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

I am going to do a very novel act in this Committee tonight and speak to the clause, as I implore my colleagues across the other side of the Chamber to give that a go. Clause 3 is the amendment to the principal Act of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987. I think it is a good opportunity for us to reflect on the fact that multiple amendments have been made to the principal legislation that set out originally paid parental leave. We often learn a lot from history. We learn sometimes that positions change. That is particularly the case for National. I applaud the fact that it has moved away from its ideological problem with paid parental leave, because it did have that problem in the first instance.

Labour introduced this scheme in 2002, when there was obviously a surplus at that time because we ran nine Budget surpluses, FYI. At that time, Anne Tolley in 2002 stated the following: “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 and their diverse involvement in today’s labour force. … This is bad legislation. It is a travesty.” Anne Tolley, a Minister of this Government, called paid parental leave a travesty. And now members on that side of the Chamber try to implore, hand on heart, that, yes, they believe in it but just a little bit. So enough that we can have it to just where they are comfortable with it, but anything that we suggest is a travesty.

Well, let me put on record tonight for those members of the Committee: one day you will reflect on your position here and now, and you will be as ashamed as you are now of Anne Tolley’s comments in 2002. It took only a little bit over a decade for a little bit of reflection and to look back and say “Well, we were wrong.”, and surely you admit that was wrong, because you have even taken a position that has gone further than what was introduced in 2002. So it would be bizarre if you continued to agree with Anne Tolley’s position. Just to be fair though, she was not the only one. Nick Smith in 2002 said: “I say that if a member went out of their way to draft a dumb bill, this would have to be it.” He said that he had looked around the world at various paid parental leave models and this one was as bad as they get. Apparently Nick Smith has now moved to it being so bad that National is going to keep it and extend it just a little bit, until it is comfortable with it. Obviously he has supported the changes that the Government made in the Budget.

And it continued. It was not just 2002 because, of course, we extended paid parental leave in 2004, because that is what Labour does. When we are able, we extend a scheme that we fundamentally believe in. So what was said in 2004? We had Paul Hutchison saying that Labour was “cementing in that State dependency rather than incentivising individual responsibility.” For babies? Is that what he was implying? Judith Collins in 2004: “It is another example of this Government using taxpayers’ money to try to win some votes.” Again, from babies? I am not entirely sure what she was trying to say.

I think the point that I am trying to make is that it is very easy to look back in hindsight, but we are providing you the benefit of hindsight tonight. I say to members on that side of the Chamber that you have already acknowledged you were wrong 10 years ago. We are providing you with the benefit of the doubt to not make that mistake again. You will one day reflect. We will read out again your quotes from tonight and you will hang your heads when you realise how wrong you were. I urge this House to pass the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill tonight, to no longer let it sit on the Order Paper, and to do the right thing.

I think the member Jacinda Ardern is quite correct—things do change, absolutely. That is the nature of the beast. Positions certainly do change. Polls change, leaders of political parties change, the global financial conditions change, and the landscape in Canterbury changes, and that is pretty much how it goes. Things do change, positions do change, and that is exactly the position that New Zealand has found itself in in recent years.

What this Government has done, much to the criticism of people like Jacinda Ardern and the Labour Party, and their friends over there, the Greens and New Zealand First, is support those who are most vulnerable—support those who need it. On the one hand those members have continued to vote against everything this Government has done to grow the economy, while on the other hand they have criticised us for letting people, in their view, fall through the cracks. I say that members cannot have it both ways. So the member Jacinda Ardern is quite correct. Things do change.

For what it is worth, putting a figure of a matter of weeks—the difference between National’s position of extending moderately paid parental leave and Labour’s position in this bill, or the difference between having 14 weeks, 16 weeks, and 18 weeks and having 26 weeks—is not what we should be talking about, because the reality is that children need their parents in their formative years. That is the case, regardless of how many weeks of paid parental leave exist. Sometimes that means that parents must be prepared to make a sacrifice. The member Sue Moroney as a parent has, I am sure, done that. Every parent in this Chamber knows that sometimes sacrifices must be made. Sometimes that means surviving on one income, not for 16 weeks, 18 weeks, or 26 weeks, but often for 5 years or for longer, because that is what children demand of good parents. That is what good parenting is about. It is ensuring that those formative years are spent with the child.

