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

Well, is it not interesting? After all of that debate before the election on this very bill, when the Government members wanted to talk and talk and talk, now they want to close the debate down. Well, I think New Zealand families will be able to see exactly what is going on there.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: There’s a word for that that you’re not allowed to use.

Ha, ha! There is a word for that; we are not quite allowed to use it in this context.

Clause 5 is the part of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill that does need extensive debate, because this is where the duration is actually spelt out in this bill. This is the contentious part of the bill because this is the specific point of disagreement between the people who are voting for this bill and the people who are voting against this bill—the duration.

What clause 5 does is it actually stages the implementation of 26 weeks’ paid parental leave into stages. People might recall that this was a part of the bill that caught the public’s imagination. When my bill was first drawn from the ballot at Easter 2012, the then Minister of Finance, Bill English—he is still the same Minister of Finance today—said: “Oh, you know, it’s just completely unaffordable—completely unaffordable.” So the idea of staging the implementation of this became an incredibly important part in the public debate, because people could see that I, as a member, and the Labour Party, actually, were taking a very responsible approach to this. Actually, the Labour Party’s policy was to get to 12 months’ paid parental leave. We did not believe that that was immediately affordable in the fiscal environment of 2012, and so we decided that the next best stage that we should aim for was 26 weeks.

But, again, as an acknowledgment of the global financial crisis, which was really at full throttle at that period of time, we wanted to do it in a staged way, and this is the clause—clause 5—in the bill that actually does that. It does it by bringing 22 weeks’ paid parental leave in as of 1 July next year. And because of the amendment that I have to clause 5 as well, this would mean, if the Government was not so mean-spirited, that families in the categories that we have been outlining in the previous debate could have been enjoying 22 weeks’ paid parental leave from 1 July next year. Then in clause 5 it says that they could have been taking part in 26 weeks’ paid parental leave by 1 July 2017. And that is the impact of clause 5.

I want to take some time to debunk the flimsy, small contribution that the National Party members have made to the debate this evening about their reasons for voting against those families. What they have said is that families who have multiple births, according to the current Government, already get well supported by the Government. But here is the truth of the matter: the home help that the Minister for Social Development, Anne Tolley, referred to is available for 3 months. It is available only for 3 months, and that is the period of time that people currently get for paid parental leave. That is the reason why paid parental leave needs to be extended for people who have had a multiple birth. It is because their home help support runs out after 3 months, and that is the very reason why it needs to be extended to them.

But, also, it is not available to all of those families who have a multiple birth. It is available to them only if they also have another child under the age of 5. So the statement from the Minister was completely misleading about the level of support that these families already enjoy. That is why we actually had the woman Donnelle Belanger-Taylor come before our select committee and tell us about her saga. I know that Jan Logie spoke about it earlier, but I want to read from the written submission that Donnelle Belanger-Taylor put to our committee, because I think it really catches it.

She said to the select committee: “We did all the right things before we decided to have a second child. We saved, budgeted, and accrued annual leave. And then an ultrasound showed two little black blobs. Suddenly our plans looked inadequate. We needed more equipment, more money, and a bigger car, yet I had to stop work a lot sooner.” Her obstetrician made her stop work at 28 weeks, so her paid parental leave ran out when the twins were 6 weeks old. So at 6 weeks old they were in a growth spurt that saw her feeding the babies for 16 hours straight, they were using nearly 100 nappies a week, and she could not imagine going back to work, but their budget was already hurting. She said: “We managed to cope until the twins were 5 months old, but they were still waking three or more times a night each.”

But, financially, she had to go back to work. She said: “We were away from home 13 hours a day, commuting on the train. Every break I got I rushed over to the day care to feed them. It just about killed me. I had to resign after 2 months, on the verge of a complete mental breakdown. Three more months of paid parental leave would have made a big difference. If we had been able to wait until they were 8 months, I could have coped with going back to full-time work. They were sleeping better. Breastfeeding would have been less frequent, so my workdays would have been shorter. I would have been paying proper taxes for the past 2 years, I would have been putting money onto my student loan and into KiwiSaver, and we wouldn’t be getting Working for Families. Parents of multiples, in particular, need more paid parental leave. Nobody plans on having twins. We have to stop work earlier, we have greater risk of pre-term infants, and we have higher expenses. If extended paid parental leave can’t be fully funded, maybe it could be targeted at the families of multiples.”

