Employment Standards Legislation Bill

We first turn to the Employment Standards Legislation Bill, and the question is that Part 1 stand part. This is debate on clauses 3 to 81 and schedules 1 and 2.

Today is International Women’s Day, and so it seems right and proper that we are here debating some positive moves on paid parental leave. We are doing that in Part 1 of this bill, so I think that is very appropriate. Paid parental leave has been a bit like that in this House. It seems that every day that we are debating this in the House—whether the Government is for it or against it; it seems to flip-flop around a bit on it—seems to be on a day that is incredibly important to the issue that we are debating, and today, International Women’s Day, is no different.

For my initial contribution on this bill, I would like to focus on replaced section 71DA. It is an amendment in clause 56 of this bill, and it is something that I feel very proud to have had a part in bringing about because this amendment will make a big difference to many, many families, actually, in New Zealand—the families whose baby has been born pre-term, a prematurely born baby. What the Labour Party has been able to do is to drive a position where the whole Parliament is about to actually extend paid parental leave—give additional paid parental leave—to exactly those families.

I particularly want to pay my respects to a woman by the name of Donnelle Belanger-Taylor because I actually think that if there is one person who is responsible for this—and I know the Government is going to try to lay claim to it and say that it is its idea and the ACT Party will say it was its idea, but the parliamentary record will show that it was actually a Labour Party amendment that was the first idea around getting additional paid parental leave for families in this situation. So I talk about Donnelle Belanger-Taylor because she is a woman who came and gave a submission to a select committee, which first put this issue on the table. I think this is a great story to be told because this is a story of how participating in democracy by making a submission to a select committee can make a big difference. And it can make a big difference to a whole range of families.

So, in this instance, the simple submission that Donnelle Belanger-Taylor came along and gave to a select committee about the experience that she had as a mother of twins has ended up bringing about this change. She told her story. She talked about how traumatic it was and how difficult it was for her to be back in paid employment when her twins were 5 months old. The problem that it created for her was so big that she resigned from her job because she could not make it work. If she was not up feeding one twin or the other throughout the night—she was not getting much sleep, then she was trying to go to work the next day, dropping the twins off at early childhood education, going back on two or three occasions throughout the day to feed them, and then going home on public transport and doing it all over again, 5 days a week. She simply found that she could not continue to do it, and so she resigned from her job.

She was back before the select committee when her twins were 5 years of age to tell us that she had still not made her way back into paid employment. She had lost her connection with her employment at that point in time because it was just too hard. This caused me to think about not only the plight of families where there is the joy of a multiple birth but the plight of families where there is a prematurely born baby or a baby born with disabilities. There is a need to have additional paid parental leave so that the bonding and attachment can be formed, so that families under more pressure are able to actually sustain that and able to focus on developing that bonding and attachment with their babies. So that was the beginning of the story that brings about replaced section 71DA in Part 1.

What happened next, I think, is pretty instructive about our parliamentary environment, because I proposed an amendment along those lines to a bill I had before this Parliament in an effort to secure the Government’s support for that measure. Actually, it was not much more than 12 months ago that I proposed that amendment—probably about 14 months ago. What did the Government do then? It voted against it—it voted against it just 14 months ago. And not only did it vote against this particular measure just 14 months ago but it also made sure that the amendment could not pass.

What I did was I went to secure the vote of as many MPs as I could to get that amendment through for those families, and I was one vote short. I knew that I could not look those families in the eye and say that I had done everything possible to get their needs addressed if I did not go and look at every MP and ask for their vote. That meant that I ended up in the office of David Seymour, asking for his support. I want to say that, in an MMP environment, was this not a lesson? Actually, David Seymour said “Yeah, that’s an entirely reasonable thing to think about and to support.”, and he said that he would support it. So suddenly, that amendment had the numbers in the House, 14 months ago, to go through.

So the truth is that if the National Government had not meddled and got in the way, this provision could have been in 14 months ago, and the prematurely born babies and their families, for the last 14 months, could have had exactly this provision in place. But the National Government played politics. It played politics instead, and so here we are today with all those families in the interim period missing out on this provision.

What is the provision? The provision is that if a baby is born before 37 weeks’ gestation—that is the medically accepted definition of full term; so a baby is full term if it is born at 37 weeks of gestation or beyond—they are technically pre-term. What this part of the bill does is it says that for every week that that baby is born prematurely, the parents of that baby will be able to have an additional week of paid parental leave. And that is going to be a big relief for those families.

Think about being in the situation of having, sometimes surprisingly, a baby born early. Sometimes people know their baby is coming early, but often they do not, and it just happens. Suddenly you have finished work when you did not expect to, suddenly you have a baby earlier than you expected to, and suddenly, and quite frequently, the prematurely born baby is in hospital for a prolonged period of time. Often the parent has to take time off work from that point onwards, even though their baby may not come out of hospital for 3 or 4 weeks.

What happens quite frequently is that under the provisions that we have currently in this country, those families are forced to go back into paid employment before their baby is, really, at the age of 4 or 5 months, with where the paid parental leave provisions are now. These are the babies that probably need a lot of support. They need that extra bonding time, and certainly their families need additional time to prepare, because, in many instances, they have not been prepared for this early birth, and in many instances there are complications that come with the fact that this child has been born early.

So it is great to see, on International Women’s Day, that this going to be addressed. In fact, it will come into effect on 1 April. Should this bill pass through all its stages this week, this provision will come in from 1 April this year.

I am very proud of the role that Labour has played in making this happen, because there is no doubt that this would not have happened if it was not for the Labour Party pushing this agenda of extending paid parental leave. In this instance, it was joined by and informed by a fantastic young mum by the name of Donnelle Belanger-Taylor, who came along to have her say in our parliamentary process and who has changed and improved the lives of thousands of New Zealand children as a result. It is a great celebration on International Women’s Day to think about how one woman made such a difference for children throughout this country, and I really want to celebrate that.

But the downside of this is that if it was not for the politics being played by National over paid parental leave and over families and the support they need, for goodness’ sake, then we would have had this measure a good 14 months ago. It is very sad for those families, and there are many of them who have had prematurely born babies in the meantime.

It is a pleasure to follow on from Sue Moroney and her contribution on this bill because I think it is widely acknowledged that the huge amount of debate and discussion on paid parental leave that we are, rightly, having in this Parliament has in a large part been driven by Sue Moroney and the Labour Party, which has supported her in that campaign. Even though we have been unable to reach consensus on elements of paid parental leave—most notably, the Labour Party still believes, obviously, that 26 weeks is ideal. Actually, to a certain extent I believe that National probably agrees that it is ideal—probably; maybe I am being a touch generous—but it has continued to argue that, in its mind, the cost-benefit analysis does not add up. Well, that is where we have a definite difference in opinion.