So we can debate whether 16 weeks is where it should be or whether 26 weeks is where it should be. I think there is actually a bigger debate to be had here about the fact that New Zealand parents cannot expect that they can just go about their professional working lives and not invest their time in their children, and then expect that they will get the same results than if they had been willing to make the sacrifice and spend that time at home with their children. Ultimately, that is an important time for development in a child’s life, and, yes, it is true that in spending that time with the children, many parents will do it hard for a while. But in this modern era, when we look at, say, this Government’s approach to supporting families, even a $500 million package is substantial. When we look at what we would consider to be the more financially challenged or vulnerable families, for a family with two children that is earning somewhere in the order of $50,000, it is essentially tax-neutral. It will receive from the Government as much support as it will pay in tax.

In fact, actually, what the member Jonathan Young has said is quite right—actually, more so. That seems to me to be quite unprecedented. Certainly when I was bringing up young children, I do not remember that to be the case. It is certainly the case that MMP creates an environment where we see Labour Governments come up with lolly-scramble ideas, and once families become reliant or dependent on a degree of support, it is very hard to actually withdraw that support. That is not to say that to some extent there was not some support needed in the first place, but what it is fair to say is that once people are given an opportunity to have something that they do not necessarily need, they will certainly want to hang on to that.

I am not so sure that MMP has been a particularly good electoral system for our families, because in many ways what it has done is create a default position of: “What is in it for me? What will the Government give me so that I can be a better parent?”. Well, nothing. The Government cannot give anything to someone to be a better parent, because being a better parent is not about defaulting to the Government. Being a better parent is about making decisions that are in the best interests of that child.

Sat sri akaal, Mr Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity. We are debating clause 3 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill.

I would like to start with the member opposite, Jacinda Ardern, who said that paid parental leave was increased from time to time. I would like to remind her that in 2007 the Families Commission gave a report to the Hon Ruth Dyson, then Minister of Labour, in which it recommended that the paid parental leave provision be increased to 13 months by 2015, including a month for fathers. Labour chose to do nothing at that time, and the recommendations were just kept aside. The Government at that time was running in surplus, which is a very important point that the Opposition keeps reminding us about—that it delivered nine Budgets in surplus. But did it consider these recommendations? No, because Opposition members were not serious about them. They want to take all the credit for what they have done, but what they have not done is think about the recommendations that were given by the Families Commission. They never thought about those.

It is very important. We need to be responsible for our kids. I come from a culture where we are totally responsible for our children. For example, I would like to share with this Committee that I have got two sons, who are at the ages of 21 and 23—

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: Far too young to have children that old.

No, no, they should not. They should wait for some time. They are still living with me, and I am looking after them. It is not only me; it is me and my wife. Both of us—

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: Tell them to grow up.

I will talk to you about that later on. It is very important that parents be responsible for their children. I am not saying that the Government should not look after kids. Vulnerable kids should be taken care of by the Government, but the bulk of the responsibility should be on the parents. Parents have to take that responsibility. They have to grow up and make sure they provide the best facilities for their kids. There are cases where families are vulnerable and the kids are vulnerable. The Government should come and pitch in with whatever they want to do. It should help the families that cannot afford that.

It is a bit rich for Labour to take a stand on this now that it is in Opposition when it had 9 years in Government to implement changes before the global economic crisis hit the world. This Government has gone through tremendous financial constraints, and I think that the leadership of the National Government has done very well. Now that it will be affordable, the finance Minister is giving a 2-week increase in paid parental leave in the coming year, and a 2-week increase later on. As the financial situation improves for this economy, I think you will see further increases in these paid parental leave subsidies to families. With these words I conclude my contribution.

I move, That the question be now put.

I rise to speak on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill in the name of Sue Moroney. As we look at the principal Act, which is the purpose, of course, of clause 3, we wonder really why we are here debating this one. The Budget that we handed down in May has already dealt with all of this, so you are wasting the time of the House. We have already moved into this space and taken ownership of it. Really what we are looking at is the unaffordability of what has been proposed by the member who is sponsoring this bill. In the very first reading—I remember it well—Ms Moroney did indicate that she would like it expanded out from 26 weeks to over a year. You will not stop at 26 weeks, and we cannot afford that as a country at this time. It is not possible. She is nodding and smiling. So it goes on. We go into a dark hole of indebtedness over a very expensive, vote-buying element that you are trying to indulge in. That is not in the best interests of the economy and of this nation. We have already covered it.

I think there has been some kind of research through the archives and looking back in Hansard on what other people have said and how, apparently, they have changed their minds. The time is now better economically for us to be able to afford what we proposed. The legislation that has been changed in the Budget does allow for paid parental leave. We have extended it out in a prudent and moderate fashion, which is all we can afford at this stage. We cannot continue to borrow large sums of money to fund unaffordable, election-grabbing things such as what this piece of legislation represents. It really is not on. It has already been defeated. The Government Administration Committee could not agree on it. There has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing around things that might or might not be included in this bill. But really one wonders why it is still before the House.