That was her plea to the select committee, and the inspiration behind the Supplementary Order Paper that I have brought to this Parliament today. Colleagues who have spoken are absolutely right. That is not what we aimed to achieve with this. But I have taken the step in good faith to try to get an agreement across this Parliament that would benefit families, and the Government tonight has snubbed exactly those families, with its response.

But it is no surprise, actually. I do not know why we were expecting that it might have done something that is common sense, because the Government has shown time and time again that this is not its priority, that families are not its priority, and that paid parental leave, in particular, is not its priority. It has spent more money moving the Treaty of Waitangi one block than what this bill asked it to spend in the next financial year supporting around 2,800 families who desperately need the support. I am a great fan of preserving the Treaty of Waitangi, but that is the amount of money that we are asking to be spent on the future of those children’s lives, and there is no comparison that should be able to be made on that. That figure is less than half—it is about a quarter—of what John Key wants to spend on his referendums about a New Zealand flag that, we do not even know, most of the country might not even want, and yet the Government would rather spend money on that sort of folly than address the issues that are actually affecting us as a society.

Clause 5 is the provision that would make the difference to those families. It would bring in 22 weeks on 1 July next year. Think about what that means. It means that families who have possibly just had their first ultrasound, and possibly just found out that there is more than one black blob in the ultrasound, would, if this bill was passed tonight, have extended paid parental leave of 22 weeks for their newborn children. It means that the families who will not know at this point in time that their baby is going to be a premature birth, which is before 37 weeks’ gestation, would be entitled to it as well.

I call Anne Tolley, but before I ask the member to proceed I would like to remind members that when dealing with clause 4 of the bill we dealt with a number of amendments, and have therefore taken some decisions as to the general direction of the bill. Therefore, the discussion from now is quite likely to be quite narrow.

I just want to pick up on a couple of things that the previous speaker, Sue Moroney, has said. First of all, she talked about good faith and trying to get agreement with the Government. I would have thought that if you are talking good faith and getting agreement from the Government, the first thing you would do is come and talk to us, but no one talked to me. So actually where is that good faith?

💬 Sue Moroney: You’re not the responsible Minister.

Yes, well—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well, I am certainly not.

No, Mr Chair—I do beg your pardon. The previous speaker could have come and talked beforehand, in time for the Government to have the opportunity to discuss it, because that is my understanding of good faith. It is not just about saying: “This is what we are going to do, what do you think?”. It is about a genuine conversation taking place and people having time to consider it and make the appropriate decisions. So that is just to put that on the table.

But also when we are talking about paid parental leave, as we are in clause 5, and the duration of that leave, I just think that this Committee, before we get carried away with all the arguments, should focus on what exactly this Government has done. This Government has pledged and budgeted for an extra $171.8 million over the next 4 years for paid parental leave enhancements.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I regret to interrupt the honourable Minister but I think I warned at the beginning that we are now on a quite narrow debate. Although I understand that the Minister is responding to the comments of the member in the chair, which I probably should have pulled up, I fear that if I let her go on, I am going to have to let everyone else get well away from it.

My understanding, looking at clause 5 of the bill, is we are talking about the duration of paid parental leave being extended to a maximum of 18 weeks, a maximum of 22 weeks, and then a maximum of 26 weeks. We are talking about a progression of the rollout of paid parental leave. That is what I want to address because, in fact, this Government has already agreed to that, and, as I say, that is a considerable amount of money that this Government has committed to extending paid parental leave. What we are saying is that rather than spending all the money on paid parental leave, at the same time we are doing other things as well. Indeed, around paid parental leave, as well as extending the time, as proposed in clause 5, we are also extending the reach of it. In an area like the one that I represent, East Coast, where there is a lot of seasonal work, that is just as important as the length of time of the paid parental leave. This Government has said that it is not just about how long you get that paid parental leave; it is about who is eligible for it. That is just as important.