On this side of the House, we believe that it is one of those investing-to-save things when it comes to investing in mums and babies, and that we all benefit from that investment as a society. So as much as we are very pleased to see some of these amendments today, I think it is still important to use the opportunity to say, look, we would have been happy if Part 1 had an extension of time and if we were at that ultimate ideal of 26 weeks, because it is what the international evidence and advice suggests to us that we should be pursuing. As a party—

💬 Sue Moroney: And we have an amendment that does exactly that.

And, of course, because we fundamentally believe in that, we will still be pushing amendments that make that point—you never know, perhaps David Seymour might like to support that, again—and perhaps also amendments on multiple births, as well, which is an issue that we still have concerns around.

This is the point where I always pay tribute to my nana, who had not just one multiple birth but two multiple births within a period of 4 years. I challenge anyone not to grimace at the idea of having four children of that age—two multiple births—and to keep your sanity at the same time. So there are obvious reasons why we continue to push. Although we have acknowledged, again, the need for support for those pre-term babies, that is where we would like to see those extra provisions go in terms of 26 weeks, as well.

I want to come to some of the amendments. I am not a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, but in reading some of the amendments that it has made, you can tell that a lot of good work has been done by this select committee. There was a huge number of submissions—12,260 submissions—on this bill. A number of those, of course, would have related to the zero-hour contract elements of the bill, which we will come to, but Part 1 does not cover that. Part 1 is focused on parental leave and payment entitlements. You can see by that work that there has been thorough consideration.

I want to come first of all to clause 16 in Part 1, where the select committee has considered the fact that this bill broadens out eligibility to include the term “primary carer”. Of course, before this the test under the law has had some constraints in terms of who is able to access parental leave provisions—biological mothers, spouses, partners, and formal adoptive parents. But the term “primary carer” does broaden the eligibility to individuals who assume primary, non-temporary responsibility for raising a child. I think we have to acknowledge that in New Zealand now, in our modern family structures, we do often have a range of arrangements when it comes to the care of a child, and we do need to make sure that those who are in that primary care role are able to access paid parental leave provisions. I can think of some constituency cases where children have been whāngai-ed. It may not have been a formal arrangement, but it makes sense for that individual, for instance, to be eligible for these provisions.

In fact, the research now tells us that although biological parents have a significant role—obviously, and by default—actually, the most important thing for a newborn is the ability to form a bond with a consistent primary carer in their life, and the label of that carer is not the relevant part in terms of the relationship that that child is able to form with that primary carer. So I do think that the select committee was right to broaden out that term. We would not want to exclude individuals, but we have to make sure that we are careful that it does not become so broad that we are including people who are, for instance, home-care providers. For instance, the PORSE Networks of this world would not want to be eligible in that regard. So I think probably making sure that that is not the case is certainly advisable. It is those who have that permanent carer role.

I want to come to the additional entitlement for primary carers of pre-term babies. Of course, as Sue Moroney has already laid out, the additional leave payment entitlement for primary carers of premature babies born before the end of the 36th week of gestation is a welcome amendment to this bill, for all of the reasons that she outlined. Of course, that was at the point where we realised we were not going to achieve 26 weeks. At that point it was about trying to have the maximum effect for those who needed it most. So it really was the politics of Opposition—recognising that there was a difference that could still be made for those who really needed it, even if we were not going to reach our goal.

Just, I think, for the sake of clarity, it is worth pointing out the way that the select committee determined that entitlement that should be accessed, which is set out in new section 71DA in clause 56, and then consequential amendments. The way that that is structured will “allow primary carers one week of pre-term baby payment for each week that their child was born prematurely (to a maximum of 13 weeks). The payment would end when the primary carer returned to work, or at the end of the week that would have been the 36th week of gestation (whichever comes first).”

I think it is really important to note that a parent who has a premature baby is much more likely, of course, to experience longer periods with that child in hospital. I had a friend not that long ago who experienced that exact situation, and the absolute chaos that then ensued for that family—it was extraordinarily difficult to balance both caring and being present for that baby while it was in hospital with care arrangements for the remainder of the family who were at home. Under usual terms that would eat into the ability of that parent to then have that longer period post-birth with the usual paid parental leave provisions.

This is a practical measure that can be taken to assist those families who are not experiencing the same start in life for their family and their new baby as those that are going full term. It acknowledges that those babies are at greater risk and that there is that additional pressure for those families. So I think it is an excellent amendment that we are seeing, and once again I pay tribute to Sue Moroney, in particular, and acknowledge that the role of MMP sometimes—well, not sometimes; it should be all the time in this House. It is the ability of individual smaller parties to recognise when there is something—regardless of the coalition or relationship they might have with the governing party—that deserves support on the merits of amendments that are put forward in this House, regardless of which party produces them.

It would have been helpful if that could have just been done at the time that the bill came forward in the name of the member that it came forward with. Putting those politics aside, if that individual member thinks that it is a good idea, it should be backed. Putting that aside, we are now in a situation where we have the ability to support that collectively. I would not want to add up the number of families who have missed out because of that little bit of politics, though, because, ultimately, there will be a number who will not receive the assistance that this bill offers them because a party who has been named chose not to support it at the time that it came up but to wait. So that is a shame.

But ultimately we celebrate the progress that has been made whilst continuing to advocate for what the international evidence supports—that is, 26 weeks for babies. Twenty-six weeks for babies, because they are the ultimate ones who will benefit from the ability of that primary carer to be there with that child. Ultimately, we always support the idea of that being mum, of course, for breastfeeding reasons. That is why we have always pushed for 26 weeks, but we acknowledge the range of circumstances that come into play such as whāngai adoption. So we are very supportive of those amendments.

It is a great delight to stand and take a call on Part 1 of the Employment Standards Legislation Bill, the part that deals with paid parental leave, on this International Women’s Day. I just also want to note that it seems incredibly appropriate that we are marking International Women’s Day with, hopefully, getting closer to the passage of this parental leave extension.

The Green Party members are supportive of the provisions in this bill dealing with paid parental leave. We note that it increases paid parental leave to 18 weeks. Although our policy is to extend paid parental leave to 13 months, we note that this is a step in the right direction, and we are fully supportive of the 26 for Babies campaign that has arisen from subsequent members’ bills in the name of Sue Moroney. I want to pay tribute to Ms Moroney for raising the whole issue of parental leave in this House. I believe, as do others in the House, that it was her work with this member’s bill that meant that we have had a shift in the number of weeks that families are entitled to take with the birth of a newborn.

