acknowledge the member Sue Moroney, like I did with Dr Cam Calder. Yes, getting a member’s bill drawn is luck, but actually bringing it to the House is challenging; I absolutely can see that. Although, obviously, National has a policy difference, I just want to acknowledge the member for the fact that she is very passionate about the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. She has lobbied strongly on it, and I acknowledge the efforts that have gone in there.

From the perspective of National, clearly we depart in policy on a couple of levels. I would have to say that on a personal level I also believe that paid parental leave is not actually the answer to vulnerable children, and it is not actually the answer for communities in the sense that the most important role that a parent will have is to support, to love, to nurture, and to bring up their child, and that is not necessarily something that is about the Government. In fact, if one asks me, I actually think that the less involvement the Government can have in the bringing up of a child the better.

💬 Denis O'Rourke: Disgraceful.

Well, it is not disgraceful. Why does the member think it is disgraceful? Why does the member think it is disgraceful?

💬 Denis O'Rourke: The Government should be interested in children.

No, no; I did not say that the Government should not be interested in children, but the primary—

💬 Denis O'Rourke: That’s a contradiction of what the previous speaker said.

Well, the member is right off track. The member is right off track because the Government is far less important in a child’s life than the parents. The parents’ responsibility is one that will always be primary and will always usurp the responsibility of anyone or anything else. I believe that very firmly. So although I do see a place for paid parental leave—

💬 Denis O'Rourke: It’s nonsense.

It is not nonsense. It is not nonsense at all, Denis O’Rourke—it is not nonsense at all, Denis O’Rourke. It is about ensuring, certainly from this party’s perspective, that the primary responsibility of parenting is the responsibility of the parent. Responsibility is about sacrifice. There are plenty of times in a parent’s life when they will have to put themselves second and the needs of their child well ahead of them. The sad reality is that in this country—

💬 Tracey Martin: That’s what you’re saying, isn’t it, Mr Sabin—only people with money can have children.

That squawking does get to me. The sad reality is that in this country the default position of far too many parents is that the Government should take the primary responsibility role—it is the Government that should take that primary responsibility role. That, in my world, is wrong. If you ask me why so many families are falling apart, it is because they have forgotten what it is to be a responsible parent. It is not the role of the Government to take over the responsibility of parenting.

When it comes to paid parental leave, most will actually put their child first and they will make the sacrifices not for 14 weeks, not for 16 weeks, not for 26 weeks, but for 5 years or beyond. There is no magic figure that is the amount of time people should spend with their children. The reality is that if a parent can spend the first 5 years, the formative years, of a child’s life with them full time, that will be the best for that child. It is not about 26 weeks. It is not about 18 or 16 weeks. Sure, there will be some—

💬 Denis O'Rourke: An anti-parent speech.

Well, that is absolute rubbish, Denis O’Rourke. That is absolute rubbish. It is the parent’s responsibility to be a parent first and foremost, and that is not about the Government stepping in and usurping that role. Regardless of what support exists out there, the primary responsibility should always be, and will always rest, with the parent. Although I acknowledge that the member cares passionately about this particular bill, the Government opposes it because we believe we have got the balance right.

Look, it has become obvious already that the National Party members are going to continue to play their political games with the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. This is the last members’ day of the parliamentary session, of this term of Parliament.

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: What a deadbeat. What a mediocrity.

And, yes, Christopher Finlayson, the National Party members are at it again, playing political games in order to get in the way of families having the support of 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. Well, it is a disgrace. It is a disgrace, and it is on display for the nation to see, so feel proud of yourselves, National Party members. I do not think that the rest of the nation enjoys this at all. I do not think they are enjoying seeing you actually be disrespectful to families in this way. I think it is a great shame.

