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

I understand that we are debating new clause 6—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): That is exactly what I just said.

—in the current debate. That is what he just said. I was busy reading the clause and so I did not want to get it wrong, right from the beginning.

I have a few questions for the member in the chair, Sue Moroney, regarding clarification around how she arrived at some of the provisions in this particular new clause. The new clause replaces 16 weeks with 22 weeks, effectively, for those who give birth to two or more children as a result of one pregnancy—twins or triplets, or even more than that; or for those who have a premature baby, born before 36 weeks of gestation; or, finally, for those whose child has an impairment that would entitle them to a Government-funded disability support service.

What I would really like to ask is particularly around Government-funded disability support services, and I wonder whether the member in charge of the bill could clarify for me what some of those support services would be, and, in fact, whether increasing the period of paid parental leave would likely have any impact on the Government-funded support services that they might get. Various support services might have a range of tests that one has to meet in order to get them, so could extending paid parental leave, in fact, result in someone not being eligible because of the fact that they get paid parental leave and are thereby disqualified from getting paid parental leave, if you like?

I just want to get, perhaps, an explanation from the member in charge of the bill that we would not be doing that with this clause. I would hate for the situation where we created a circular problem that made it impossible for somebody to qualify under that particular provision. I do not know this area very well, so an explanation of the sorts of disability support services that might be available would, I think, be very helpful to the Committee.

I think that the provision extending paid parental leave for those who have premature babies and for those who have multiple births is a very sensible one. It will significantly reduce the cost of this bill, of this legislation. Although I personally would like to see the Government spending more money on providing financial support to parents with new babies, I want to congratulate the member on the steps that she has taken to try to get some compromise with the Government.

I wonder whether, in fact, she could elaborate on the steps taken to try to achieve that, so that we can actually have some surety that these particular amendments will be able to succeed. As I said, although it would not be my first choice to reduce the number of weeks, I personally support the original intention of the legislation, which was 26 weeks’ paid parental leave for all parents of newborn children. This does raise some wider issues. I think that one of the questions really should be whether in fact those parents who fall into this category—have multiple births, have children with disabilities, or have premature babies—once we get to that point of 26 weeks of paid parental leave, whether in fact the overall concept of paid parental leave should be changed to reflect those additional needs and the additional costs that those families are likely to face.

I think it has raised an interesting debate that might be picked up further down the track. I think those are quite interesting issues. I suspect that they probably did not get picked up—or maybe they did come up earlier on during the debate. The member in charge of the bill might be able to elaborate on those further for us. I will leave my questions at that. The first one certainly is a relatively technical question, which I would quite like to hear from the member in charge of the bill on.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this bill. Around new clause 6, New Zealand First is particularly supportive of this. Personally, my sister is the mother of twins who arrived early. They were delivered at National Women’s Hospital—I am not sure whether National Women’s Hospital is called National Women’s Hospital any more—and placed into the special baby care unit.

I think you have to be in that environment to truly understand the extent of the stress on the parents when they have children in the special baby care unit. If you live in the main centre, you have to travel back and forward several times a day to actually be with the babies because there is no accommodation provided, or there was not at that time. So there are costs around that. Just the fact that you have got very little babies struggling for their lives inside the special baby care unit, to provide support like this is not just critical. So we move away, with a clause such as this, from a conversation around bonding or all these other things, but, actually, doing so is an absolute necessity for some of these families.

Also, for the babies and families in these circumstances there are often so many special requirements or needs—not necessarily just at that front end of delivery, when the babies are so early and so small, but afterwards, when there are specialists required, and so on and so forth. It is interesting.

I would reiterate the point made by Chris Hipkins around just seeking wider clarification from the member who has put forward this amendment, around how she sees that 26 weeks would pan out across the disability support services. I ask whether she has any concept of how many people this might affect downstream, or any other technical details that I know she will have worked on, because this bill was incredibly well worked on to start with. It was well processed, it was well priced out, and it was well traversed with the general public. It had a lot of support with the public in the last Parliament, and it had a lot of support in this House in the last Parliament. We are yet to see whether it will gain the support that it needs in order to put something that is desperately needed with regard to support for babies and families at this very vulnerable end.