I also want to acknowledge that it was her pragmatic approach to attempting to get her last member’s bill through the House that meant that she brought back to the House an amended bill that was to extend paid parental leave to families where there had been a multiple birth or a birth of a child with disabilities or a pre-term baby. It is great that the House has picked up the provisions around extending paid parental leave beyond the 18 weeks to those families where a pre-term birth has occurred, and we support that totally. I will just put on record what that means. It means that if a family has an unexpected birth before 36 weeks’ gestation, they can access a week for every week they are pre-term from then up to, I think, in total 13 weeks. It takes it to a total of 31 weeks if you include the 18 weeks’ paid parental leave.

We are totally supportive of that, but we are concerned that those who do have greater needs, like families with multiple births and like families with babies born with disabilities, are left out of this. So we hope that this will be addressed by the member’s bill that Sue Moroney is dealing with at the moment.

We have had some concerns about the provisions in the Employment Standards Legislation Bill that were not necessarily part of the submission process—in fact, I do not think anybody actually submitted on it in any great way. We are concerned about the whole area of keeping-in-touch hours. I do not really have a clear understanding of where that came from, except that it was raised as a good idea. The concern we have is, essentially, that with those keeping-in-touch hours there could be a feeling of coercion on the part of the parent who is taking leave to actually come back to work when they do not want to.

We acknowledge that the keeping-in-touch hours are just 40 hours that a parent can elect to go to work and that will not be taken off their leave provisions. However, we are concerned that there may be coercion or a feeling of duty that compels a woman—particularly a woman—to go back to work. I know from my own experience of taking paid parental leave—way back in the day, when it was quite an unusual thing to have—that you do feel there is a real necessity not only to stay in touch but also to make sure that your bosses do not forget you. I hope that things have changed in the 20 years since I took parental leave, but, sadly, I am not sure that they have.

We support the parental leave provisions in the bill. We absolutely support the fact that they have been extended to casual and seasonal workers as eligible employees, as we believe that paid parental leave is actually a right that all families should be able to access, not just those who seem to be in permanent paid work. I guess we will get on to hours of work in the next part of the bill. So we absolutely support that.

We would actually support increasing paid parental leave beyond 26 weeks, to 13 months. The reason for that is not only about the establishment of a bonded family and/or breastfeeding for the first 6 months but it also ensures that women are in a position to feel that they are able to take the proper amount of time off without stress and then be able to go back to work. Currently, New Zealand is 24th out of the 25 OECD countries in terms of the paid parental leave provisions that we have. I believe that we should be investing in families. And if we want to compete internationally for a skilled workforce, then we should be ensuring that we have provisions that encourage women to continue working and that protect their employment while they are on leave for an extended amount of time.

I will leave my comments to, basically, this part of this bill at this stage. I just want to reiterate that although we support this, we do have concerns about the keeping-in-touch hours. We can see how they could work in practice, and positively in some cases, but we are also concerned that there could be an element of coercion involved and people feeling like they have to stay in touch.

All in all, this is a step forward and we will, of course, support it. We wish it would go further and, hopefully, we will be back here soon—preferably before the next International Women’s Day—to actually achieve further extensions to paid parental leave.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in the Committee of the whole House on the Employment Standards Legislation Bill, talking about Part 1 and, specifically, the paid parental leave aspect. Look, I was not here last week when we had the second reading, but I did watch with great intent the speeches in the House that day and saw the solidarity that I thought that all parties had with regard to certain sections of this bill—namely, Part 1, to do with that paid parental leave.

I do not think there is a single person in this Chamber or around New Zealand who would not like to see this go through the House, so New Zealand First does support Part 1, with the extension of paid parental leave from 16 weeks to 18 weeks. I think also around this country we would like to see a change in the breakdown and the disconnect that has been slowly coming into families because of families being forced back to work early and because of people needing to get themselves employed—gainfully, obviously—and working to get some money in for their families. We would love to see them spend more time bonding and connecting with their family, which this bill does go towards doing. I do not think it goes quite far enough, but it is a step in the right direction, and New Zealand First certainly supports that.

There are a number of things in Part 1 that I think are also very commendable. Despite the fact that there is a lot of support in what has been said already, I believe, and New Zealand First believes, that the keeping-in-touch hours is a fantastic methodology to enable career mums or dads, or primary caregivers, to ensure that they can fulfil the requirements in their roles, whether they be professional or otherwise. It is not an onerous amount of time for a family—we are talking about 40 hours spread out over that 18-week period—and for those premature babies, the keeping-in-touch hours are unavailable after the 28 days, or the first month, of that baby being born. So this bill actually enables the connection between the mother, or the primary caregiver, and her child, which is absolutely essential. Certainly, I just go back to saying that we need to be doing more to ensure that one income is enough to sustain a family, so that we do not have this disconnect and this breakdown through society that is endemic, and is the start of a pandemic if we do not address that issue, but I digress.

The second part, which I think is also very good, is the clarity and the discretion that is given around the definition of “primary carer”. This, I think, has tidied up some areas that have been a little bit ambiguous. It is allowing the parent, whether it be the birth mother or father or whether it be a nominated person, to be the primary caregiver for that child. I think it just gives some freedom for some of the different family nucleuses, if you like, that do not have the standard situation of what we would consider to be a normal family model. So giving clarity to “primary carer” here certainly does tidy that up and it gives some determination around it.

The introduction of the premature baby allowance is, I think, a great step in the right direction. It is acknowledging the fact that the parents are under some stress when it comes to babies who come early unexpectedly and that some changes need to be made in their everyday lives to adjust for this baby who has popped out and said: “Hello, I’m ready.” So to enable those parents to be given the pre-term baby payments as well as allowing them to spend some more time at home without that encroaching on to that 18-week paid parental leave is, I think, a very, very good thing in this bill, as well.

The paid parental leave is great when it comes to including seasonal and casual workers. There is a need for casual employment agreements—and we are going to get to that as we get to Part 2 and Part 3. We have certainly got some Supplementary Order Papers and some amendments to put forward, and we hope that they get supported. We would hope that we can get this bill 100 percent supported by New Zealand First, and as it progresses through the Committee of the whole House stage, we will certainly be having some discussions about that.

I now get to an area that I have some concerns about. We are talking about clause 34, which inserts new Part 3A in the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act, which is about when it comes to negotiated carer leave. This is a final point that I am going to make with regard to primary carer leave and negotiated carer leave. When it comes to new section 30E, “Grounds for refusal of request by employer”, it sort of jumps out at me. It says here that “(1) An employer may refuse a request for negotiated carer leave only if the employer determines that the request cannot be accommodated on 1 or more of the grounds specified in subsection (2).”, and the list in subsection (2) is: “(a) inability to reorganise work among existing staff: (b) inability to recruit additional staff: (c) detrimental impact on quality: (d) detrimental impact on performance: (e) planned structural changes: (f) burden of additional costs: (g) detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand.”

