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

It is my pleasure to give another contribution on Sue Moroney’s bill on paid parental leave and employment protection, which would, if it were able to take effect as was originally intended, extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. Over the course of this debate we have had an opportunity to talk at great length about all of the rationale and evidence that sits behind a paid parental leave extension. I will just canvass those very briefly again before I go on to my substantive contribution around clause 4.

As the member in the chair, who has taken this bill through, has continually highlighted, all of the evidence from the World Health Organization and beyond points to the fact that in order to form a strong attachment between mother and baby, and in order to encourage breastfeeding through the first 6 months of life, 26 weeks of paid parental leave is essentially best practice. The kind of indication we have that that is indeed the case is really just the OECD. If you were to compare where New Zealand ranks, Australia introduced its 18-week payment, Britain has 39 weeks, and Sweden—obviously always outdoing everyone else—has 16 months. That means that on average the paid parental leave entitlement in OECD countries is close to a year, and New Zealand lags significantly behind. Of course, when this bill first came forward, we were looking at 14 weeks. The Government has since made some paltry changes in that regard, but, even then, New Zealand ranks around 24 out of 25 OECD nations when it comes to—I do not want to use the word “generosity”, because it is not about generosity; it is actually just about doing what is best for mother and baby, and that is where we rank.

That also points to the fact that New Zealand, when you look at how much we spend as a nation on the first 5 years of a child’s life, tends to spend about half of what other comparable OECD nations do. We start to pick up beyond those first 5 years. One of the significant reasons for that initial spend is our lack of universal child payments and also our relatively small amount of paid parental leave. That points to the way that other nations treat paid parental leave, which is based on international evidence, and we are lagging behind. That speaks directly to the purpose of this bill, the clause that we are debating now, which is the purpose clause. The purpose clause states: “The purpose of this Act is to extend the duration of parental leave payment to a maximum of 26 weeks.” All the way through this debate we have been very, very clear that we had stuck with 26 weeks because, firstly, it was best practice, and, secondly, we knew it was affordable.

I really want to pay respect to my colleague Sue Moroney, who has taken the step of putting in a substantive Supplementary Order Paper, Supplementary Order Paper 15, which acknowledges that we have a Government that despite the best arguments in the world is going to veto this bill. So, in light of that, Sue Moroney has put forward amendments that basically try to salvage something for families whom we know—if we are not going to extend 26 weeks to everyone—are the ones who desperately need it the most. When you narrow that down, Sue Moroney looks at families who have multiple births, which we know is a very small percentage of families—I come from a multiple-birth family; my father is an identical twin—to families who have premature births, or to families who have a child with a significant disability. Sue Moroney has put forward Supplementary Order Paper 15, which at least allows those families to have 26 weeks of paid parental leave. I want to acknowledge that it is hard to make such substantive changes to a bill when you believe in that bill so much, but I absolutely believe that Sue Moroney is trying to do right by those families by making that substantive amendment.

Sue Moroney has also set out in question time today the relative cost of those changes when compared with other costs that we have had for the substantive extension. We are looking, with those revised changes in the first year, at an estimate of around $6 million. It is $4 million in years 2016-17. Then we go on to $8 million, $9 million, and then, as we project out, we are looking at around $10 million in cost. When you compare that with some of the things we have spent money on under this Government, it is a very small amount of money for the benefit that those families would gain. Obviously, it is significantly less than what the Government was going to veto had we had the 26-week extension, which, again, we have argued to the hilt that in the long term saves money. Having a decent attachment and having a child get the best start in life absolutely saves money. I believe that we have made that case substantively. We only need to look at the children who are getting a poor start in life, who are estimated to cost this country $6 billion. So extending paid parental leave is an investment rather than a cost.

But even then, given that we are facing a financial veto, putting forward an estimate that is only around $10 million, which is half of a referendum to change a flag—half; less than half—we could extend paid parental leave to families with multiple births, premature births, or children with disabilities. Chris Bishop, how could you argue against that? If you would like to have a go, though, you would be most welcome. I would like to hear the arguments against supporting families with premature babies, multiple births, or children with disabilities. I am sure there is some measly argument that you will stretch out in there somewhere. Though, just to give some clarity around where those figures for the estimates we have come from, they are a guideline only. They are based on the fact that around 7 percent of births are estimated to be premature. We know that a percentage of those are due to poor oral health in pregnant women and a lack of access to decent health care. While we are at it, I would not mind having a debate about whether or not the Government would like to adopt Labour’s policy of free dental health care for pregnant women, because that would reduce the number of premature births, thus reducing the cost of this bill and the cost that we experience as a nation generally. It is just an extra idea that we are happy to gift to the Government if it were reasonable enough to adopt it—sorry, 7 percent is both premature and/or multiple births.

I believe it is Multiple Birth Awareness Week this week. I believe it is this week. I am sure one of my colleagues would like to speak to Multiple Birth Awareness Week. I am sure there is at least 5 minutes in Multiple Birth Awareness Week. Part of the purpose of this bill now is to extend it to 26 weeks for those multiple births, so it is definitely relevant. It is roughly, I think from memory, more like only a couple of percent of births in any year that are multiple births. If we then look at the number of births with disabilities, we are looking at around 4 percent. That is a total of 11 percent of total births. We have, roughly, 60,000 births in New Zealand each year, so that is where we have taken that from. If anything, we have probably overestimated the cost, but we wanted to make sure we were generous in our costings for the Government. It cannot claim that we have pulled the wool over anyone’s eyes. As we have said, we have spent $9.2 million—and that is probably close, actually, to what we are proposing to spend on this legislation here—on the failed Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade change process. There was $9.2 million spent on that, and in the first year we are proposing a spend of $6 million.

I think Sue Moroney’s changes are not only pragmatic but generous to the Government. They are giving an opportunity for the Government to actually support something that is really positive. However, we will forever maintain the principle that an extension to 26 weeks is absolutely critical. As I have already outlined in my speech, the reason it is in this purpose clause, the reason for that original extension to 26 weeks, is that every OECD nation that we like to compare ourselves with has already taken that step, if not gone beyond that. We often compare ourselves with the likes of Sweden in terms of the good social outcomes that it is able to maintain. Why is it that we will not look to the foundation policies that help it to generate those positive outcomes? That is why we will maintain that principle. In fact, Labour generally has an aspiration for a year’s paid parental leave. We can at least make these gains in this round.