I appreciate it is a narrow discussion but it is an important concept. The Government is being accused of not wanting to spend this money on protecting our children and giving them a good start in life. The Government’s position is that we are saying yes, of course we are, but we are doing it in another way around paid parental leave, a way that is not focused on just the length of time that you give it to a certain group of women. We are saying that yes, that is important and we are agreeing and extending the time, but we are also extending the scope of paid parental leave, which is just as important. So another group of women are eligible for that paid parental leave, which is indeed what the member tried to do in the previous clause. That is an important fact about clause 5. This Government realises and does accept that we do need to extend the paid parental leave. We have set out a process to do that, but we are not dancing to the tune of this particular clause in this particular bill.

I understand the narrowness of the debate on clause 5, but I did not get an opportunity to address the amendment that Sue Moroney had put forward, Supplementary Order Paper 15, in her attempt to find a way to get this bill through with a more narrow approach to the extension of paid parental leave. I just want to refer particularly to the issue of children with disabilities, the cost for parents, and the additional supports that parents with children with disabilities often need, particularly at that very early stage but also throughout their life. I would also be very interested, actually, if the Hon Ruth Dyson had experiences to share as well, because if I remember rightly, the Hon Ruth Dyson ushered the Government through the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. She may have a unique perspective to bring to this debate, as well.

The Children’s Commissioner’s report by the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty directly addressed the issues faced by families with children with disabilities and children with parents with disabilities, when it comes to issues of poverty. I just want to highlight a few of the things that were said there. It noted that there was not yet enough information about the effects of poverty on children with disabilities in New Zealand and that the Government was intending to gather more information about that. If the Government is still doing that, that would be wise, because those families are particularly vulnerable, and they are families who have been identified by Sue Moroney as being particularly vulnerable for the purposes of this bill.

The expert advisory group had a paper dedicated especially to this topic. The group referred to some research that it could access from the Institute for Public Policy Research in the UK. The research there showed that there is a two-way relationship between disability and poverty in childhood. Disabled children are among the most likely to experience poverty, and poor children are more likely to become disabled than those who are better off. It went on to say that there needs to be a transformation in the quality and accessibility of services for disabled children and young people, and their families. The research from the UK talked very clearly about the particular difficulties, in terms of poverty, that families with children with disabilities face, part of which can be well addressed through extending paid parental leave to these families.

The report from the Children’s Commissioner went on to describe child disability, in the context of poverty, as meaning that children and families must cope not only with the disability but with the added challenges of poverty-related health disparities, social disadvantage, and extra direct costs of time, money, and resources associated with a child’s disability. I understand that Sue Moroney’s attempt to narrow the scope of this bill was because she had identified the particular need that young families, or new families with a child with a disability, face, and that the ability, then, to have access to 26 weeks’ paid parental leave would help to address exactly those costs that this UK research and the Children’s Commissioner’s report have identified: the direct costs of time, money, and resources that are needed to address the whole family as well as the child who has the disability.

The report went on to say that the Institute for Public Policy Research published findings from a study in the UK to inform policy makers on what the priorities should be to maximise the opportunities for people with disabilities, through to 2020. So this is an extended piece of research. The report states that children with disabilities are more likely than non-disabled children to live in poverty, and that children with a disabled parent are also more likely to experience poverty. The report concluded that in order to meet the UK Government’s poverty reduction targets, tackling the poverty of children with disabilities must be a top Government priority. This report very clearly describes the particular challenges that families with a child with disabilities face, in terms of the social disadvantage, the economic disadvantage, and the stress and pressure that manoeuvring through a range of services creates for that family. Any family with a child with a disability will understand what it means when you are trying to negotiate through a whole range of services.

The report went on to say that in order to protect the interests of those children with disabilities—

It is my pleasure to take another call in this debate on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection) Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. Although I was very interested to hear the discussion from Metiria Turei on clause 5, I want to speak to one of the Green Party’s Supplementary Order Papers, Supplementary Order Paper 18, which would add an additional clause after clause 5, around the parental tax credit, or—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before you go on—because otherwise I will have to terminate your speech—I understand that the Greens have withdrawn their Supplementary Order Papers, and therefore you cannot talk to those Supplementary Order Papers.

I am happy then to simply talk to section 71J in clause 5 of this bill, but with some regret that we are not able to lament, of course, the opportunity that the bill did raise, and papering over the fact that despite the Government’s rhetoric around issues of child poverty and child deprivation, there has been some reluctance to put any meat on the bones, as it were, in terms of policy.