New Zealand First will continue to support the bill for as long as we can. I do not think I need to elaborate any further in my contribution with regard to this particular clause, but, as I say, I would support the member in the chair taking a call so that she could elaborate on the disability support services around that 26-week period and the work done behind it to advance the cause for these people who find themselves, through no fault of their own, in circumstances where their babies are in the special baby care unit. They need more support, the babies need more support, and there are ongoing costs for them in this period of time to support those newborns. Kia ora.

I am really interested in new clause 6 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill and the extension that is put in here—from 16 weeks to 22 weeks, and then on to 26 weeks—and I really would like to know from the member in the chair, Sue Moroney, what advice she has received about the financial implications of these changes. I know that the member had been discussing with the Government the fact that although her preference was to continue offering 26 weeks’ paid parental leave to all new parents, this was almost a compromise, given the Government felt that it was unaffordable, despite the member’s own costings saying that that was not the case. So what I am interested in is the costings that the member has come up with, and I would like to see whether, in fact, they would be affordable for any Government to be able to take on at this point.

I was interested in the Families Commission submission on this bill as well. It stated that in 2009, when the effects of the financial crisis were most evident, eight countries made changes to increase financial benefits for parental leave and, actually, the change in one of those countries was for multiple births. So eight countries actually increased the financial arrangements they had for paid parental leave and found that it was actually the fiscally responsible thing to do and, actually, it really helped during an economic crisis in terms of the benefits that came from it. So I would really like to know from the member whether she received any advice on that and whether, actually, she knows what those eight countries were that extended their paid parental leave provisions and how it actually helped them during difficult economic times. I think that would be something good for this Government to take on board, despite the fact that I have heard from the member of the compromise that is being made here in terms of changing the availability from being for all new parents and new births to being multiple births, children with disabilities, and premature births. I would really like to know the financial implications.

I would really also like to know from the member what the long-term savings will be. There is some research out there, particularly in relation to premature births, multiple births, and children with disability about the increased importance of breastfeeding exclusively for those first 6 months. I think I have seen some pretty serious statistics that outline that those babies who are not exclusively breastfed in those first 6 months are 14 times more likely to die than those who are, which is a pretty serious statistic. I think that one came from Unicef, so I would be interested to know from the member whether she had further information along those lines, because I think this Parliament should take that kind of information quite seriously. With regard to premature babies and to babies who are born as part of a multiple birth—and I know that multiple birth babies are more likely to be of a lower weight when born, so there are risks there—I ask what the benefits are to having 6 months’ exclusive breastfeeding that the member has come across.

I am also really interested in a submission on this bill in relation to what we are discussing in this clause that was put forward by the Children’s Commissioner, which pointed out that the current rate of paid parental leave is the same rate regardless of whether there is one or more children born—so, regardless of whether it is a single birth or a multiple birth. The Children’s Commissioner actually put forward in its submission that it disadvantaged parents of multiple birth babies—I am not sure whether I am phrasing it quite right. I know that that point made in the submission by the Children’s Commissioner is slightly different to what is in the clause, but it does touch on the issue of multiple births and how there needs to be some different arrangements made to take into consideration the additional pressures that are on the parents who give birth to more than one baby at one time. I am really interested in the long-term costings or savings that could be made in respect of the health of these children.

Before I call the next member, I just want to ask people to take their seats and then indicate that what we are discussing at the moment is a very narrow matter. It is quite marginal as to whether it should have been ruled in or out, given the fact that the earlier substantive clauses have, in fact, been rejected by the Committee. So I ask the members who are going to speak to speak to the clauses on the two Supplementary Order Papers that we are currently referring to and not to submissions on other matters.

I rise to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 15, which is specifically around the provisions in the case of multiple births, in the case of children being born before 37 weeks’ gestation, or in the case where a child is born with an impairment that would entitle a person to a Government-funded disability support service. This is the context of the Supplementary Order Paper. It is a reduction of the bill—on which, sadly, we have already lost the vote in this Committee. It is to reduce it down. Rather than having the 26 weeks apply to all children—because, tragically, that was not deemed by this Committee to be deliverable by this country, despite the overwhelming number of submissions in favour of it—the member Sue Moroney has brought to the Committee this Supplementary Order Paper that has a much reduced level of provision to meet the absolutely most important need that we have in our community, which is in the instances of premature births, multiple births, and where there is a case of disability.