I think that would just about cover every single excuse that an employer could give to not allow the negotiated carer leave to take place. You have pretty much written a piece of legislation here, it has been put in front of us, and the employer has been given every single opportunity to say: “I’m sorry, that leave is not going to be given.” I think that needs to be looked at.

I look forward to taking further calls as the debate in the Committee of the whole House goes forward. New Zealand First does support the paid parental leave aspects in Part 1. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to stand and talk about this bill, and I have not said that recently for a number of bills that have gone through this House, because I think this bill makes a real difference to a number of people in society who need a little bit of a help up every now and again—not a handout, but a help up. I take my hat off to Sue Moroney because she has championed this tirelessly against the odds, and we are nearly there. We are not quite where we need to be, at 26 hours.

💬 Hon Members: Weeks.

Sorry—26 weeks. We are not even close to where they are in Germany, which has 156 weeks, but we are slowly, slowly getting there.

One of the things I do like about the bill is the meaning of “primary carer”. I think well gone are the days now when the primary carer was thought of as the mother. It was the mother’s responsibility to do this, that, and everything else, and the father did whatever fathers do, like go out to work—that is an outdated model of my parents’ generation. I think now, in this day and age, when men and women are treated equally and there are a number of men and a number of women who play a very important role in a child’s upbringing, it should not be primarily left to the mother. It has to be a discussion that is had within the family, and whatever decision the family makes, it is good to see that it is respected by law.

The other thing I also like about this bill is it is not talking just about the mother and the mother’s partner, or the mother’s spouse. Again, we are talking about the 21st century reality, where often aunties take the role of primary carer, or grandparents, and so they are also entitled to the leave under this bill, which I think is good to see, actually—it is good to see.

I would like to talk about the keeping-in-touch days. The one thing I have just a slight concern about—I mean, I understand it, but I always have a slight concern, and I will raise it here just as a point. In clause 55, subsection (2) of new section 71CE, “Keeping-in-touch days”, says: “An employee may perform 1 or more hours of paid work for his or her employer on a keeping-in-touch day …” if there is an agreement between the employee and the employer. What I would be loath to see is any pressure being put on an employee by an employer because it says in legislation that this is allowed to happen. I know there is no such word as “must” or anything like that; it is all about “may” and what is possible. In one respect it is good to cover off these situations in a bill to make sure there is no ambiguity—i.e., if a primary carer does go back to work for 1 day or a week, or something like this, then that does provide ambiguity if it is not dealt with in the bill—but, conversely, what it can do is it can set an expectation that an employee may feel pressured to have to meet.

I just want to put that out there, but, again, I think it is good to clarify this because it does deal with 21st century reality. I know that when my wife had my last two children, she found this quite frustrating because although she obviously loved the children to death, there were times when she did want to keep in touch, but under the previous terms and conditions there was a lot of ambiguity that made it difficult to understand. I am pleased that that is there, but I just do signal that—there is no doubt about that.

Another thing that I am pleased to see—this is clause 68, new section 71N, “Annual adjustment of parental leave payment rates”. What it does—which, again, is very important—is it outlines what will happen in terms of rate movements. What it says is that at 1 July—well, there will be a percentage movement on which an adjustment is based. I quote from section 71N(2)(a): “the percentage movement on which the adjustment is based must be the annual percentage movement in the February average ordinary time weekly earnings (employees) immediately before the 1 July date …”, but the thing I do really like about this is that paragraph (b) says: “if, … there is a downward percentage movement in average ordinary time weekly earnings … [then] no adjustment takes effect …”.

In essence, what it is saying is that if for some unknown reason the average employee earnings drop, then we will not see a corresponding drop in the rates that caregivers on the 18 weeks’ leave will receive. I think that is really important, because when you are planning to have a baby, as many of us with families know, it is quite an exhaustive process. It is not just about what we are going to do, who is going to look after it; it is also about trying to budget. This is why I think this clause is most important. Thank you.

I want to concentrate my call on the extension of eligibility around some critical areas: seasonal and casual employees, whāngai adoptions, Home for Life parents, and also extending paid parental leave to parents who have children who are born pre-term. On that note, I would just like to welcome the newest member of our extended whānau, Baden Pekera, who was born about 4 weeks ago at the tender gestation of about 35 weeks. I understand from mum that he is just about due to go home any day now.

I bring Baden into the conversation because, had this bill been passed earlier, his mum, Phoebe, would have been able to take advantage of the fact that he was born pre-term and have an extension of paid parental leave for the weeks that he was pre-term. He was around 5 weeks pre-term, so his mum would have had access to 5 weeks on top of the increased eligibility to 18 weeks.

I think that is an important thing to talk about. It is very stressful giving birth in any situation. Having a baby is a big deal, but when baby is not quite through all of the cooking that is required, it can—

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Not quite baked.

Yes, not quite done—a little under-baked. It is quite a stressful time for parents, and for mums particularly—and to be able to have that extra support and to know that you can support your child, your baby, through to the period of time when they are ready to go home.

I talk about my own experiences many, many, many years ago when my own daughter was born 7 weeks early. The stress that is placed upon new parents to support pre-term babies is quite significant. You are often very vigilant around being there, because baby will be in hospital for some period of time until their bodies are developed enough to be able to cope with being at home full time without the support of medical staff and nurses. So it is quite a stressful time for parents.

I know that in my own experience, being mindful of my daughter being so pre-term that she had not developed the ability to suckle, we were tube-feeding her for a period of weeks. I remember getting the call at 11 or 11.25 one night, after I had gone home after a day at the hospital with her, to say that the reflex had come on. So I dashed into hospital—I can see you nodding, Dr Reti; you know what I am saying—to take advantage of the fact that she had reached a developmental milestone. That is often what happens with pre-term babies. They are not fully able to function completely independently of some intervention, so it is really important for parents to have the ability to be there to support their babies until such time as they are well enough to go home and be cared for by mum and dad at home. So I think that is very important.

The other aspect I want to talk about is whāngai adoptions. I am pleased to see that they are being recognised, because within Māori and Pacific families they are a very normal way of ensuring that children have the opportunity to be brought up by people who may not have the ability to conceive children on their own. So it really provides that every child has a parent who is appropriate and can take over the care of those children.

Within my own family there are many, many occasions where whāngai has been used to support children who may have parents who are unable to care for their children, or who may actually have a lot of children and want to just share the love a little bit. It is not unusual in Pacific families, particularly, for parents to have children specifically to provide for a childless couple.

I know of one case in particular where a friend of mine had been in contact with a couple who had a young child. They were having some difficulty in raising the child. There were some external issues placing some pressure on the children. I remember her coming to work on a Monday morning and saying to me: “Yesterday I went to lunch and came home with a baby.” My first reaction was: “What are you doing at work?”. Over a period of time we negotiated how she would be able to take some time out to bond with this child. These are not unusual situations, and it is good to see that Parliament has recognised these unusual, perhaps, ways of supporting families through whāngai adoptions. I am very pleased to see that as part of this bill.