This bill provided the Government an opportunity to give additional support to families with newborns. In particular it would have made a very big difference, by extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks, as clause 5 does, to those families who are living in the most deprivation in this country. The reason I wanted to highlight that is because the Prime Minister himself, in his state of the nation address, said that child poverty was an issue that he specifically wanted to focus on, that this was going to be a key focus of this Government. This bill, and the extension of paid parental leave generally, is one manner in which we can do that. Sure, it is a universal way, but there has been a bit of a trend for us in the past to move away from universalism in support of children. That is a trend we need to start reversing. In fact, we saw that trend even further entrenched with the last Budget initiatives around the parental tax credit.

This is relevant because we are talking about universal extension around the duration of paid parental leave versus other mechanisms that have previously been proposed. Those other mechanisms like, for instance, the parental tax credit, as we have seen, are flawed. When you start narrowing and moving away from generalised provisions of support, rather than just saying: “Look, anyone who is eligible for paid parental leave should receive it regardless of income test.”—the amount, yes, sure, is income tested. A universal provision means that we do not get the fraught issues we got at the last Budget when we started looking at filling in gaps with things like parental tax credits. The Government, when it had that opportunity with the parental tax credit, continued to allow an exclusion zone for those families who are in the most poverty in New Zealand. If the Government was as serious about child poverty as it claimed it was, that would have been a prime opportunity to remove an exclusion zone and allow families who are, for instance, on benefits, to receive that support. Of course, unlike this clause, which talks about an extension beyond 18 weeks, that was not for a full 26 weeks. That again was a very narrow range of support. But it does prove the general principle that if we want to improve child well-being generally, we should be moving to more universal provisions, as this bill tried to do for families in work, rather than moving away from that and to the kind of targeted support that this Government has favoured instead.

I have heard the idea reiterated in this House again—by Anne Tolley, in particular; it almost sounded like actually she wanted to support the general notion of paid parental leave—that somehow we do not have the money to prioritise this now. It is something that we pushed back strongly on this side of the House. We have provided ample evidence of other priorities that we could have moved away from in order to allow this to happen. She also tried to claim that the decision of Sue Moroney, the member in the chair, to try to at least eke out something from this Government for premature babies, for multiple births, for children with disabilities, was somehow a concession that this Government has done enough for families with newborns. That is an absolute stretch. It is not only a stretch, it is actually making a mockery of what everyone who has pushed so hard for this bill said. The points that they have made, the principle that they have stood on—none of that shifts. The fact that the member in the chair has been willing to make the amendments that we have seen today is an example, I think, of just really principled pragmatism. It is saying that we have gone as far as we can, but if this Government is absolutely determined to veto what we have put forward in this bill generally—if it is that determined to do that—then we will make a compromise.

Given that I have some experience in this matter, I have been quite eager to talk about it. I have, as has been widely reported, nine children and have worked with all of them. So the duration of parental leave payment, the narrow scope that we are sticking to, is something that I am very keen to talk about and support.

💬 Metiria Turei: 500 kids.

Yes, the 500 children I have had. Sorry, no. It is nine. Just for the Hansard, let us get that right. So, as a new mum, we all know how difficult it is to bring a child into this world and then have to deal with all of the drama. Nobody knows exactly what it means to go sleepless nights until you really have to go sleepless nights. Nobody knows exactly what it means to try to get a baby to latch on to something that should be—I was going to say used for other purposes, but in fact, no—used for the purpose that it is given, to feed that child. And there is stress and there is drama to high heavens, and I can tell you some explicit stories about that. In fact, I might tell you a couple.

💬 Jan Logie: Go on.

I will. With No. 1 child—and I have come to numbering them now because it is just easier—I took that child to kōhanga reo when that child was 2 months old, simply to get out of the house. It cried for China, that baby. That baby had enough tears for the whole of the Yangtze River—is that the one?

💬 Jan Logie: Yep.