It is a good time to be talking about this bill because—indeed, my colleague Jacinda Ardern is correct—it is Multiple Birth Awareness week this week. They say that timing is everything, and I hope that that will certainly be something that the Government will take into account when it considers this bill, because the member Jacinda Ardern is absolutely right. Clause 4 is the purpose clause of this bill, so this is the really meaty part of the bill, I guess. I know that there has been an adjournment in this debate and people might not recall it, but I think that last time round there was a lot happening in the discussion around this clause. There was a lot of talking from the Government benches about what they thought about paid parental leave, and I hope that will continue tonight—

💬 Chris Bishop: Very important issue.

—because it is a very important issue, Mr Bishop, and I am looking forward to the many contributions from the Government benches again tonight on this issue. Yes, it is the Labour Party’s firm view, and my firm view as the promoter of this bill, that 26 weeks for all families that are eligible for paid parental leave is absolutely what we should have in this country. And we know that because other OECD countries have at least that and, as we stand at the moment, we are languishing at the bottom of the OECD when it comes to duration of paid parental leave. If you combine that also with the level of payment that is afforded in other countries, the weekly payment for paid parental leave, then we are looking even worse on that front. This clause in this bill does not attempt to address the payment part of it, but it does attempt to address the duration part.

The purpose—and I outlined a little bit of this at question time today—is simply this: the research and evidence is overwhelming about what we would gain as a society if we were to invest in those early months of a child’s life, not see it as a cost. That is where the smart money is. That is what, internationally, we now know: that if we invest a little bit, in ways such as extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks, we can make a huge difference in the outcome of those children’s lives. That is because the research and evidence tell us that getting the bonding and attachment right between parent and child in those early months is critical to that child’s brain development and critical to the course of the rest of its life. So there is evidence that supports that and tells us that if we get it right at the beginning, that child is less likely to need taxpayer money spent on remedial education, for example. They are much less likely to have anything to do with our youth justice system. They are much less likely to have the sorts of costs that our society bears when things go wrong, and that is what this is really about. This is about building a society where we have children who are well supported from day one.

We also know—and again the research and evidence is overwhelming on this issue—that if we can support exclusive breastfeeding through to 6 months of age, that child is much less likely to end up with health problems. That is a good outcome—that they do not suffer the health problems. It is a good outcome for them and their family, but it is actually a good outcome for the rest of us as well, because we do not end up putting taxpayer funding into hospital and health services, to support issues that we did not get right in those early months. That is what this is about. This is a forward-looking bill that is actually progressive in terms of saying that a little bit of investment at the beginning would save ourselves not only a lot of heartache but a lot of cost as a country further on down the track. And do we not all want to live beside well-nurtured, well-rounded productive citizens? Because all the research and evidence says that if we can extend paid parental leave ideally to 12 months—but we in the Labour Party believe that right now it is affordable to, in a staggered way, get to 26 weeks, and that is what should be afforded to all families. But it has become clear over the course of, I would say, 2 years—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Two years, 3 months.

For 2 years and 3 months—thank you—we have been debating this issue, because this bill was drawn from the ballot in Easter 2012, and here we are in the Committee stage. This is where the rubber starts to hit the road. It has become absolutely apparent in those 2 years and 3 months that the Government just has no interest in supporting families in this way and that it has no interest in supporting and actually prioritising families in order to get 26 weeks’ paid parental leave.

Yes, this brave little bill has actually had some success, because it has forced the Government to extend paid parental leave initially to 16 weeks—which we are yet to see, but it should be happening next year—and then to 18 weeks, but what the Government did was have a political solution to what is a human problem. It has found what it thinks is a political solution to it, but that political solution does not address the research and evidence that I have already alluded to. It does not support exclusive breastfeeding to 6 months. It does not work to make sure that that bonding and attachment is well developed in that critical first 6 months. It does not do those things that we know make the critical difference. So I am acknowledging that. I am acknowledging that the Government now has the numbers to completely kill this bill and kill off the hopes and aspirations and dreams of those who are parents now, those who are pregnant now and about to become parents, and those who will become parents in the future. It is not only that group of people, though. It is the grandparents who, I actually find, are often the most passionate about this issue because they want to see their grandchildren get this benefit and grow up in this way.

I have acknowledged that and I have brought forward a new proposal, because I said right from the outset that I would be determined to do the very best that we could for families. My idea is this. Families where there is a multiple birth, families where there is a premature birth, families where there is a child born with a disability—those are the families most in need. My proposal is that the 26 weeks’ paid parental leave be made available to those families in two staggered stages, because it is those families, I think, who suffer the largest amount of financial pressure. They therefore suffer the most pressure to get back to work and earn money in order to support their families at a time when it may not be the best thing for them. That is the proposal that I have brought to the Committee for the Government to consider today.

I want to thank all the support parties who have already indicated to me that they will support that course of action, because for the parties who have supported this bill all the way through its passage, this is not their ideal outcome, and I think we all know that, but we want to try to secure something that will make a difference for families—families who are in high levels of need. I became convinced of this upon hearing the many, many submissions that we heard through the Government Administration Committee. I think we had just under 4,000 submissions. Not all of them were oral, but 99.6 percent of those submissions were in favour of 26 weeks’ paid parental leave for all, not just for this narrower, albeit very well deserving, group that I am now proposing this bill cover.

One of the submissions that really sticks in my mind—it stayed in my mind throughout this journey—has been the submission made in Auckland by a woman by the name of Danielle Ballinger Taylor, who told us her story about having her twins. I am probably going to run out of time to tell her story, so I am going to share that with you a little bit later on, but let me say this because I think this probably says it all. When I looked around the room that day when she made her submission, I am pretty sure there was not a dry eye in the room—and I believe that included the officials, and that takes some doing. Her story is indicative of about 2,800 families every year who face the same scenario. So that is what my amendment is aiming to do. I hope that the Government will think about this seriously because it is a genuine attempt to make better the lives of a group of people in our society who really do need that support. We will all benefit when they benefit, and I hope the Government will take heed of that.