Here we are, debating clause 2 of the bill, and we are supposed to be talking about the commencement date. Just in case any of the members are interested—because they have not spoken once about the commencement date yet—this bill brings 22 weeks’ paid parental leave in on 1 July. It brings that in on 1 July next year, compared with that Government’s offering of just 16 weeks. This bill would bring it in at 22 weeks and then, finally, 26 weeks on 1 July 2017. Those are the commencement dates. That is what we ought to be talking about. But I just say to all of those parties in here that actually do respect families, that do really want to support families in this way, let us just get on, do the voting, and do the right thing by families and by children.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am pleased to stand and speak on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I want to just say that I endorse Mike Sabin’s comments—and I am sure many members of this Committee also endorse them—regarding the responsibility of parenthood.

Although one member across the other side talked about the responsibility of the Government, the Government cannot be the parent of every child. Every child comes on to this earth because of two parents. What we need to do is continue to encourage adults and teenagers in this country who end up being parents to take on the responsibility of that parenthood with great seriousness. Although the Government might be there to assist and prop up, sometimes we go too far. When we go too far, we dilute the responsibility that people need to take for their individual lives and for their children. It does not mean that this Government does not care. It does not mean—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! [Interruption] Order! Just two things. First of all, I would like to advise members that barracking is not acceptable in the people’s House. This is a place for debate. Members will conduct themselves with the respect for the traditions of the House as enshrined in the Standing Orders. That is the first thing I want to say. The second thing I want to say is that this is a debate on clause 2; we are not on clause 3.

The commencement clause—well, I believe that this bill should not commence, because it goes too far. We believe that there needs to be some support for parents. We do believe that, but we need to have support for parents that goes far enough, but not too far, and that does not dilute the responsibility that parents have.

💬 Tracey Martin: No, no, no—not too far!

I do not know about you, but I was raised—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

I do not know about that member across there, but I was raised in South Taranaki, one child out of seven, by farming parents who worked incredibly hard and who managed. And I believe that when people are faced with those challenges of how to manage—yes, with the appropriate support but not so much support that they abdicate their responsibility—then they develop resources, they develop strength of character, and they develop ways in which they can care, not just for their own family but for their community as well.

So many of the families in our community, when I was a young boy, helped each other, and I think it is a sad day when that stops and all the help comes from the Government—that faceless group of people in Wellington who have this incredible sense of obligation placed upon them by people who think that they do not have the resources. I think it is important to find those resources amongst families, extended family, amongst community, and amongst grandparents. I mean, how many grandparents actually fulfil a great role of assisting their families and their grandchildren? Many, many, many do, and I think that that is a great thing. It brings the great sense of connection and purpose and fulfilment that they all have.

We believe that supporting parents is a very important thing. Supporting children is a very important thing. The Vulnerable Children Act is one of the most significant pieces of legislation to go through this Parliament, and that is all about supporting children. The Government Administration Committee that reported on Sue Moroney’s Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill could not come to agreement. That is because there are differences of opinion. This is what—

💬 Jacinda Ardern: No, it’s because we didn’t have the numbers.

No, there are differences of opinion, Ms Ardern. There are differences of opinion, and that is what this place is all about. It is about differences of opinion. We can come into this debating chamber and we can debate our viewpoints, and I think that is what New Zealand likes to see. There will be myriads of people out there who will support Sue Moroney and myriads who will not. We are the representatives of viewpoints, not only our own but the viewpoints of others in our communities. I know that, yes, there are people who are very concerned when they see deprivation and when they see hardship, but the solutions to that are not always the same. So that is why sometimes we come to this place and we find that there are differences of opinion.

Kia ora, Mr Chairperson. I would like to speak about the commencement date, which is in clause 2. I believe that the commencement date is appropriate—totally appropriate—for this sort of a bill, and actually should probably be brought forward. But just while I talk about that, on the comments of the previous speaker, Jonathan Young, I just want to remark on his hard-working parents in the Taranaki, I believe it was. I agree with the honourable member Mr Young that his parents were probably an exceptionally hard-working farming family, who were supported by their Government with family support for the first 15 years of his life. They could capitalise on it for their first family home, and that got them ahead. If this bill commenced on the commencement date in clause 2, it would merely be a step towards restoring the support that families used to get before the neo-liberal movement of the National Party. Kia ora.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 472 in the name of Sue Moroney to clause 2 be agreed to.