That is right. I would hold that baby for 3 hours just so that child would sleep, because every time I put him down, bless his little heart, he would start crying. Do you know what sort of pressure that is, what sort of stress that is, on a new mother who does not know what she is doing? Let us fast forward a few years to when I have five children and I bring a new baby home to that house. One morning I remember waking up, when that child was about 3 months old, realising I had slept a whole night. Then I tried to think how long it had been since I had slept a whole night. I counted back 5 years—5 years since I had slept a whole night. Yes, I have had to do this, I have chosen to do it, and I make no bones about it, but if I knew that at some point I could get some leave so that I would not have to work—because I worked with all of these babies. I went back straight back to work with a child feeding in my arms because there was no provision at that time. So I am taking a baby with me, getting four other little children ready for school, for kōhanga, for kura, and I am caring for another 10 children in the kōhanga reo, while I am feeding, while I am changing, and while I am doing all of those things because I cannot afford to take time off and stay home.

When paid parental leave finally came in and I could take 12 weeks, I tried to get back-pay, but that was not written into the legislation, and so, no, that was not coming. What a revelation it was to have 12 weeks at home with a baby and not have to worry about trying to earn enough money and going back to work with a feeding child in my arms. If you are a feeding mother, 3 months is a pretty standard time, but 6 months is the recommended time. I fed all of those children, all nine of them, except for one, until they were 6 months old on nothing else but me. Do you know what that does to a mother? Do you know how much all the goodness that you are taking into you—every bit of food, every bit of water, every bit of thing that you are eating and consuming in you—is all going to this child? You have just spent 9 months bringing all of the goodness that you have into that child to produce that baby to be a healthy-born child, and then for the next 6 months, as you eat and drink to produce milk to feed that child, do you know what that does to you? I have lost one tooth per child. It is a true story. That is nine teeth gone because of the lack of calcium. The grey hair that I keep trying to dye over, which is still here now, early—all of those things happen. The thing is, you are tired, you are bereft, and you have a family at home to look after.

If we could just have 18 weeks or 26 weeks, then you can spend the time—[Bell rung]. No, no, no. I am not finished and this is very important. I would like to speak again, thank you, Mr Chairperson, and considering it was the first call, I would appreciate your diligence.

I understand that, but there are two other members calling.

To be honest, I would never be able to give a speech like that because I do not know what it is like to have nine children—quite celebratory.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No, but the challenge to the member is to be relevant to the clause.

But what I would like to talk about is clause 5(3), which adds new section 71J(c). There are some words in here that we have to be aware of.

There are a couple of questions I would like to ask the member in the chair, and the first one is why is this staggered in the way that it is—why is it staggered at 18 weeks, why is it staggered at 22 weeks, and why is it staggered at 26 weeks?

But the one word here that I think we have got to be aware of is that it says a “maximum of 18 weeks”, it says a “maximum of 22 weeks”, and it says a “maximum of 26 weeks”. The thing about this is that that does not mean that everyone who gives birth to a child is going to take that maximum. In fact, there are around about 60,000 babies born every year, give or take one or two, and there are about 26,000 parents taking parental leave, so at this point only about 43 percent of parents take paid parental leave anyway.

So when we look at the financials of this and when the bill says at “26 weeks”, that does not mean that every single mother is going to take 26 weeks’ leave. Obviously, when this bill goes through, the dates are going to have to be adjusted. Well, I assume, I say to the member in the chair, that you are going to adjust them, or if we are going to go straight to 26 weeks in 2014—I am not too sure; maybe you could help me with that one.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: It’d be hard to do in April 2014.

I know. It would be hard to do in April 2014 because it would be retrospective. But, you know, the cost of this is actually not as large as it looks from new section 71J(c) in clause 5(3). At a staggered amount, at 18 weeks it adds only $6 million, and that is assuming that nearly every single mother takes—well, I suppose this is paid parental leave, so it could be paternity leave as well as maternity leave. The other thing is that at 22 weeks it adds only an extra $40 million, and again, you are not going to get—not you, Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Certainly not me.

Not at this stage—well, you never know.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Amazing what biology can do.

Ha, ha! I have lost my train of thought. My wife and I have found this ourselves; we have got two very young children—a mother or a father gets only about 80 percent of their salary anyway, so often what happens is that mothers or fathers have to return to work earlier than this out of economic necessity.