I want to, first, congratulate Sue Moroney on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill—I do not think I have spoken on it yet during its passage through the House—and on her persistence over nearly 2½ years of ushering it through the House. I do strongly urge the National Party to support this bill because it goes to the fundamental premise of what is the purpose of this Parliament and what is the purpose of government. One of the core purposes is to take the best possible care of our most vulnerable citizens, and there is nobody in this House who would disagree that children—particularly the youngest babies, the newborn babies—are our most vulnerable citizens and that they deserve our full attention.

Interestingly enough, just today Alfred Ngaro from the National Party and I hosted the Big Picture Competition art exhibition, which is currently open on level 1 of Bowen House, I say for members who have not seen it yet. It is a series of artworks, creative works, by children talking about issues like poverty, issues like housing, and the income issues that they and their families face. You know, we are talking tonight about how to support children and families better. Well, these children have got some very clear views about what is needed to make sure that they and other children whom they know and their families, including their little brothers and sisters, have a better life. It is a great challenge for parliamentarians to go and have a look at that exhibition, read the stories that the children have prepared as part of their artworks, and come back to this House with a renewed sense of commitment to protecting our must vulnerable citizens, especially our littlest babies. It is distressing that National is not committed to that—and I do invite those members to go and engage with that Big Picture exhibition.

As much as the Government talks about prudent financial management and is looking to exercise its financial veto, the fact is that it knows, as we all do, that investment in families when babies are very little—newborn babies—is a sound investment in our future. It is a sound social investment; it is a sound financial investment. That is what Sue Moroney’s bill is asking us to make—a sound financial and social investment in our most vulnerable citizens, so that they have the best chance of having the best possible life—and surely that is what our job is here. It is about putting kids and, in this case, as I said, the littlest babies, first, and it will cost a little bit of money. Some have said it would be half of the cost of the flag referendum. It is not that expensive in the context of a Government Budget, but it will make a huge difference to the lives of the families of those littlest babies, and, frankly, it will make returns to us in significant numbers. We know that child poverty, for example, costs this country around $8 billion a year in catch-up costs. Well, just, what is it, a $6 million—I understand, Sue Moroney, or something like that—

💬 Sue Moroney: Yes.

—investment in families now could save hundreds of millions of dollars in the future. So why would you not consider that to be prudent financial management?

Clause 4 in Sue Moroney’s bill really does set out very clearly not just the purpose of the bill in a technical sense but the principle behind the bill, which, as I have been talking about, is about how we best protect our most vulnerable citizens—our littlest babies—and, frankly, I do not think we can afford not to take this action. We need to make sure that families have the best possible chance when their babies are young and when the families themselves are most vulnerable. Those of you who have looked at the Children’s Commissioner’s report on solutions to child poverty will see its recommendation for a form of child payment. It changes the focus from what people generally consider is the high cost of older kids and the cheaper cost of little kids, and we have a Working for Families kind of structure that gives more money as children get older. But its analysis, based on significant research, and very credible research, is that young families face the highest costs when their babies are little, and that is because they have the least capacity to be able to maximise their financial circumstances. This is when they most need access to decent paid parental leave, so that they can take the best possible care of their children at a time when they are the most constrained. So even the Solutions to Child Poverty report from the Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty described in a very detailed and very analytical way why it is important that we invest more at the time when babies are littlest. It is suggesting a child payment of various kinds that is universal at first instance when babies are little and then becomes more targeted as the children grow. That was one model of providing financial assistance to these families. Sue Moroney’s bill is another excellent model that does the same thing. So it does leave us with a whole range of options on how we can best support families and their babies at the time of their highest vulnerability, which is why the Green Party supports this legislation from Sue Moroney.

I would say that National actually agrees with the principle. National clearly agrees with the principle that investing in families when babies are little is a good idea. It has demonstrated that by continuing with paid parental leave when it came into Government and, of course, with its intention to extend, by just a few weeks, paid parental leave over the next few years. So the principle we are talking about, which is in the purpose clause of this legislation, is supported across the House. Everybody agrees that paid parental leave is a good idea. Everybody agrees that these families need some kind of financial support when their babies are very little. But, for some reason, National simply will not invest what is needed to improve the lives of these families, especially those ones who miss out.

I want to take just a few minutes to talk about the ones who miss out. One of the issues that we have with paid parental leave, both in terms of the extension of time and also in terms of the amount of money that families are able to access, is that those families who are on the lowest incomes—working families on the lowest incomes—who would be eligible for paid parental leave find it very difficult to take because they cannot afford the reduction in income. If they can afford to take it all, they certainly cannot take it for very long because the amounts are simply too low. There is a whole other group of families who are completely excluded from the alternative, which is the parental tax credit—because that is the alternative for some of these working families—but there is a whole number of working families who are excluded from the parental tax credit because they are also, in part, dependent on a welfare benefit. So there is a significant group of families who are working, who are in paid employment, and who are also in receipt of a welfare payment for whatever reason, and they are not able to afford to take paid parental leave and they are not entitled to the parental tax credit. Those families tend to be the ones who are on the very lowest incomes.

There, yet again, is another group of families—that is, beneficiary families who are not in paid work—who do not have access to either, and who are completely bereft of support. It does beg the question why it is that these babies over here are entitled to some form of largesse that National supports. It is quite happy for them to have paid parental leave to some extent. These babies over here are entitled to a bit of additional support from the State when they are young and vulnerable and their families are most in need, but these families over here are not. There is a gap—

💬 Hon Member: Good babies, bad babies.

Thank you! There is a principle and a logical gap in which a whole range of families who are at the very lowest incomes, who have the most need of help, whose babies are the most likely to suffer from the effects of poverty, miss out in some form from the range of services like paid parental leave and the parental tax credit that we have available.

There is some commitment from National to some parts of the principle that says our most vulnerable citizens deserve our greatest commitment, but there are too many gaps that mean that too many of our children are falling through them. We know that one baby a week dies in this country from poverty-related conditions. One baby a week dies from poverty-related conditions in this country. So to the extent that this bill deals with one part of the principle around paid parental leave and its extension, that is a good thing. That at least provides some additional assistance to the families who are vulnerable. But we need to make sure that when we are investing in the principle, which is that vulnerable children deserve our greatest commitment, we are committing to that principle without judgment—without judgment of the kind of work that a family is undertaking.