I would like to spend a little bit of time just actually focusing in on those families and what their needs are. We did hear, through the submission process, of people who had multiple births. They talked about their babies waking up at different times during the night, so that when they tried to go back to work, with the provision of paid parental leave being at the 12-week point, they were going back to work without having had any sleep whatsoever, basically. Their babies were not waking at the same time every night, so they were feeding, basically, the entire night. So there is a very real, demonstrated need that we were informed about for the provision of paid parental leave in the cases of multiple births.

I think that anyone in this Committee, if they have not had twins or triplets, should imagine themselves in the shoes of that family trying to actually be new parents of multiple children at once. I think that most of us here would have some empathy and want to give them the time of at least 6 months to get to grips with that job, for the benefit of their family and for the benefit of their babies. We know that, actually, the health benefits of that to those babies are just unchallengeable; that they are lifetime benefits.

I will just talk a little bit more about premature births too because approximately 10 percent of all babies born in this country are premature. That is over 5,000 babies a year who are born premature. The consequences of that—we heard from somebody who presented to the select committee, who I think brought all of us to tears. Before the time of parental leave, she had had a premature birth. Her baby had been in an intensive care unit, and she was having to leave her baby to go to work. I am not a parent, but the thought of that to me is just completely gut-wrenching—giving birth to a child, this most special time in your life, and your baby is in an intensive care unit. What level of stress and anxiety you must have, and fear that you would lose that baby, and then you have to go to work. It is a horrific thought, as are the consequences of it as well.

What makes Supplementary Order Paper 15 so important is that when the baby comes out, hopefully willingly and well and healthy, then, in effect, the process starts. Whereas most women would have access to parental leave from a full-term point, these women would have to take paid parental leave from a much earlier point, which actually means that the time around breastfeeding is much reduced. That time for bonding in the flesh is much reduced if you are constrained to 14 or 16 weeks, so 26 weeks is absolutely critical.

If we think that that is applying in about 10 percent of cases in New Zealand, then it is really hard to see—and I would like to hear a Government member argue against why you would not want to provide that bare minimum of 26 weeks to families in the case of a premature birth. And I would also say in the case of disability that that clearly is also a point of very real need.

Thank you for allowing me to take this call on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I first want to give Sue Moroney, the member who brought this bill to the House, a concession. I would like to compliment her on her motives for bringing this bill to the House, because at the end of the day this bill is about giving kids the best start in life.

This Government cares about children, and I care about children. I have two children myself, and both of them were premature. My child Christabel was born in her 33rd week. We hung on with my son, and he was born in his 36th week. So I acknowledge the hardship that people face when they have premature babies. But this Government believes that one size does not fit all, and we are taking an all-round approach to the welfare of children. That is why, unfortunately, we do not support this bill at this time.

To explain that further, it is up to the Government to decide how to spend and how to be fiscally responsible and achieve results for kids to have the best start in life. As part of that, we have already extended paid parental leave from 14 to 18 weeks. That has been well received, and we will continue to look at it as this country continues to grow and become more fiscally strong.

The other thing we are doing is investing in other measures, such as extending free GP visits for children from 6 to 13—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am not sure whether the member was in the Chamber at the time, but I did give quite a general warning about the narrowness of new clause 6. I think that, having warned Opposition members about the narrowness, it should apply to everyone. So can we address this clause, not the second reading. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Although we can acknowledge that it is certainly a hard time for parents who have premature babies and babies with disabilities, there is provision for extending paid parental leave from 14 to 18 weeks. As we move forward as a country, we will again look at this issue, but we cannot afford to increase funding to 6 months’ paid parental leave at this point. Again, I acknowledge the hardships that families find themselves in, but there is support. There is support throughout the medical profession. Unfortunately, we cannot support this bill at this time.