I just want to touch on, in the rest of my call, some of the issues that have been raised around keeping-in-touch hours. I completely concur with the concerns that have been raised. It is, and can be, a very, very useful mechanism for working mums who have established careers to have an opportunity to maintain contact not only with the workplace but with any new workforce development or training or professional development that is going on and to maintain contact with new ways of working, new technologies, and new people, even, who may be starting on a team. So I think it is an important aspect.

I do also mirror the concerns about who should determine whether a new parent should actually have the keeping-in-touch hours. There has been some concern raised about the issue that it is done by negotiation between employer and employee. But I am of the mind that, really, it should be at the choice of the employee, if they wish to do that, because there may be some things that happen within that paid parental leave time that may mean that they are unable to take advantage of the opportunities of these keeping-in-touch hours.

So I am concerned, around this particular aspect, that we do not lose sight of the fact that paid parental leave is primarily around supporting parents to be at home to care for their children, and that must be the prime reason that they are taking the leave. Any perceived pressure that may be applied by employers needs to be taken out of the equation by ensuring that the employee is able to direct that completely themselves.

Just in saying that, there are very useful situations when keeping-in-touch hours can be used and can be prescribed, and I think that it is a useful mechanism to ensure that when that parent is ready to go back to the workplace, they are as ready to pick up their work as they can be. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to speak in favour of Part 1 of the Employment Standards Legislation Bill, and also to note my support for the amendment in the name of Sue Moroney, which I am sure she is looking forward to addressing with a call shortly.

I see these changes to our paid parental leave scheme as being the natural evolution of something that was initially, 15 years ago—back in 2001, when it was first being debated by this House—a big, bold, and, some would say, scary new programme that did not have the universal support that it enjoys in the House now. When one is introducing big, bold, audacious new programmes such as this in the way that the Labour Government was back in 2001, one has to start somewhere and one has to start with a programme that is going to garner the maximum possible support. I note that back in 2001 it was not just Labour and the Alliance that voted in favour of paid parental leave; it was also the Green Party and the New Zealand First Party. It is pleasing to see that those parties have been consistent in their support for paid parental leave over the years.

Naturally, these programmes do evolve. Labour extended the availability of parental leave to 14 weeks. We extended it to self-employed people. We felt over the last few years that it really is time to extend the provision of paid parental leave out to 26 weeks. That is what the science tells us we should be aiming for at this stage, and it allows for greater opportunities for the child and their parent, who is usually mum, but often dad, or—as we are extending it in this legislation—other primary caregivers as well. That is important, and the science tells us we should be doing this, so it is pleasing that the Government has seen fit to do this. The other broad comment I would make is that the reason we are doing this now—and other members have noted this—is the very effective campaigning that has been carried out by the 26 for Babies campaign, that has been carried out by the Labour Party, and that has been carried out by Sue Moroney in making sure that paid parental leave remains on the agenda and that the need to extend both its eligibility and the period of time for which people can get paid parental leave remains on the agenda.

This bill does a number of things. One thing that has not been addressed too much in the debate so far is that it extends the entitlement to paid parental leave to workers who are in more precarious employment arrangements such as casual agreements and seasonal agreements. That is important, and we on this side of the Chamber absolutely support that—we agree. That was a natural evolution that was probably always going to happen, and it is about time that it did happen.

It is particularly important that it happens in the context of what is happening in our labour market right now. Over 25 percent of the new jobs created since 2009 are, in fact, temporary work. They are casual, they are part-time, or they are zero-hour contracts—and we will get to that later on this evening—but they are not permanent part-time jobs. So, as more and more of our workforce finds itself in that type of precarious work, we have to ensure that these types of entitlements are extended to that workforce, or otherwise what actually happens is we get a shrinking number of people who are entitled to paid parental leave and to other minimum entitlements in our employment law if we provide those entitlements only to people who are in that traditional form—that very good form—of work, which is the permanent part-time role as opposed to the more temporary and more precarious types of work. I think it is important that we make this change now, as we are seeing more and more people moving into those types of roles.

Part 1 of the bill does also allow for more flexibility in the way that paid parental leave is taken—in particular, the concept of keeping-in-touch days. I really like this idea. I like the idea that people who are on paid parental leave and who wish to be able to come back into work every now and again to keep in touch, to attend training days, or just to keep their working brains fresh and maybe even, dare I say it, have a break from the work that is going on at home because, goodness knows, I think everybody in the House would agree that, actually, the work that goes on at home is often harder than the work that goes on in the workplace. I think this is a very good idea. Sue Moroney has an excellent amendment that just tweaks those keeping-in-touch days to make sure that the legislation does not create a loophole and does not create an opportunity to exploit or to put pressure on workers. I think it is a good amendment. That is an excellent idea and is a good way to improve the flexibility of this scheme.

We have heard a lot this evening about the extension of paid parental leave to the parents of pre-term babies. Again, it is a very, very good idea, but let it not be forgotten where that idea came from. It came from the fact that Sue Moroney was prepared to do absolutely anything to get this House to support legislation that would improve outcomes for parents and babies. Even when this House was prepared to support 26 weeks for babies but the Government was going to use its veto power on that, Sue Moroney said: “Look, if we cannot get 26 weeks and if the Government is not prepared to agree to that, let’s at least apply that to the parents of pre-term babies.” The Government was not prepared to do it when it was sponsored by a Labour member, but it is prepared to do it as a Government bill—so be it. We will support it. We on this side are not quite as churlish as those members on the other side are. It is a good idea and this Committee should vote for it, and it does not matter whose idea it is.

This is a good extension of paid parental leave, as I said. I personally see it as being nothing more than a natural evolution of this scheme. We have had paid parental leave—it is 15 years since we first started debating the concept of having paid parental leave in New Zealand. It has gone from something that divided this House. It has gone from being something that the National Party and the ACT Party voted against to being something that we are all in agreement about. Sometimes you have got to have Labour and the parties of the left actually being prepared to be progressive, prepared to be the ground-breakers on this, and prepared to take the slings and arrows that will be hurled in our direction. We know that the conservative parties always catch up on this, and now it is great that this House is working in a united fashion to extend these provisions of paid parental leave. There is more work to do. We will get to 26 weeks, eventually—not tonight, but we will get there eventually—and this is a good step along that path.

I am going to hear Sue Moroney, who has got an amendment. I will hear Sue Moroney.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and in fact I do intend to speak to the two amendments that I have brought forward under Part 1 of the Employment Standards Legislation Bill. I was hoping and waiting, really, for the members on the Government side to get up and talk about how important paid parental leave is to them, but I think their silence on this shows that what we have been saying on this side of the Chamber is absolutely true—they have been forced down this path. It is not something that they would have naturally come to by themselves without an awful lot of pressure going on.