I am pleased to stand tonight and talk to this bill and, in particular, the Supplementary Order Paper that affects the purpose of this bill and narrows the scope of this bill. I have to say as I start that I do not think there is any doubt that everyone in this Chamber wants every single New Zealand child to be able to live a full and successful life and have all the things that all of us want for our children, but we do come to this Committee with different expectations and different understandings about what is going to make a difference to many of those children we are hearing about tonight. I have to say that I am delighted that, in fact, there has been some concession from the promoter of this bill that the Government’s Budget 2014 package, a considerable package—$500 million focused on children—has been reasonably successful. That is a concession that the Opposition has made, and we accept that. That was a very comprehensive package. I do not have to go into the details of it because we all know, and we have talked about it through the campaign. It was a big piece of work that involved healthcare, early childhood education, and Children’s Teams focused on protecting our most vulnerable children from abuse and neglect. The parental tax credit increased substantially from $70 a week to $220 a week, and was extended out from 2 weeks to 10 weeks, and, of course, we extended paid parental leave. So that is a big comprehensive package and that really is what this is all about.

If we are determined, as we all seem to be, to make such a difference to those young New Zealanders, then it is not just one thing, and focusing on paid parental leave might, at the edges, make a difference, but actually most of those children are in really complex situations and it will take a very complex solution to address their problems. So the narrowing of the bill now to those children who are born with a disability, or those families where the baby is premature or where there are multiple births, as I say, is a concession, but, actually, you have got to look at what is already being done in this area. I am sorry, but I think that the promoter of the bill, in conceding that the National Government is doing a really good job in addressing those issues, has missed the mark.

If we just take a moment to go through what is in fact happening already for families, which this Supplementary Order Paper is addressing, we think we have got the balance right. So if you are a family and you have a multiple birth, if you have twins and you already have another child under 5, or you have triplets or quadruplets, the Work and Income multiple birth Home Help payments kick in. They are not means tested. They are available for all those people, and that gives real, down-to-earth, practical help in the home, with all those bits and pieces that all of us who have had children know can be so overwhelming in those early days, especially if you have more than one baby. So that is the first thing that the Government currently provides.

There is the Working for Families tax credit, again, through the Inland Revenue Department. The department provides four types of payments for families with dependent children who are 18 years or younger, and a family with multiple births may well be entitled to those payments depending on the age of other dependent children, the family income, and where that income comes from. So already there are two major streams of assistance to those families. Plus, of course, Work and Income has a whole range of extra financial support for those families in special circumstances, and multiple births, of course, are always special circumstances. So there is help with accommodation, there is help with childcare, and there is a range of other grants. There is already a great deal of assistance for parents of multiple-birth children—twins, triplets, etc.

From the disability angle, for families who find themselves with a brand new baby who has a disability, we have our Disability Support Services, of course, which puts wraparound services around those families, and there is a whole range of initiatives that the Government provides to give assistance to those families. Time does not allow for me go into the details of that but suffice it to say that there is considerable assistance for those families. Disability Support Services is in the process of putting in a new national specialist behaviour support service for children with challenging behaviour. This is something that I have heard called for consistently in this House. That sort of initiative is under way and is providing assistance, and, of course, the work that is being done around autism spectrum disorder, which seems to be expanding as we speak, means that a great deal of help and assistance is going into helping those families who find themselves in those circumstances with a newborn who is suffering from some of those disorders.

Then the final group that this Supplementary Order Paper is addressing is the premature births. Of course, the maternity quality and safety programme has been implemented to make sure that women and their babies get that same standard, high-quality care right throughout New Zealand. It was rolled out to all district health boards in 2012, and is funded at $2.8 million a year for 4 years. That is showing signs of local clinical improvement, particularly around those women with premature births, and we know the extra care and attention that they need.

So what I am saying is that as well intentioned as this Supplementary Order Paper is, conceding that all that other very specialist wraparound comprehensive care is being provided, National, unfortunately, cannot support this given that there is already considerable help going into these families. We think we have got the balance about right, and we will continue to evaluate and monitor the structures that are being put throughout New Zealand, with the social sector trials now going from nought to 18, and the Children’s Teams being rolled out. We think we are getting a very good picture of what is actually happening on the ground, and so, unfortunately, we cannot support this bill.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for allowing me to take a call on this bill. I firstly want to acknowledge Sue Moroney for the work she has put into this. I also want to acknowledge all of the many credible and important organisations that made submissions on this bill. Listening to Minister Tolley, I could not help but listen to her say we have different views on what will make a difference. I am sitting here thinking that our views on what will make a difference should be based on evidence, and I have a number of submissions here from the Children’s Commissioner, the Human Rights Commission, different parenting groups, the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, Business New Zealand—submissions from a whole range of organisations saying that this is the right thing to do.

Like many people in this Parliament, I have children, and, like many people in this Parliament, I have a very comfortable, middle-class working situation. I was very fortunate for the first 6 months after having my own baby a year and a half ago to be able to take that baby to work, to be able to continue to breastfeed, and to be able to take that baby into board meetings. That breastfeeding was very important. We know through all the evidence that breastfeeding for at least 6 months is what is recommended not only by the World Health Organization but by our own Ministry of Health. Our own Ministry of Health advises that we should be breastfeeding for at least the first 6 months.

In my little middle-class existence I was able to do that because of my own working environment and support from my employer. But so many of our people out there—our women out there—are working in jobs where that is not possible. They actually do need some assistance from the State to be able to do what is recommended by the State, which is to be able to stay with their child and exclusively breastfeed for the first 6 months.

Yet here we are listening to the Minister for Social Development, Anne Tolley, tell us that we all have different views on what will make a difference. Well, actually, there may be different views on that side of the Chamber, but the rest of New Zealand, including very credible organisations, have a very clear view that 26 weeks of paid parental leave as a bare minimum should be something that those Government members over there should be supporting. Again, I acknowledge Sue Moroney for pushing this bill forward.

We have heard arguments in the lead-up to this bill being discussed in the Chamber about how that side of the Chamber perceives it as being fiscally irresponsible. But when we go through the submissions we see very clearly that, actually, it is fiscally irresponsible not to support this bill because of the consequences of not supporting parents to be able to stay home and look after their children, if it is in their best interests and their child’s best interests and if it is what they want to do. Instead, what we had when Sue Moroney announced her 26-weeks’ paid parental leave bill was that the Government tried to compromise an evidence-based position around 26 weeks by saying that it would give 18 weeks instead, knowing that the bill is actually popular with the public, and not only popular with the public but also based on evidence.