It is my pleasure to make another contribution to the debate on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. As you have pointed out, we are debating only new clause 6, which is very specific in that it is a clause that amends, I guess, the length of leave and also narrows the criteria for those who are eligible for parental leave. All of the reasons that that has been done have been well traversed in this Committee. It is obviously with some reluctance from the original drafter of the bill that we are now looking at the consideration of that extended eligibility being only for those families that have one of three criteria: multiple births—multiple births during one gestation; that is clear in Supplementary Order Paper 15—premature births, or giving birth to a child who has a disability.

I want to ask a couple of questions based on those criteria, though, of the member in the chair, Sue Moroney. My colleague Chris Hipkins raised a few questions around this. I want to support those and add in a different one. New clause 6 states that this applies “to 1 or more children before 37 weeks of gestation, where the child or children survive birth for the duration of the parental leave payment; or to a child whose impairment would entitle the person to a government-funded disability support service.” Would that be within Ministry of Education guidelines or, for instance, Work and Income guidelines? Obviously, there are disability allowances that are within Work and Income that I think probably have broader criteria than you are likely to get within the very narrow scope the Ministry of Education applies to extra entitlements for children. So what are the criteria for that Government-funded disability support? I would hope they would be reasonably broad.

The other additional interesting issue, I guess, is that there are some impairments, or disabilities, that are not yet recognised by the Government or do not receive Government-funded support directly but have a significant effect on a parent or caregiver. One of two particular types of support that are now becoming a bit more frequent is for children who are born with foetal alcohol syndrome, for instance. The Ministry of Social Development is increasingly, I think, putting in additional support around caregivers who may be caring for children who are found to have foetal alcohol syndrome, but it is not well developed. It seems to be ad hoc. I do not believe there is a firm Government policy yet; there should be. The Health Committee, which did some excellent work under Paul Hutchison on the first 100 days of a child’s life, did look at the need for us to do more work around foetal alcohol syndrome and to formulate a plan. I think the country that has probably done the most and that has gone the furthest is Canada. It has a way of recognising and diagnosing that is not yet well established in New Zealand. It is a bit ad hoc but I would like to think that it would be eligible under this clause, so I ask for some clarification from the member in the chair as to whether or not she would anticipate that as well.

Equally, children who are perhaps born to parents who are on a methadone programme—it may not be that those parents have ongoing care of that child, as these children are frequently removed. I note that the clause would, of course, allow caregivers to be eligible for this as well, which I think is really important. Often these children are actually premature, so they would probably be covered that way. But those who would not be covered often remain hospitalised because of, essentially, the addiction they are born with and therefore withdraw from. That has additional costs as well. It would probably not be considered a Government-funded disability but it certainly has significant consequences. So did the member consider, for instance, whether the length of stay in hospital would become a criterion? Premature birth obviously indicates that, yes, that would be the case, but I know of families where children are born with heart conditions, for instance, that may not be considered a long-term disability, but it is a health impairment that at times requires lengthy hospitalisation, and I do think it is worthy of consideration.

I thank members for their contributions to the debate that we have had so far on new clause 6. I just wanted to put a little bit of context around why we have got clause 6 coming forward in the shape of a Supplementary Order Paper—in fact, two Supplementary Order Papers, which makes it quite difficult to debate—so that members could understand that, because it forms part of the history of this debate and what we have done with this bill.

Before I do that, can I just take the opportunity to acknowledge that I have had the first acknowledgment from the Government benches for bringing this issue forward. Gosh, it has taken almost 3 years to get that, but today, finally, a Government member actually said that this is a good debate for our country to be having. That is certainly a slight change in attitude from the Government benches, so I think that is worthwhile acknowledging.

We are debating these new clauses—well, this new clause, I should say, because this is the debate on clause 6—as two separate Supplementary Order Papers for the following reason. We had very good advice from officials at the Government Administration Committee. In fact, the select committee process on this bill was very robust. We had official advice from a range of ministries. It was really a very good example of having a whole-of-Government response to an initiative, because we had officials from the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, Treasury, and the Inland Revenue Department all in the room advising us for this select committee process. They were able to take my humble member’s bill, which I think initially had just five clauses in it—I thought I could get away with, you know, a two-sided piece of paper that would deliver 26 weeks’ paid parental leave and found that as a private member it was not quite that simple; almost, but not quite that simple.