So it is all kudos, really, to the people who have made submissions, the people who have signed petitions, and the people of New Zealand who have really got in behind, understanding what a wise investment it is in this country’s future if we put a little bit of taxpayer funding into supporting those early months of a baby’s development. New Zealanders absolutely get this in a way that the Government does not really—we get to save money. The rest of us, as taxpayers, stop spending money on the bad outcomes, on the bad stuff—on the children being admitted to hospital unnecessarily, on the children going through remedial education processes unnecessarily, and on building more and more prisons unnecessarily. We can stop spending money on all that bad stuff if we get this right. The Government is not quite there yet but, look, it is making a good impression of it.

I have two amendments. The first is to do with—the first one I want to address, at least—these keeping-in-touch hours. I have got to say that there is a bill in my name that is similar but not the same. Obviously, it extends paid parental leave to what it should be—26 weeks—so that is the first difference in it. But the second one is that it introduces a concept like keeping-in-touch hours, but it calls it work-contact hours. I have got to say that the title “keeping-in-touch hours” just seems a little icky to me. It just feels—you know, going back to work and the touchy-feely thing—a little bit icky. But anyway, that is what it is called in this bill, and the concept I do agree with, if not the title that those members have given it.

However, I think it does need some protections around it. This is the ability for parents—mostly women, in fact—to go back to work during the course of their paid parental leave period and to not suffer the consequence that they would today of actually having their paid parental leave payments stopped. That would be the impact if a woman today was on paid parental leave and she went back for, let us say, a training day. Maybe there is a training course that has become available in her workplace that is a once in a lifetime or a once-a-year opportunity and she does not want to miss out on that, and she goes back and she is paid for the time that she is there for that training course, which is up to 40 hours under this provision.

I want to ensure, and the Labour Party wants to ensure, that it is at the worker’s request, at the employee’s request, and at the mother’s request, because it is the mother—or the parent who is on paid parental leave—who, we believe, will make the assessment as to whether it is in her best interests, the best interests of her family, and the best interests of the child. Because that, from the Labour Party’s perspective, is the lens through which we see every piece of policy and every piece of legislation: is this in the best interests of the child?

We firmly believe that what the bill currently says is that it is just by this mutual agreement between employee and employer. In the real world what we know is that the power imbalance that exists between employee and employer is such that we could see the occasion when this might be forced upon the parent, where the parent does not want to go back and do those keeping-in-touch hours, but the employer puts a lot of pressure on. Those of us who have been working parents know the guilt that is already associated with being a working parent. It can be very difficult at times. You sometimes feel that you are not doing 100 percent what you need to be doing at home, and sometimes you do not feel that you are doing 100 percent what you need to be doing at work.

So in this environment with that guilt that already exists, we in the Labour Party believe it needs an additional protection. The amendment that we are proposing—and we look forward to other parties supporting this—is not a hard thing to do, but it is the right thing to do. It is to ensure that the application for keeping-in-touch hours comes from the parent, because we know that they are going to be the person in the best position of the decision making that is going to have the best interests of their child at heart, and that is what is of most importance—[Bell rung] Mr Chair.

I am going to call Stuart Nash.

Sorry, Sue.

💬 Sue Moroney: That’s all right. It’s OK. I’ll get another one.

Yes, I am sure you will. I would like to reiterate a little bit of what Sue Moroney is talking about—the keeping-in-touch days—because I think that employees need to be very careful about how this is managed. I am talking about new section 71CE, in clause 55. It is called “Keeping-in-touch days”. What it actually says is, and I am going to quote new subsection 71CE(3), “An employee is treated as having returned to work,”—and this is the important bit—“and all parental leave payments received by the employee in respect of a period after the date on which the employee is treated as having returned to work are recoverable … as an overpayment …”. It talks about what constitutes having returned to work. Paragraph (b) of new subsection 71CE(3) talks about if the person on paid parental leave: “performs more than a total of 40 hours of paid work for his or her employer during a period of paid parental leave.”

The reason I want to highlight this is where the person on paid parental leave says to their boss: “Look, I’m going to be away for 16 weeks and we know this, but what I will do is when the baby’s asleep, I’m going to check my emails. I’ll just check them once a day so I keep in touch, and if anything important comes in, then I’ll forward it on. Well, I will do the responsible thing.” If a person on paid parental leave checked their emails for just 1 hour every day, then after 8 weeks they would have worked more than 40 hours a week, probably unbeknownst to that person—because they are trying to do the right thing—and probably unbeknownst to the employer as well. They would come back after 16 weeks and they could well get a knock on the door saying: “I’m sorry. We’ve just checked the records and you have worked more than 40 hours during this period. We note this from the employer’s records and we note from the email transactions. Therefore, we see this has occurred.”, and the employee now owes 8 weeks’ back-pay.

I just want to reiterate that that 40 hours is up if the person on paid parental leave works only 1 hour a day. Even if they decided to work just 4 hours a week—you know, which is not much at all—that is 10 weeks. So there is a little bit of a fish-hook in here for those who are conscientious, who want to do what is right for the company and want to do what is right for the employer, and who say: “Look, I am just going to check my email.” So the person on paid parental leave needs to understand that, in effect, if they take the full 18 weeks, which is about 2 hours a week, that is all they are allowed to work—2 hours a week. Anyone on paid parental leave does need to be aware of that, because if they work over those 40 hours over that 18-week period, then they will receive a knock on the door because they will be deemed to have gone back to work.

The thing about this is not only will they be required to pay back all the money they have received when they were on paid parental leave but also they will not have been receiving any income when they had believed in their minds that they were on paid parental leave, if you know what I mean. I can just see a couple of situations where the potential could be catastrophic, to say the least.

There is one other thing that I would like to query, and I am not too sure why this is here. This is new subsection (6) in section 72B, as inserted by clause 76(2). What it actually says—it applies to the armed services—is: “This section applies to a member of the Armed Forces as if the member of the Armed Forces were an employee of the Chief of Defence Force,”—yes, it makes sense—“except that a member of the Armed Forces may not succeed to the member’s spouse’s or partner’s entitlement to [paid] parental leave.”