I am really disappointed with the National Party. I am really disappointed because there has to come a time when we can actually look at legislation and provisions that need to be put in place and surely use our common sense—not quoting New Zealand First there—and make a decision that is based on the well-being of New Zealanders. There are so many repercussions for parents not being given the opportunity to stay home with their children in that first 6 months in particular. We see evidence from places like the Brainwave Trust in terms of how important that bonding is. There is all of the evidence that comes with breastfeeding and the fact that in the long term it actually has a positive influence on a number of different health areas for the child, including things like protecting them from allergies. The longer you breastfeed, the less likely children are to get things like eczema and asthma and a whole lot of other respiratory things. In the long term it actually saves us money if we are ensuring that right from the start in those very first 6 months we are looking after—

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of this bill. When looking specifically at clause 4, one needs to look at and understand the intent and purpose of the original bill, and in turn see just how important it is. The amendment bill is popular with the public—I think 99.6 percent of all submissions were positive—because the public knows the importance of stable, loving, nurturing, and long-term parental investment in the first 6 months and more of a child’s life. Looking at Supplementary Order Paper 15, and, in particular, to the first-noted amendment to clause 4, and focusing on clause 4, it is important because it lists the limitations that now need to be placed on the intent of the original bill and shows the focusing of the bill down to specific classifications—those three obviously being that the paid parental leave is extended, and that only those giving birth to two or more children, to one or more surviving children before 37 weeks, and to a child whose impairment would entitle the person to a Government-funded disability support service are eligible.

The background note of the original bill also states that the bill particularly promotes the ability of parents to choose to care for newborn babies and that it is an essential part of supporting families to develop nurturing relationships. It also promotes the fact that the World Health Organization recommends exclusive breastfeeding for up to 6 months. The only way that we as a society can listen to this advice and to these facts, and to expect our people to do such things, is to ensure we give them the opportunity to do so. New Zealand First does support the bill because we support the provision of the most important environment and the essential elements involved in that environment in a child and a parent’s life, being time. It is unfortunate that the situation has arisen that the original amendment bill will need to be modified and further focused, as is manifested in what clause 4 now states.

It seems counter-intuitive for anyone with an ounce of common sense to deny the opportunity for such a common-sense bill to be enacted and at such a comparatively small financial investment. This is a simple bill with a simple change to a few words and numbers, but it will change the future for a generation of our children and their families. The positive consequences should not be underestimated. It would create stability for a child; a long-term learning environment; healthy, nutritious environments; a bonding and caring environment; and, most important, an environment that sets our future generations up with positive pathways.

We are now looking at the modification of the bill now applying to just parents with two or more children, premature births, or a child with a disability. Although the bill is now unfortunately limiting this important opportunity, New Zealand First supports it because it focuses on the neediest of parents. That is why New Zealand First supports this bill.

I am really pleased to be able to take a call in this Committee stage. I think it is my first substantive call right through the Committee process, so thank you. After having gone through the 3,809 submissions that were presented on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill and the 2 years and 3-month journey it has been to get to this discussion of the purpose of this bill, which is to provide 26 weeks’ paid parental leave to parents in this country, it feels as if it is something this Committee should spend some time talking about and really discussing. I have got to say that the Green Party policy is to support 13 months’ paid parental leave. For us, ideally, the purpose of this bill would have been to extend the duration of parental leave payments to a maximum of 13 months. I know that in the current context of the debate—where the member Sue Moroney, who has brought to the country this offering that has been so well supported by the population, has had to reduce it down with Supplementary Order Paper 15 to provide leave only to families who have had a premature baby, or multiple births, or a child born with disabilities—it just feels really sad, because we know what a difference 26 weeks makes.

The country knows what a difference 26 weeks makes. When the Government members and the Minister for Social Development, Anne Tolley, stood up before and said that there is no doubting that everyone in this Chamber is committed to the well-being of children, but we just have different ideas around how to get there, 99.6 percent of submissions said 26 weeks. So when the Government is saying that its view is different, it is the view of the 0.4 percent; it is not even the view of the 1 percent. It is the view of the 0.4 percent. Come on! Our country can do better than this. It is not really a matter of just weighing it up. If we weighed it up, there is the evidence and there is the National Party up in its ivory tower in a position of privilege, ignoring all of the evidence and all of the people. Come to the party, people! It is not good enough.

The Minister said that she agreed with the Green Party that 13 months was the best thing, like the member sitting in the chair, Sue Moroney, agreed that what National is offering is the best thing for the country—she is nodding vigorously in disbelief of the statement. She also listed all of the things that the Government is offering to families with children with disabilities, families who have multiple births, and families who have premature children. They get extraordinary largesse from this Government. It really beggars belief that there is poverty in this country. Really, when you heard all of those things the Government is providing it is like: “What? What are these people complaining about? Where is the problem in this country?”. Well, the problem was detailed to us through almost 4,000 submissions, through heart-rending stories of what is happening in the struggle of families in New Zealand. The existing supports, Minister, are not enough. They are not serving our families and they are not serving our society and our children. We keep on saying this, and most New Zealanders believe it: if we invest in our children, we invest in our future. We invest in our well-being into the future. This is not about the cents now; it is about our future.

I would like to go to the specific story that Sue Moroney mentioned of one submission from a woman with twins, who presented in front of the Government Administration Committee. She had to go back to work when her twins were just 5 months old. She had to leave work every 2½ hours to breastfeed during that time, all while her babies were both still waking at different times every night to breastfeed. Can you imagine that? That meant having no sleep, going to work, and breastfeeding while trying to work. That is not in the best interests of those children. That was a recipe for disaster for that mother and that is not sensible or constructive for that workplace. Without any surprise, that was something that she did not manage to continue, so she left her job. She resigned after 5 weeks of trying to juggle that, because 5 months after the births was just too early.

Three years on, when she submitted to the committee, she was still working part-time outside of the IT industry in which she had trained and contributed significantly to before the birth of her children. She estimated that going back so early and not being able to sustain that employment had cost her family about $70,000 a year, and it had cost the IT industry a skilled worker. We have a shortage of skilled staff in the IT industry. So this is something that—by crazy short-term thinking or blind political dogma of not wanting to be beaten by the Opposition putting forward a good idea, which is the only reason I can see why you would not be supporting this bill—is costing our businesses, our families, and our babies.