When we look at the principal Act of something like this bill, it is supposed to amend the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987, but that has already been done. We have already covered that off. Really, you need to move on. This may be the last members’ day of the 50th Parliament. There will be a lot that I can speak about when we come to the fourth part of this. When we look at what this Government has provided by extending the current 14 weeks out to 16 weeks—and that will be as of 1 April 2015—and then to 18 weeks as of 1 April 2016, then we are getting into territory that is affordable, it is gradual, it is helping parents, it is helping children, and it is helping families, which is what this John Key, National-led Government is all about.

We put families at the centre of our policies, which is why we spent $10.5 billion on health. It is why we continue to invest in education and reach targets for early childhood education. We are moving successfully to a stage where the economy can provide families with the ability to get off the benefit. Something like 1,000 New Zealanders a week are going off the benefit. They will be able to put their families, their children, their households into a better state, into a better place, and remove them from poverty.

💬 Hon Member: More jobs.

More jobs, of course, as my colleague has pointed out. That is also what we are providing with the economy. It is incredibly important that we stay on track. Bill English is a classic Minister of Finance with short arms and long pockets. He has delivered two Budgets that have not thrown money wildly around. We are not about that. This is not what this Government does. But what we do is we target the money that is needed to the people that require it. The under-6s’ free general practitioner visits was an important development. It worked so well that we have spent a further $90 million and covered it off—

💬 Tracey Martin: New Zealand First policy.

Is there something wrong with the plumbing in the House? There seems to be an inordinate squeaking noise. Perhaps there are chihuahuas loose in the Chamber? It certainly sounds a bit like it. There is a funny squeaking noise, which, of course, is unintelligible. Even if we could hear it, it would not make any sense.

As far as we are concerned when we look at the Budget and the changes that we have made, we are providing funding to enable more pre-schoolers to attend quality early childhood education. That is giving the best possible start in life. It is something that is helping New Zealand’s most vulnerable. It is helping New Zealand children across the board, and helping New Zealand families. We are rolling out eight more Children’s Teams around the country to help protect our most vulnerable children from abuse. The money that has been allocated in the Budget to sort out these historical sexual abuse claims—those sorts of things—is really going to make a difference and send a clear message to people who continue to perpetrate violence against women and children and families. We are not about to let that happen. Judith Collins has done very good work in this area. All of the entities, the ministries of Government, are working closely together. That is another characteristic of this Government. We are able to work together with the departments.

The member who has just resumed her seat, Maggie Barry, asked a few questions, so I thought I would answer them. She asked the question: “Why are we debating this?”. Well, it is for two reasons. I know they are not reasons that she likes, but one is that this bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months' Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, has a parliamentary majority. This bill defeats the Government. That is why we are here debating it. The majority of parliamentarians in this precinct believe and know this is the right thing to do. They know that it is, indeed, affordable. It is affordable, because this is an investment in our children. There is no better investment that any Government can make than investing in our children.

💬 Maggie Barry: We’re already doing it.

That is reason one, Ms Barry, that we are here debating this. Reason No. 2 is the National Government, for about a year now, has been trying to stop the passage of the bill. It has been trying to stop it by doing exactly what people can see its members doing tonight: filibustering and speaking on the bill for no other reason than they want to stop it from passing. So those, Ms Barry, are the reasons why we are here debating the bill. It is about democracy. The majority of parliamentarians—

💬 Maggie Barry: You’ve been overtaken by events. It is no longer needed.

Can I remind Ms Barry that support partners of the Government support this bill. It is clearly not unaffordable. The previous Minister of Revenue for this Government supports this bill. It is clearly not unaffordable. That is just a weak and lame excuse for the National members, who cannot bring themselves to support children and support families in this way. They are completely wrong. They should be ashamed of what they are doing this evening.

I think what we want to probably make clear is that things are a matter of balance, and when the sponsor of the bill says that this Government does not support children or does not support families, that is incorrect. We know, and she knows, that this Government introduced with the Budget, and passed through all stages into law on 16 May, legislation that increases the number of weeks of paid parental leave from the current 14 weeks to 16 weeks as of 1 April 2015, and to 18 weeks as of 1 April 2016.

I think that the member she was referring to made a comment around affordability. When I talk about balance and affordability, what we have to understand is that this Government spends its money out of, essentially, a single bucket. So money we spend in one area cannot be spent in another, and so we have issues. Last week, for example, the Hon Tony Ryall sent out a press release regarding people who need kidney transplants. There are 600 on the waiting list in New Zealand, and we do a hundred a year. So he has increased funding—

💬 Andrew Little: What’s this got to do with paid parental leave?