The way I am reading that—and I may have this wrong because I was not on the select committee—in this case, obviously, is if a woman gives birth, then her partner or her spouse is not allowed to, colloquially, sub into that. I am not too sure why that exists. I think that maybe if someone is on active duty and they want to get out of active duty, then they would make a call on this and that may create problems, but I am not too sure whether there are—well, I can think of circumstances where that may be the case. The Minister may have something to say on that, but it just seems a little strange that the men and women who are actually putting their lives on the line to keep New Zealand safe are not actually entitled to the requirements under this bill.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I rise to take this short call during the Committee stage on the Employment Standards Legislation Bill. I am reminded of a great piece of work done throughout the 1980s that led to Pūao-te-ata-tū. I have spoken about it plenty of times in this House. Pūao-te-ata-tū refers to matua whāngai, and I think the great thing about some of the amendments that have been made to this particular bill really are in the vein of matua whāngai. However, through the wise words of my colleague Jacinda Ardern I do want to put to this Government that, well, if these kinds of changes can be made around the definition of a “primary caregiver”, perhaps adoption laws in this country can be reviewed—looked into—so that perhaps the term “matua whāngai” can apply there around the primary caregiver.

But to the bill, the meaning of primary carer—and in the Māori and Pacific Island communities that I represent in Tāmaki Makaurau, it is well-known that it does take a village to raise a child. In this particular amendment, it is fantastic to see that we will be able to stretch what that means out of the realm of the traditional, which Mr Nash has spoken about, regarding mum and dad. In the nature and the make-up of family today, we find in a heck of a lot of Māori families that I speak to, and indeed that I belong to, that there are step-parents, and there are other caregivers in that family—grandparents, aunties, uncles—who play a pivotal role in raising the children for the future.

I will take this opportunity to quote the Rt Hon David Lange and his work—which I am sure Jacinda Ardern is familiar with—around the Before Five policy, in which he talked about how improvements in this sector are an investment in the future. That is exactly what this particular piece of legislation is. To that one, I want to congratulate and echo the sentiments of my colleagues and congratulate Sue Moroney on the fine piece of work that she has done in advocating for the needs of parents and families.

I turn to section 30H in new Part 3A, inserted by clause 34, which provides: “(2) The employee may refer the non-compliance with section 30D—(a) directly to mediation;”. This is a new provision in this bill that I think is a step in the right direction. I think it is a good thing. We know just how often and how much the labour inspectors in that particular sector struggle just to make sure that there are a lot of employers out there who do comply with the laws that we set here in Parliament. Although I applaud this step in the right direction, to make it possible to go towards direct mediation, or to a labour inspector, we will be keeping a keen eye on this particular Government and the resources it gives, to ensure that it is able to enforce that and that it is able to give the capacity to those labour inspectors, to those people, and to the arbitration courts and processes, so that these provisions can be carried through to the letter of the law, as stated in new section 30H.

I think it is a good move, in so far as that it is not always just about the employee. We are considering the employer here. Quite often there does not need to be the intervention of a labour inspector. Maybe that particular employee and employer feel that they are in a position and in a healthy working relationship where they are able to deal with it themselves. I think that is a positive move in the right direction, but I do want to reiterate that we will be keeping a close eye on the capacity issues so that the labour inspectors and—I was about to say the labour department—all of those who are involved in the mediation processes do actually receive the support and the resources from this particular Government to make sure they can do that.

Just to close this particular part of my contribution on what will be a long evening, I do want to say that although we applaud these particular changes in Part 1, we have said—and we maintain this view—that tinkering around the edges is not going to solve the problem. Although we applaud the move to 18 weeks’ paid parental leave, we will be looking at making sure it is extended to 26 weeks, when we can. We will be keeping an eye on this Government. Kia ora.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am very pleased to take the first of what I am sure will be many calls in this debate on the Employment Standards Legislation Bill, and particularly the part that deals with paid parental leave. I want to strongly support all of the comments that have been made so far that support the extension of paid parental leave. I particularly want to turn my attention to the typescript amendments tabled by Sue Moroney that deal with the length of time that paid parental leave is provided for.

We in New Zealand, as a result of this bill, will have 18 weeks of paid parental leave. That puts us on a par with Australia but still well behind many of the countries that we would normally compare ourselves to in terms of social support provision. Many people might look at this and say “Eighteen weeks. Gosh, that’s a significant improvement on the 12 weeks that it was when it was introduced.”, but it is still a drop in the bucket compared with the historical levels of family support that we used to supply in New Zealand. I think that is one of the things that we often forget—that the welfare system in New Zealand has evolved and changed significantly over quite a period of time. Compared with the level of financial support that families in New Zealand used to get, 18 weeks of paid parental leave is not actually that generous. We could provide a heck of a lot more.

I support the amendment to change it to 26 weeks. Why 26 weeks? Well, let us look at what parents are asking for, and let us look at the benefits to the child of extending it to 26 weeks. One of the first things I attended as a member of Parliament, relatively early on, was a presentation by the Brainwave Trust. I am very interested in the educational implications of paid parental leave. The Brainwave Trust did some fascinating presentations on attachment theory—which I can see Paula Bennett is nodding her head towards me about. One of the things it showed was that if a child develops a positive attachment to a parent or somebody else early on—very early on—and it is a stable attachment, then the child’s likelihood of succeeding in education and not ending up in some form of delinquent behaviour later on in life, or ending up in prison, is significantly increased. It is in those first, critical years of a child’s life that the attachment is so vital. They are developing the fastest that they will ever develop, their brains are at their most active, and that attachment is so vital. So by extending paid parental leave to 6 months—26 weeks—we would really promote that and really foster that.

I think there could be no better investment, if you consider that in the short term it might cost more money but in the long term it is potentially going to save us a lot of money. It would improve educational outcomes. It would decrease the cost of social services, which we spend money on to mop up the failures that we have. Let us prevent the failures in the first place. Extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks just makes financial sense.

Then we think about what parents are asking for, and what indications there are that parents would like to spend more time with their kids. One of the things that has interested me is the huge growth in early childhood education in the home-based area. What that says to me is that parents are looking for something else, other than wanting to put their kids into childcare centres full time. I think one of the drivers behind the growth in home-based early childhood education is that parents would rather be staying at home with the kids themselves, but, because of the financial decisions they have to make, they are not in a position to do so. Extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks would, I think, help to address some of that.

I still think 26 weeks is not long enough. If you look at some of the other countries—I mean, let us look at the UK. It is 39 weeks in the UK. Let us go to Germany. It is 156 weeks in Germany. When you think about it, we are talking about 18 weeks under this bill and we are talking about a very modest increase under the proposed amendment put forward by Sue Moroney that would extend it to 26 weeks. No, it is not going to happen all at once. The amendment staggers that increase. It says that from next year we would move up to 22 weeks’ paid parental leave, and then from 2018 we would extend it to 26 weeks. I think that is a very financially responsible decision. There is the fiscal headroom in the Government’s accounts for this, if you believe what Bill English says. He has allowed for fiscal headroom for future spending. It could be done within the existing Budget constraints. So there really is not, in my view, a reason why we could not extend it to 26 weeks’ paid parental leave, when we consider the enormous benefits that might come from that. I have yet to meet a family who would not like to spend more time with their kids when they are very young. Why would we not do this?