All of the research tells us that a minimum of 6 months’ paid parental leave really benefits bonding and attachment, and we have heard other speakers talking about that. You cannot repeat that too much. We know that that attachment in those early years has consequences right throughout people’s lives. It has consequences for their mental health. It has consequences for their ability to focus and, therefore, their ability to contribute to the workforce. It has huge consequences. We can help that bonding by providing 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. It also improves health outcomes for mothers and babies, which reduces the burden on our health services, which are straining to the point of breaking, as they are at the moment. It reaches the World Health Organization’s guidelines for exclusive breastfeeding. We can see in that example of the mother with the twins just how really difficult it can be to try to maintain that guideline of 6 months while you have already gone back to work. I think it is asking too much, to be honest.

Another thing that we have not really talked about so much in this is that through the submission process there was a lot of support from employers for the paid parental leave period being 6 months. Where it has been at 14 weeks, and even at the 16 and 18 weeks, it is really difficult for them to manage, because it is too short a period of time to get in a replacement staff member. So, mostly, they are just filling in over that time, with other people doing extra work and having work not done, and it is reducing the productivity of workplaces. It is also putting extra strain on other colleagues in workplaces. So employers are finding it more difficult to manage, and they said that 6 months is the kind of period of time when you can go through that recruitment process and get somebody in for a short term, and it would work for them. It is a win for business. It is a win for society. It is a win for babies. It is a win for women. But the Government is siding with the 0.4 percent. What is that about—really?

The other aspect of this, which, I think, is really important to mention is around the importance of maintaining women’s attachment to the workplace. We saw that in the example of the woman with her twins—going back to work, not being able to manage, and having to lose that job. That has now affected her entire career path. Rather than being able to go back and manage in a job and to keep on the same career trajectory—

There are a couple of things that the Minister for Social Development said and one in particular I agree with, actually. She said that the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill will not solve child poverty, that it is not the panacea to solve all the ills that are facing our children today, and she is right. But that is not what this bill is about. There is no magic bullet to actually solve child poverty, but this is a start. This is all it is. This is a start. The Minister actually said that she thought the Government had it about right in what it was doing. But the interesting thing is that Professor Gluckman, Unicef, the Human Rights Commission, the Commissioner for Children—I could go on and on—actually do not agree with the Minister. The thing is that these people are experts in their field. These people know what they are talking about. In their evidence base they have massive budgets to investigate this sort of thing and they understand what they are talking about. With all due respect to the Minister, these are the experts in this area and they say that the National Government has not got this right and that Sue Moroney has.

The world has changed. I was very lucky. I was born a long time ago, but when I was growing up, it was in an era when it was almost expected that the man of the house, the father, would go out and earn money and the mother would stay at home and look after the children. That is what happened in my family and that is what happened with all my friends. When we got home from school our mothers were there. But as society has changed over the last 41 years since I was born—OK, 43 years since I was born—we really have not changed with it. The Labour Government brought in paid parental leave in 2004 and, goodness me, did we get hell from the National Opposition, but it was necessary. Since 2004 the world has changed even more. Ten years on, out of economic necessity, what we are finding is that, actually, a lot of women have to go back to work after giving birth. It is not their choice; they have to, because if they did not, they just could not provide. That is a completely different situation from what it was a generation ago. So what we have to do as a Government, as a Parliament, is accept that the world has changed and deal with the reality.

The interesting thing is that in question time today Mr English made a very interesting point. I cannot remember who asked him the question, but someone did, and he said that this Government makes policy based on the evidence. Well, this is not a political bill. This is not a bill Sue Moroney dreamt up because she thought she could get some votes for it. This is a bill that should be bipartisan. It should be one of these things where we come together as a Parliament and really work hard because we know it is the right thing to do. Sometimes I firmly believe that as a Parliament we actually have to look and ask ourselves what is the right thing to do. If it is the right thing to do, then we do it. There is a cost to this. I acknowledge this. There is an expense, and it is an expense at a time when the Government has limited money, and the Government has a responsibility to allocate that money in a way that best meets the outcomes of the citizens it represents. But let me give you one example—and I am unsure how Peter Dunne is voting on this. I am not too sure. But he took a bill to the select committee on income splitting that was going to cost $500 million—on income splitting. We turned that down at the Finance and Expenditure Committee because it was unsustainable, but what it did was benefit those who really did not need it. That did not benefit those at the lower end, but this actually does. I sincerely hope that Peter Dunne does support this, because remember that he was the man who set up the Commissioner for Children. This is vitally important to actually moving forward as a society. It is evidence-based.

The other thing is that it is about helping those who live in poverty. Those are the ones who are actually going to benefit from this. We have been criticised by none other than Unicef. Most of us hold up the United Nations as an agency that is actually there to represent everyone across the globe. We sign up to nearly every single UN charter. We are huge supporters of the UN. But can I just quote what Unicef has said its mission is. It says: “We believe that nurturing and caring for children are the cornerstones of human progress.” It was created with this in mind. Let me quote what its mission is. “UNICEF was created with this purpose in mind—to work with others”—

Sorry to interrupt the member—his call is finished, and so is the bell.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this very important Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Sue Moroney on the tenacity she has shown to actually put children and parents at the heart of a piece of legislation.

This bill is all about making sure that every child in New Zealand has the opportunity to grow up in the first 6 months of their life with their parents. We know how important it is for children to have that attachment to a primary caregiver. All the research tells us this—the research from Brainwave Trust, the research from Families Commission, the research from Sir Peter Gluckman. Why is it relevant? It is relevant because if we do not get good attachment, it actually has ongoing long-term consequences for the health and well-being and the development of children. We know, for example, that paid parental leave reduces infant mortality. We know, for example, that children have fewer behavioural problems, social problems, or emotional problems later in life. So the value of paid parental leave is actually about setting the framework, the context, for our children so that they can grow up healthy, strong, good New Zealanders and fulfil their potential.