Yes, it does have something to do with paid parental leave, because it has to do with the balance of funding that we seek to spread over the needs of New Zealanders. We need to understand that when we say that some areas take too much, it is not because there is a lack of concern; it is because there is also concern for other areas where money needs to be spent. I think that is the rationale that we need to understand when it comes to spending the Government’s resources or the taxpayers’ funds.

So when the sponsor of the bill says that this Government does not care, I refute that. What we are essentially saying is that her bill, though well intentioned, goes too far and costs too much, because it takes away money that needs to be spent in other areas of desperate need for New Zealanders. So it is a matter of finding the balance. I think what Mike Sabin has talked about and what I spoke about not long ago is that the balance also around parental responsibility needs to be considered, because as much as we would like to make everything easy, we have got to understand that there is balance needed.

I remember when parental leave legislation first went through—going back to the principal Act in 1987. I do not know about you, but I remember hearing Richard Prebble speaking on the radio. I am not sure whether it was around this point in time, but he said something about parenting that stuck with me all of these years. [Interruption] And he is one of them, by the way. You know that. He said: “When it comes to having children and you can’t afford it”—because that can be a relative thing, for a start—“love your kids and enjoy them, even though there is going to be financial pressure.” What he was saying, I think, was that there is joy that comes with every child. I think that we forget some of those great values.

I talked before about when I was brought up as a kid in South Taranaki on the farm and out in the rural areas before I became a townie at the age of 10. There were a lot of things that we could not afford but we had a great life. You know, you think that you can have a great life only if you have got all the support that comes from the Government, and we do not believe in that. We believe that it is appropriate to give support where it is needed and where it is affordable, but sometimes when you go too far you create other things that happen. Some of those things that happen are a lack of community support and a lack of wider family support.

We have gone through our society with 14 weeks’ leave, and we have done that to assist families who need to have a transition period when they can make decisions about how they are going to manage financially—perhaps go back to work or, if not, then make adjustments so their budget can cope. We have done all that. But now to extend it out from 14 to 26 weeks—

I move, That the question be now put.

I just want to point out to anybody who may be listening that it is not the Government’s intention to drag out this particular clause, clause 3, but, Mr Chair, you did just accept a closure motion when only four members had spoken on this side of the Chamber, and there were other members seeking the call.

💬 Andrew Little: Nothing genuine about this speech!

I can assure Mr Little that this is going to be very genuine, and I am happy to tell him why, if he would like to stop sounding like a foghorn and listen. A number of Opposition claims have been made. He is clearly not interested in listening. He is just going to filibuster from that side by preventing me from speaking.

First of all, I would like to acknowledge Sue Moroney’s husband, Shane, who is in the gallery. I am sure it is a pleasure for her to have her husband here tonight. I do also want to acknowledge that Sue has been incredibly lucky with members’ bills, because I think she has had several drawn out in her time as a member. In my time here, I have never had a single one drawn out. People who are listening may wonder. It is a little bit like parliamentary lotto. If you get lucky, they get drawn out of the ballot.

I think there is an important point that does need to be made, and that is that the members’ bills of the Opposition cannot be used to derail a Government’s Budget. It is very important to remind everybody who is listening that notwithstanding the very narrow support for the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill in the current Parliament of members, with the composition of parties that are here, this bill has never been voted on by the New Zealand public. It has never been taken to the public for a mandate, and therefore it is a little bit rich for the members opposite to claim the moral high ground on behalf of the 60 members of this Parliament tonight who are voting for it, when 4.4 million New Zealanders have not yet had a chance to vote on it. As I say, members’ bills of the Opposition cannot derail a Government’s Budget, because a Government has to have the ability to budget for the long term, to plan its fiscal strategy, and to work out how revenue and Government spending can be organised in a responsible way to ensure that New Zealand taxpayers—who, after all, will have to pay for anything that a Parliament commits expenditure to—can afford it and that it has been factored in. This clearly had not been.

Even more important, it is worth nothing that in this year’s Budget there was $500 million of new spending for New Zealand families.

💬 Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: How much?

There was $500 million, and that did include an extension to paid parental leave, and I was proud to support that. So I reject utterly any suggestion that members on this side are not in favour of paid parental leave. We are, and we demonstrated that with our Budget. We also broadened the scope with the extension of the parental tax credit, which meant that more people qualify. Again, that is very important, particularly for those at the bottom end of the scale, who most need support. Thirdly—and it is allied to this—we have extended the opportunity for families in New Zealand to access free doctors visits for children. Again, that is an important measure that I am very proud of. So this is a family-friendly Government and that was a family-friendly Budget, but this particular measure that we are debating tonight has not had the endorsement of the New Zealand people.