New clause 6 was something that was discussed substantially at the select committee because the officials advised us that in drafting this bill what would be best would be to describe each of the three phases of the coming in of this bill. I had designed it so that the 26 weeks would not come in all in one financial year and that it would be staggered over the course of 3 years. The advice from the officials was that that was best done by separate clauses rather than actually lumping it all together in one clause as I had done.

In the normal path of things the select committee would have agreed that that was a very sensible thing to do, we would have reported back the bill, and it would already have had clause 6 in it as an amendment from the select committee. That could not happen, because of the politics that was being played in the select committee at that time. What in fact happened was that the National Party members asked me for an extension of time to report the bill back to the House because they wanted to consider accepting my proposal. I agreed because, although I sniffed the scent of a political game, I did not want to do anything that would disadvantage New Zealand families from having this opportunity to actually get 26 weeks’ paid parental leave.

So I took the National Party members at their word. I took them at their word because they said to me that if they made any changes to paid parental leave—any improvements—it would be done in my bill, in my name, because it was already in front of Parliament. What transpired is that they spent the next 2 months twiddling their thumbs, playing for time, using delaying tactics, not considering that option at all, and then they voted down the bill at select committee.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I think this is now either the third or fourth time that I have issued a warning to the Committee about the fact that this is a very narrow debate, and a historical going over of what happened at the select committee—not on these clauses—cannot possibly be in order. So can I ask the member in charge of the bill to come back to the very, very narrow debate that we are going to have, if it is to continue.

Sure; thank you for the advice and the guidance. I probably did get a little distracted because I was talking about the reasons why clause 6 is actually in a Supplementary Order Paper. It was because we could not conclude, as a select committee, that what we had previously agreed on would be some sensible amendments to the bill. We could not agree on that as a select committee, so I as a member had to bring them forward as a Supplementary Order Paper, and one of those was in fact clause 6.

Clause 6, of course, had to be amended again by another Supplementary Order Paper once I had determined as a member that I wanted to try to reach a compromise. That compromise has been traversed in the course of this debate. Members have asked me what the cost differentiation is of the compromise that is embodied in clause 6. Effectively it brings the cost of this bill down from $50 million in the first financial year to just $6 million in the first financial year.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am delighted to have an opportunity to talk about clause 6 in these Supplementary Order Papers 15 and 472. I do want to acknowledge the member Sue Moroney, whose Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill these Supplementary Order Papers are for, for showing, in a way, the incredible determination that is sometimes required to get things to happen, remembering that if clause 6 helps one family—one household, one baby—it is worth fighting for, even though it is not what was set out at the beginning. I think it is a credit to Sue Moroney that she has agreed to develop clause 6 with that in mind. I think there was a huge longing from right across Parliament that we do something much bigger and better, but this is what is happening.

I would like to address specifically in clause 6 the issues around children with an impairment. We have heard a lot about premature birth and multiple births and some about disability, but today is the International Day of Persons with Disabilities. I want to talk about children born with an impairment and how important clause 6 is to them and their families, and how a decent society—and we hear a lot about vulnerable this and vulnerable that in this Chamber—would look after these families first and would look after these families not only at a time of physical stress and cost but of huge psychic shock. I really do commend the member for recognising the importance of paid parental leave of 26 weeks for families whose child is born with or who develops an impairment, often as a result of birth trauma. Having seen other people with whom I have connected go through this—and I feel fortunate not to have gone through it myself—I know there is tremendous shock and grief when a child is born with an impairment.

The first thing that happens is the grief cycle and that takes a while to work through. It is a cycle of denial, anger, depression, fear—all of those things we experience when our hopes for our newborn child are shattered. Part of that is because as a society we do not celebrate the importance of children, no matter how different they are from each other, no matter how different or so-called not normal they are. We do not have a society that is particularly tolerant. I do believe that this clause is actually upholding and celebrating and recognising difference. I would never want to romanticise the experience for parents. The best thing we can do is acknowledge that there is a grief cycle that it takes time to go through before—and this is what usually happens—that family comes to some kind of terms.