What I want to contribute to the debate tonight is a Treasury report dated 20 September 2012. It is really interesting because this Treasury report was given to the Minister of Finance and it was very clear that the evidence around paid parental leave exists. In fact, that is what drove the National Government to respond to Sue Moroney’s member’s bill and put its own paid parental leave increases in place. On 1 April 2015 paid parental leave will increase by 2 weeks to 16 weeks. On 1 April 2016 it will increase by another 2 weeks to 18 weeks. So the National Government knows that paid parental leave is good for our families. There is no argument about that. I guess what we are arguing about is the length of time.

What is interesting in that Treasury report is that it did not commit to a length of time, but the National Government did commit to a length of time—but from where? If it is an evidence-based Government, where did the 18 weeks come from? We on this side of the Chamber say that it should be 26 weeks, and in fact the Green Party wants it to be—

💬 Jan Logie: 13 months.

—13 months. What do other countries do? Well, we know that in Britain it is 39 weeks and in Sweden it is 16 months. So everybody agrees that paid parental leave is a good thing to do, but then we quibble about how long it should be.

So I want to commend Sue Moroney, the member in charge of this bill, for being pragmatic and putting forward Supplementary Order Paper 15, which maintains the integrity of her bill. For us, it is about 26 weeks—that is our bottom line—but because of the fiscal constraints and because the National Government do not want to give all parents 26 weeks, what we have decided to do is prioritise and target some families that we think are most in need. Those families are ones that have two or more children, the families of children who are born prematurely, and the families of children born with a disability. We all know that within that context those families are most in need. They are most under stress. They are most under pressure. I want to emphasise our commitment to parents who have a child with a disability.

For me, this bill provides an opportunity for us to do a little bit of targeting. So let us target those families most in need. If you are a parent and you have a child who is born with a disability, I would have thought—I have not been blessed; I have not had any children. I have got brothers who have got children, and I know what a child means to a family. But I imagine that if a child is born into a family and that child has a disability, it is an incredibly overwhelming, stressful, uncertain time for those parents. They need support. I guess they need to know that they have got support from each other, from their families, from the medical system, from the social system, and also from the Government, which is why we are targeting families whose children are born with a disability. We recognise, actually, that having paid parental leave for 26 weeks, in some way, may take a bit of that stress away. It may enable them to prepare—

I move, That the question be now put.

Mr Chairman, can I say first of all that I wish I had not spoken in the Address in Reply debate because I could have used this as the opportunity to warmly congratulate you on your elevation and to also acknowledge the huge amount of work you did as the Associate Minister of Justice, particularly in the youth justice area. I hope that you continue to make a contribution from a different position.

We are speaking on clause 4 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I see that there are several amendments that have been tabled as Supplementary Order Papers that have yet to be discussed, and I look forward to some discussion on them. This is the most important part of the debate this evening because it is about the purpose of the bill. Clause 4 is pretty straightforward. It just says that the point of this bill is to extend the provisions of paid parental leave to 26 weeks.

Some people might ask why that would be the case—why 26 weeks? Why not 20? Why not 18, as the Government has decided is the magic number? Why would we go to that? The reason is that this is based on evidence of best practice—best practice for the newborn citizens of our country. I cannot imagine how the National members can say that they know better than the World Health Organization in terms of making sure our newborn babies have the best start in life. What gives the National Party members more evidence than the World Health Organization has? I do not think it is true. I think they are making it up. I know that the members who have been sitting in the Chamber for this period of the debate have not made a contribution. We had one contribution from the Hon Anne Tolley, who talked about other benefits—benefits—that families get if they have multiple births, if they have a child born with an impairment, or if the child is born prematurely. I think she entirely missed the point.

Actually, the Hon Anne Tolley did quite a vitriolic speech in opposition to paid parental leave when it was originally introduced. I can recall it very clearly, along with others. Nick Smith and Katherine Rich were others who contributed in that debate. It was pretty awful. They adamantly opposed the introduction of paid parental leave at the time. The National Party is on the record opposing the introduction of paid parental leave, so when we are debating clause 4 in this legislation, amending paid parental leave to 26 weeks, which every country in the developed world thinks is a good idea, I am not surprised the National Party is opposed to it.

I want to commend the member who has this bill in her name, Sue Moroney. This is a fine bit of work, and it has been a very important debate for the Government Administration Committee to have but also for Parliament to have. The fact that it has taken 2 years, 2 months, and 3 weeks to get to this stage is probably the fault of the select committee, actually. I think that it probably looked at the bill pretty rigorously during its investigation. I happen to know because I was sitting on the committee during that time, and the clause that we are debating now was at the heart of a lot of the deliberations at the committee, but so too was the cost and the number of parents who are not currently eligible for paid parental leave. We looked at international comparisons. We looked at all the evidence that we could.

I do not know whether other members of the Committee recall, but when this bill was first introduced, Bill English threatened to use a financial veto to block it, which is quite extraordinary, particularly on a member’s bill. He got over that, thank goodness. I am pleased that we got to this stage of the debate, and, hopefully, we will get to a third reading and to the conclusion of it, because what we heard about the purpose of this bill was that every single piece of evidence has said that this is best practice. This is the next big step that New Zealand should take to better support families.

I have looked again at the submissions we heard. There were 3,809 submissions, which is quite a lot. We are just considering a fireworks petition, and I would predict that we get a fair number on that, but I do not think it will be anything like 3,809. Of the submissions that the select committee heard, 99.6 percent supported the purpose of this bill and the detail of it, and said that this is the way to go. We had all sorts of organisations, from employer groups to church groups and community organisations. We had individual parents. Both Jan Logie and Sue Moroney have spoken of—

He mihi nui ki a koutou katoa. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak on this bill. As a grandmother, it is very close to my heart. I know there are many parents, uncles, aunties, and others in the Chamber tonight who understand the importance of what we are doing. Just as important as talking about war is talking about babies—just as important.

I would like to start by just acknowledging, in terms of clause 4, that the measure of a civilised society is how it treats its mothers and children, and so tonight should be the greatest opportunity we have had in a long time. I would like to thank Sue Moroney for her commitment to this bill. It has been a difficult and arduous journey championing this member’s bill, but I think many of us have appreciated it. What is more, many people outside this House, no matter what happens to this bill, will remember that Sue Moroney, her party, and others of us have consistently supported the importance of paid parental leave at a reasonable and evidence-based level. Good on Sue and good on all who are supporting the bill tonight.