I also just want to make a point about the accusation of filibustering because, boy, that is rich. In my 6 years here I have listened to the Opposition filibuster on the Auckland governance bill to the point where there were 30,000 amendments tabled, most of which wanted to change the date of commencement—30,000—and we had to sit here all day on a Saturday listening to that nonsense. I heard the member whose name this bill is in filibustering on the Royal Society bill, which was totally uncontroversial. She had nothing of any value to say, nor did any of her colleagues. I also heard them do the same thing on the Parana Park bill. If they would like me to talk about the Parana Park bill, which was a wonderful little local measure for Hamilton, I am happy to do so, but it would not be relevant. That is the sort of thing that they did—talk irrelevantly. I point out that every member of the Government who has spoken tonight has dealt with the substantive nature of this bill. They have dealt with the issues that arise from it, they have dealt with their responsibility to the taxpayer, and that is the way it should be. That is not filibustering. That is responsible parliamentary debate, and I am proud of my colleagues this evening.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. Can I just compliment Mr Macindoe on his contribution. Mr Macindoe is right, and Mr Macindoe is wrong. Mr Macindoe is right that the Government has the ability to veto this bill because the budget of it has not been worked out inside the Budget that those members placed in front of the country. We know that. I think that what is most interesting, and probably what the New Zealand public needs to understand, is that some of the frustration of the Opposition is that we know that, Mr Macindoe. Your Government has that ability. Use it. Do not continue this argument. Use the veto—use the veto. Do not be so afraid with regard to the election that is coming and the backlash that your party may receive from the New Zealand people.

Where Mr Macindoe is wrong is that he said that there is no mandate from the New Zealand people for this bill, and yet Mr Macindoe knows that like every other member’s bill, it goes before a select committee and that the New Zealand public have just as much opportunity—and many, many took this opportunity on this bill; many more than on other members’ bills that have been out there—to put their voice into the consultation process. Mr Macindoe knows that, so he knows that the New Zealand public has had an opportunity to discuss this bill. Submission after submission after submission was in favour of this bill.

Mr Macindoe and his party often use the fact that they have a mandate because they are elected representatives of the country. They argue against having a binding citizens initiated referendum on that basis, so they bring their voice, just as United Future brings its voice. One might not like the deal they have now done with United Future because it brought a vote to this House on the back of a deal with their Government, which it chooses to use independently when the Government might not have wanted it to. It might not suit Government members that the Māori Party, which they also did a deal with to try to keep their Government going, chose to use its votes independently to support this bill. But that does stand as a mandate under the arguments that National has used before.

Mr Macindoe is an eloquent speaker—there is no doubt about it—and Mr Macindoe is a good, honest, decent man, who loves his family and supports his electorate and who actually believes in parents and children.

💬 Mike Sabin: So do I.

And Mr Sabin is not so bad, either. But let us get real. What has been happening here is that the Opposition understands the position it is in. It understands that the Government has the power of veto. Get on with it. If you are going to veto the bill, veto it, and let the people of New Zealand see that and make their decision when they go to the polls on the fact that you vetoed a bill that almost 100 percent of the submitters actually supported.

When we look at the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill and at the purpose of this bill, we are really reminded that this is not really fit for purpose. I have mentioned that at other times, in my previous call, and I would like to draw attention to what this Government has been doing instead in this space, which is a tremendous thing. The work that we are doing in this space of allowing workers who have been with their employer for more than 6 months but for less than a year to be entitled to some form of unpaid leave is something that we are proud of.

I think it is important that we consult and that we are seen to be looking carefully at what this country really needs: primary carers who provide permanent foster care akin to adoption, such as Home for Life parents. People who have permanent guardianship—that is, biological fathers and grandparents caring for grandchildren—need to be eligible as well, as long as they meet the work test criteria, of course. A number of proposals that we are putting together to modernise parental leave, which allow changes to allow greater access and increased flexibility, are also available. We are taking submissions on this through until about 25 August, and then we aim to have those in place by 1 April. There are—

💬 Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Excuse me, but I am just not sure what relevance the current speaker’s comments are having to the clause that we are debating.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is a point well made. I urge the member to refer to clause 3, because that is what we are actually debating at the present stage.

Sure. Having said enough on clause 3, I will wait until clause 4 and devote my comments in more detail to that. Thank you very much.