So I think when we look at this and say that the cost is going to be an extra $63.9 million because every mother is now going to take 26 weeks’ leave, we are not dealing with the reality of the situation that we find ourselves in, in 21st century New Zealand. I suspect that the reason why a lot of mothers do not take 26 weeks’ leave, and the reason why it is a maximum—you know, we are not going to impose 26 weeks’ leave—is that some mothers have to return to work out of economic necessity.

So what this is actually doing is giving parents choice. If a parent wants to stay at home for 26 weeks, they have the choice to be able to do that, but it does not mean they have to, and it does not mean that every single parent is going to cost society that much. So that is actually quite an important word. If we look at the other subclauses, subclauses (1) and (2), it is pretty difficult to know what they are because they are just sort of stuck in there, so that is all I really wanted to say.

But I do have a couple of questions for the member in the chair: why has it been staggered out this way, and is there an amendment to actually change the dates because it has been so long? Thank you very much.

I move, That the question be now put.

I think it is important that I do respond to the questions that were asked by the member Stuart Nash, who has just resumed his seat. I know that the member was not actually in the Chamber when we debated some of the earlier clauses during the Committee stage, because the previous clauses in this Committee stage were debated before the election. So when we debated clause 2, there was an amendment moved to clause 2 that brought the commencement date in as being 1 July 2015. This relates to clause 5 in the way that the part that comes into being on 1 July 2015 is the 22 weeks’ duration that is described in clause 5.

So I can see what the member has done. He has looked at the bill as it was presented to the Government Administration Committee, and, because it was at the select committee for rather a long time—this bill had a very long gestation, we might say—we went past the date that had originally been put in by me as the member. I think it was the right consideration from the select committee that paid parental leave is a great thing, but getting it paid retrospectively probably is not a goer.

💬 Stuart Nash: Why was it staggered as well?

It was staggered because there was a recognition that, in order to make this affordable for the country at the time when the bill was written—we were at the height of the global financial crisis—this was a way to make sure that it would not be harmful to the Government’s books.

It was a way to make it affordable, and it was done in conjunction—in consultation, actually—with a group that was set up around advocating for this very issue, called 26 for Babies. In amongst that group, a group of wonderful community organisations are networking around this particular issue, including Plunket, Barnardos, Every Child Counts, the New Zealand Breastfeeding Authority, organisations that represent women in their workplaces, unions—a collection of organisations that agreed with the approach that is taken in clause 5.

This approach is to make sure that this is done in a way that is fiscally responsible, quite frankly—fiscally responsible—because that is what we have all wanted in this House. We have wanted this to be done in a fiscally responsible way, because we know that if we can get that investment put in place, and have the public support it in that way, it will be successful. So those are the reasons—

💬 Chris Hipkins: What are the dates now?

The dates now are that the leave would be extended to 22 weeks’ paid parental leave on 1 July 2015, and then, on 1 July 2017, the final 4 weeks’ additional leave would be brought into place so that it becomes a total of 26 weeks.

The importance of getting to 26 weeks was well rehearsed when we debated the last clause, but one of the matters that was not debated at that point, and which is relevant to clause 5, is around where we sit when we compare ourselves with other comparable countries—the OECD countries. Actually, where we sit at the moment is second to last in the OECD countries.

I frequently have women write to me who immigrate to this country thinking they are coming to a place where we are progressive around women’s rights, around children’s rights, and around families’ rights. They leave their homeland, places like Canada or the UK, thinking they are coming to a country that is going to better support them in raising their children. But they find they are leaving countries like Canada, which has 12 months’ paid parental leave, and coming to New Zealand, which has just 14 weeks. Quite frankly, they tell me that they find that backwards and barbaric from a country they thought was a progressive country they were immigrating to.

So clause 5 is the opportunity for our country to regain the position that we should rightly have. Our reputation has been that we are a progressive, child-friendly place. We used to say that New Zealand is the best county in the world to raise children, and it can be, and it should be, but the Government needs to wake up and start supporting these measures. It is not acceptable for the Government to say that 16 weeks is OK. No one else agrees with that.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): You are not going to dispute my ruling, are you?

No, I am not going to dispute your ruling. What I am going to ask, Mr Chair, is for you to reflect on any instances in the past where a closure motion has been accepted after a member in charge of a bill has spoken.

I am happy to reflect on that, Mr Hipkins. I am also saying that the member in charge of the bill is bound by the same rules of relevance as other members.