But in order for that family to come to terms and start dealing with and living with the challenge that has been put out and recognising, loving, and celebrating their child as they are and what is needed for that child, they need the support of the State. They do not need to be going to work; they need to be at home. They need to have that financial support so that that grief cycle can be worked through, so that they can start looking for the social support, counselling, therapy, education, and understanding of exactly what it is that they are dealing with, because they do not know—it is all new. I had a connection whose child was born with Down’s syndrome, who is a beautiful child with much potential, but that initial stage was very painful. It was very hard on the parents and the family because, remember, it is not just the baby and the parents during that first stage; it is also the other siblings. There is a huge shock that has to be worked through.

Paid parental leave is not a luxury. It is not an expense we cannot afford. It is a total investment in making sure that those families can actually build a life. It is not very much to ask of the rest of us—those who have been fortunate enough, at that stage, to have healthy babies with no impairments—to provide that support. So I am fully in support of the idea of 26 weeks’ paid parental leave for a child whose impairment would entitle the person to Government-funded disability support. I think that is the very least we can do. If we do not and if we assume that parents are going to just adapt, there will be suffering, and there will also be opportunities missed. The parents should not be back at work when they are going through this process of trying to acknowledge what has happened and what needs to happen. So I am very much respecting the member today for acknowledging that and saying how important that is. Children born with an impairment can have a great life. I know this because—

I appreciate the opportunity to address new clause 6 in the two Supplementary Order Papers, and I thank the member Sue Moroney for explaining that there are two Supplementary Order Papers. I have not been particularly part of this debate, and I realised I was looking at the old one, not the new one, so we have got Supplementary Order Paper 15, which amends Supplementary Order Paper 472. New clause 6 replaces “16 weeks” with “22 weeks” in the provisions that relate to a person who gives birth to either two or more children as a result of one pregnancy or where the child is born with an impairment that would entitle that person to a Government-funded disability support service. The first that I noticed is that the amendment is from 16 weeks to 22 weeks. I note that the legislation, as it still is on Legislation.govt.nz, still says 14 weeks. I appreciate that this is the transition that the Government has actually followed from 14 to 18 weeks, but the 16 weeks do not kick in until July next year. I just want to check with the member that this is an appropriate amendment from 16 weeks to 22 weeks, given that the current provision is for 14 weeks, notwithstanding the fact that the Government has changed the law to 16 weeks. So that is just a matter of clarification. It would be useful to make sure that we are clear on that.

I am also interested to know why the 22 weeks and the 26 weeks were chosen. I appreciate the rationale that the member has given, given that the original intention was to shift to 26 weeks for all parents. But having a look around the world at overseas examples where there is extra provision given for multiple births, there seems to be quite a range in different countries as to what additional amount of time is given to parents who do have multiple births. Actually, I could not find a lot of evidence of extra time given to parents where the child is born with some form of impairment, so I would be interested to know what the evidence was that the member used to land on 22 weeks in the case of new clause 6(1) and 26 weeks in the case of new clause 6(2). Obviously, it is important, if we are going to narrow the focus of this legislation down—which is what new clause 6 does; it is a narrowing of the bill down to a smaller number of parents—that that is being done with some kind of evidence base. I know that the member wanted to use a strong evidence base in the wider bill. I think it is important, regardless of what the purpose of the narrowing is that clause 6 places upon the legislation, that that is still done with an evidence base. From my very quick reading, there seems to be quite a number of divergent views around the world about what an appropriate additional amount of time should be for people with multiple births.

I also raise the question whether the provision for children who suffer an impairment that would entitle them to Government-funded disability support is broad enough. I think another member raised the question of foetal alcohol syndrome. There is a range of impairments that will require much more additional attention from parents for those children who are not necessarily covered by legislation. I appreciate this is probably a matter of definition. It is a matter of having a clause here that is easy to define and that has a narrow scope. I appreciate a lot of this has to do with the narrowing of the scope to reduce the cost of the legislation, but I do wonder whether the member took that into consideration and whether there was any consideration for those impairments that fall outside of that very narrow scope.

There is also the question of 37 weeks’ gestation. I have not heard yet an explanation as to why that number of 37 weeks was chosen. I am sure there are good reasons for it, but that, again, is a specific number that has been chosen. There are examples of children who have been born viable after 37 weeks but still come with the challenges of being premature.

I move, That the question be now put.