I know that in our contributions some of us have looked to logic. People have wondered what the logic of the National Party position is. Well, I would not want to waste time on that. There is not any logic to the position, because basically there is no way to refute the evidence that has been presented to the Government Administration Committee. There is no way to refute the economic investment argument, to refute the health argument, or to refute the common civilisation argument. There just is not. So, basically, do not look for logic. You will be disappointed.

National knows that this bill is a good idea, but it is just too mean to do it. Sometimes meanness overwhelms everything, and tonight, unfortunately—including in terms of Supplementary Order Paper 15, which is a big compromise on behalf of the promoter of the bill—there is just too much meanness on one side of the Chamber to be able to see it through. And it will be remembered. It will be recalled by people in this country who see this as an opportunity. We have taken opportunities in this House in my time here that we have been proud of—all of us. Marriage equality was a great moment in this House, but this could be of equal importance—a great moment for our children, which some of us are prepared to support and others not. So it is pretty disappointing.

I would just like to talk briefly about the Supplementary Order Paper, because I can understand why the promoter of the bill has supported it. It is kind of difficult, though, to pick the most vulnerable in this situation, and I think the promoter of the bill, Sue Moroney, has done a good job of that. But, actually, sometimes it is the first baby that is the hardest. I am not saying twins or multiple births would ever be easy. I would never say that having a child with a disability was easy. I have family members who have that experience.

I would always support the idea that money, when you have got newborn children and little babies, makes a difference. We can romanticise it all we like but the reality is we need money when we have got little children because we need somebody to commit to those children and we need somebody to be able to afford to do that in the whānau and in the family. We have great literature and art around the world about the Madonna and child—great romanticism. Every Mother’s Day there are cards full of saccharine lyrics about the wonders of motherhood, but what we really need is paid parental leave so that mothers or fathers—but particularly mothers at the beginning—can do the job. The job is to be there, to feed that baby, and to give that baby an opportunity to get the best start in life. So it is really ironic that the mean-spirited Government will not support this, because we do not need the cards so much on Mother’s Day. We do not need motherhood and apple pie. We need paid parental leave. If this Parliament was prepared to support that and if the Government would support the rest of us, we would be demonstrating the respect that parents are due and that children are due.

Culturally, it is interesting because historically around the world many societies regard the time when the child is born and is little as a sacred time. Having been through that myself, I understand what this is like. It is a unique time in the life of a family. It is the precious time that you want to give time to and you need to give time to. It is also a fragile time. I really want to acknowledge Metiria Turei for pointing out that even with this bill we would not be meeting the needs of the poorest people on benefits because they would not be recipients of paid parental leave, and to remember the consequences for all of us when we do not look after everybody, every whānau, at this most fragile time. In some cultures, the woman does not leave the house for 40 days. Wise women come to the house with food. The woman is regarded as being in a sacred space where she is learning to bond with her child. In other cultures there are only certain foods that she is allowed to eat. The point is that in those cultures—

I move, That the question be now put.

I am happy to take a call—

💬 Joanne Hayes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I wish to change our vote for National to 60 votes in favour.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I have declared the result and I have called the next speaker. I think we will continue. It does not stop you having another go again soon.

I am happy to take a brief call on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I thank the Chair for the opportunity. I thank the National Government for voting down its own closure motion and giving me this opportunity to speak on this bill—one that I think is very important to this House. I certainly congratulate the Government on having the foresight to allow us to continue this debate for a little longer, because I think it is an important debate. On a day when the House set aside several hours to debate international matters, I think it is only right that we set aside a few hours to debate the welfare of children living in this country. Therefore, I am very pleased that the Government has seen the error of its ways and decided to continue this debate. We are on clause 4 of the bill, which is the purpose clause. The purpose of this bill is to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. That is, I think, a very worthy goal and I congratulate the member Sue Moroney on her persistence. One of the things about members’ bills is they take an awfully long time to drag through the House’s processes. One of the sad ironies of this bill, of course, is when we first started the debate on this we were in a position where the bill may well have been successful.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Can I now ask the member to speak to clause 4 and the amendments.

Absolutely, Mr Chair. Clause 4 of the bill, which basically says: “The purpose of this Act is to extend the duration of parental leave payment to a maximum of 26 weeks.”, is one that I think we will agree on. It is disappointing, of course, but I suspect the Committee is no longer going to have a majority to pass that. Many members of the Committee feel that is a very worthy purpose. One of the things that was raised by many members, or that many members will have had raised with them on the campaign trail, is what the Government is doing, what the Parliament is doing, and what the respective political parties are doing to ensure that children get the best possible start in life. It was one of the themes of the election campaign. Ensuring that parents have time to spend with their children when they are first born we know will have a significant flow-on, positive effect on those children throughout the rest of their lives.

I can say, as the Labour Party’s education spokesperson, that this is an issue I looked at quite a lot during the election campaign, because there is a correlation. It has been well established with regard to attachment theory for newborn children with their parents—or actually with anybody, but parents obviously being the logical people in most situations—that if the attachment between the parent and the newborn child is well formed, and there is very good physical research and other research to demonstrate this is the case, then the child is more likely to be successful later on in life. In fact, there were some very good studies that came out from other countries that showed that where attachment was not properly formed in the early part of a child’s life, in those first critical months and years, then that child was more likely to have difficulties with their education, and more likely to become an offender at a young age. We know that attachment at a young age is important. That is why extending paid parental leave can be a hugely beneficial thing, because it gives parents more time to spend with their children when they are first born.

I want to be clear here. This is not just about mothers, either. Paid parental leave can apply to fathers too. Fathers often get left out of the debate on this, but I think they are very important. Families will arrange the way they use their paid parental leave in different ways, depending on the needs of their family and their family’s individual circumstances. I think that is both an important thing and a very welcome thing.

I acknowledge the amendment that is being put forward by Sue Moroney to change effectively the purpose of the bill. Instead of extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks for all families, it would significantly reduce the number of families that would qualify. Although I understand the reasons for doing that, and I again congratulate Sue Moroney on trying to reach a compromise so that the Committee can make some progress on this matter, I would like to put on record my principled position that, actually, 26 weeks is not too much to ask. When we look at international comparisons, New Zealand is by no means a generous country in this regard.

I move, That the question be now put.