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

I want to make a contribution on clause 4 because it is the purpose clause of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill that we are about to debate, and I hope that members will stick to that. Also, I want to take a call because I think that those watching may be a little tired of the moralising and the judgmental-type calls that are coming from the National Party members about what good parenting is and what good parenting is not. I think I would rather bring the debate back to making sure that there are choices for all families. Opportunity and choice—

💬 Mike Sabin: Rights and responsibilities—where does the measure lie?

—are what this bill is about, Mr Sabin. It is actually about choices for families. It is not about requiring families to take paid parental leave. It is not requiring families to have one of the parents in paid employment.

But the reality is that for most families these days, unless they are very, very wealthy, there is a need for both parents to be in paid employment. There is a range of other things that we need to maybe address in our society. We need higher wages, for example. That would be a good outcome, would it not, if we actually got the National Party members to agree that higher wages were something that would be good to resolve this issue? But no, they are actually spending their time making judgmental-type contributions about parenting and what makes good parenting and what does not.

This bill is about choices. It is about choices for families. It is about the ability for this country as a collective society to actually say that we want to invest in the future of our society, that investing in children is a priority, and certainly within the Labour Party that is what we believe—that investing in children is a priority. We want the best, well-rounded citizens of this country because we know that will actually give the brighter future that the National Party members used to talk about. They have stopped it now but they once talked about a brighter future. This bill is a practical measure to bring about that brighter future that the National Party once believed in.

It is very sad to hear the National members’ speeches because I think that people will hear them protesting far too loudly—far too loudly—that they do really actually quite like children. Of course they like children! But if they really wanted to prioritise families and children then they would be supporting this bill; they would not be speaking to try to stop it from having its votes. I agree with Tracey Martin that if the Government really was going to be honest and authentic in its debate about this bill, it would stop this silly nonsense of the filibuster and would let the bill pass, and then use its financial veto. If Government members really believe they have a justified case for saying it was unaffordable, then I ask them to use the financial veto. That is what it is there for. I firmly believe that the Government has done this and gone through all these twists and turns to not use the financial veto because it knows that there is not the financial justification for using it. The Government members know that in their heart of hearts, and that is why they will not go down that track.

I want to remind some of the speakers who have spoken on the previous clauses that the bill does have public support. I say to Mr Macindoe that we know that because 96.4 percent of the submitters on this bill—and there were 3,800 of them—

💬 Tim Macindoe: That is not a mandate.

“It’s not a mandate.” says Mr Macindoe. He is just running down the whole system of democracy in this country. The select committee process brought forward about 3,809 submitters, I think, and 96.4 percent of them agreed with this bill, as did a poll. The poll was not done by a political party. It was done, I think, by one of the TV channels. It was of 1,000 people and it showed that even when the question was put to them that it was going to cost $500 million, which it is not, by the way—even then, with that amount of money being put into that loaded question, 63 percent of New Zealanders said they wanted it. So this bill—and I know the National Party does not want to hear this—does have wide public support in New Zealand. It has parliamentary support. The only thing standing between families and 26 weeks’ paid parental leave is the National Party.

Ni hao, xiexie. I rise to take a call on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. As a father of two I understand the importance of any support for families. Happy, stable families are particularly important to the functioning of our society and to the quality of life. Supporting families is a fundamental service that any Government should provide. However, on the other hand, it is equally important that we manage our finances responsibly and make sure that the Government does not overspend. In this context, this bill is not balanced and it goes too far.

The National Government is committed to providing better services to New Zealand families, including giving children the best possible start in life. That is exactly why our Budget 2014 invests almost $500 million more in the well-being of New Zealand’s children and families. Budget 2014 provides a comprehensive package of practical measures, focused on young families and those vulnerable children who most need our care and protection—for example, free general practitioner visits and free prescriptions for children under 13; 4 weeks’ extra paid parental leave and extended to caregivers other than parents; and an increase in the parental tax credit by $70 a week, to $220 a week, and extended by 2 weeks to 10 weeks. The total fiscal cost of both the extension of paid parental leave and the changes to the parental tax credit is more than $183 million over 4 years.

Additionally, we will be spending a further $30 million to increase paid parental leave eligibility, following a consultation process. Just this week this Government has announced that parental leave payments will increase from 1 July 2014 to reflect the 3.3 percent increase in the average weekly wage over the past year. The maximum payment for eligible employees and self-employed persons will increase from $488.17 a week to $504.10 gross a week. The minimum parental leave payments for self-employed people will also increase from $137.50 a week to $142.50 gross a week. The Government has always said that it was prepared to extend paid parental leave, but in a way that is affordable. When we could afford more, we would do more. That is exactly what we did in Budget 2014. But Labour’s 26 weeks’ paid parental leave goes too far and it costs too much.

National is focused on reasonably managing the Government’s finances. It is important we get back to surplus and get that under control. Countries with longer paid parental leave entitlements than New Zealand’s include Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain. We know what happened to those countries during the global financial crisis. There is a real danger of running up huge deficits, through unaffordable Government spending. This bill is also poorly targeted. Bear in mind that only around 40 percent of families with newborns get paid parental leave. Labour’s policy is not targeted on need. Twenty-six weeks’ paid parental leave does not help a lot of the most vulnerable children in New Zealand, who would benefit from much more targeted support and services.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

Sitting suspended from 9.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)