Sue Moroney has two amendments. I will hear from Sue Moroney.

I did want to take the opportunity to speak to the second of my amendments, which I did not get around to in my last call. It is, in fact, the amendment that Chris Hipkins has just addressed, and he has done so very well.

It is the view of the Labour Party that it is financially affordable and, in fact, a financial necessity for this country to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. As Chris Hipkins has pointed out, my typescript amendment does not attempt to do it all in one hit, but takes a fiscally responsible way of staggering the implementation so that we know that it is affordable.

Yes, on this side of the House I think we do have agreement that 26 weeks’ paid parental leave is the least that we should be doing. For the Labour Party, we do see the sense in extending paid parental leave beyond the 26 weeks, but what we know is that 26 weeks is what is affordable right now. We know that. We know that because, yes, the Prime Minister has confirmed that in Budget 2016 there will be an additional $1.5 billion of new spending. What better provision on which to spend a tiny proportion of that $1.5 billion of new spending—which National has already committed itself to—than getting it right in these early months of a child’s life.

You know, this is where the Kiwi Dream starts. It starts when these children are born. If we get it right then, not only is it the correct thing to do but it is actually the economically smart thing to do: investing in families and taking that financial pressure off those families by allowing them to focus on the needs of baby and not have to think about getting back to work before they are ready to, making sure that they do not suffer financial stress as a result of that, and making sure that they can focus on building that attachment that the Brainwave Trust has done some excellent work on informing us about.

When I had my children there was no availability of paid parental leave. My children are just 18 and 16—that is how recently it is that this country started to understand about the importance of paid parental leave. So it is a relatively new phenomenon for us, but we cannot pretend and we cannot un-know what we now know. Back in the day, we did not necessarily have the research that told us exactly how important this is, but the Government knows because it, too, has had the presentations from the Brainwave Trust and other very good organisations that have done research in this area that states that the brain development that is occurring in those early months is the most critically important brain development. That is what is going to give that child, our fellow citizen, the resilience that he or she needs for whatever may come at them in life. That is the way that we make sure that we do not continue to spend money on bad outcomes, as we are as a country at the moment.

So I want to fully recommend that the amendment in my name that extends paid parental leave, in two tranches, to 26 weeks be accepted across the board. I hope that the Government will not continue to play political games over paid parental leave and actually does the right thing when it comes to this amendment coming up for voting. It does so in two tranches. It does so by increasing paid parental leave next year on 1 April to 22 weeks, and then, finally, in 2018 to 26 weeks. It is done deliberately that way because we want to ensure that it is affordable for the country. And I take the lead from a country like Ireland, because Ireland already has 6 months’ paid parental leave. But, you know, that country came out of the global financial crisis in much worse shape than New Zealand. What was the first thing it said it wanted to do? It made a commitment to extend paid parental leave to 12 months over the course of the next decade. So that is the sort of thing that progressive countries do.

I like to think that New Zealand is progressive, although at the moment we sit 26th equal in the OECD when it comes to duration of paid parental leave. That is not acceptable, in my view. We can do a lot better than that. And, you know, for goodness’ sake, we have only just caught up with Australia. We used to be ahead of Australia in this field—we used to have 14 weeks’ paid parental leave when it had none. Now we are dragging our heels, a couple of years behind them, by getting to 18 weeks.

I am pleased that this bill does get us to 18 weeks on 1 April. But we can do an awful lot better, and we should, and we have the opportunity to do that.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to rise and take this call on Part 1 of the Employment Standards Legislation Bill. And it is very much a pleasure, because, of course, this part primarily extends paid parental leave from 16 weeks to 18 weeks in April this year.

I understand that the Labour Opposition must beat its drum and say that paid parental leave was its idea and that it is pushing the Government to accept this change, but I want to put it on record that there is support on this side of the House for paid parental leave, and that when you are in Government you do have to balance competing priorities under different portfolios and you have to be fiscally responsible. The Government has looked at this and, in a very considered way, decided to extend paid parental leave to 18 weeks, and I am sure, given the benefits of paid parental leave—it gives more time to mothers and primary carers to bond with baby and it allows time to increase the probability of success in breastfeeding, and all of those wonderful things that are associated with raising a child and increasing that bonding process—that it will continue to be on the minds of Government members. But we will look at that in consideration of balancing our competing priorities and will continue to govern this country in a responsible way.

I want to turn particularly, too, to the extension for mothers and primary carers of pre-term babies, which is something that is dear to my heart, obviously, as the mother of two premature children. That extension will be a very good help, given the hurried nature of having a premature baby. You are not expecting it, of course. It happens all of a sudden, and rarely are you prepared for a pre-term baby. In fact, I was myself seen as a high-risk, fast cooker of babies in my time, and so by the time my second came along, at 36 weeks, I was somewhat more prepared. But it still is a shock, even if you are waiting for it, and to have that extra financial support will be of great help when you are in places like neonatal units, trying to balance getting things ready for when you bring baby home and dealing with the emotional stress of medical conditions, or whatever it is that you are dealing with when having a pre-term child.

So the extra financial support of an extra week of payment for each week prior to the 37-week gestation mark that the baby is born prematurely is going to be an extreme help for those families who have pre-term babies, as well as the extra extension to 18 weeks for those with a more normal birth at post - 37 weeks. It will certainly help families get that extra financial support and help baby during that time.

The other thing that I think is fantastic about this part is the keeping-in-touch hours. I am a strong advocate for keeping-in-touch hours—40 hours to allow employees to stay in touch with their work, their place of work, and their career, to keep their hand in while they are on paid parental leave. It really plugs the gap to allow people to come back to work. There has to be mutuality, obviously, between employer and employee, but it allows those primary caregivers to stay in touch with their career and maintain confidence in their role.

There are lots of different times that the keeping-in-touch hours would be brought into play—for training, extra data entry, or handing over a case. In my case, in a prior life to being a politician, obviously, I was a lawyer. Sometimes you do need that ability to go back into work for a short time, to hand over a case that may have raised its head and that you had not prepared for prior to leaving to have your baby. And, especially, in the case of having pre-term babies, the—

I want, firstly, to congratulate my colleague Sue Moroney on championing this issue, because her championing of this issue, with the wider support of the New Zealand community, has enabled this debate to be here, right here and now. It has forced this Government to recognise that there is a need, and, therefore, it was important, the work that Sue Moroney did.

Yes, we applaud the Government, and I think many New Zealanders will think “Eighteen weeks, OK. We accept that.”, but the reality is we do need to look long term and recognise that this is not something to be playing politics with. This is something that is important for our country going forward.

I want to refer my comments to clause 4 in Part 1 with regard to the purpose. The amendment that is in this part of the legislation basically just deletes a couple of words and replaces them. I want to say—and I was not part of the discussion—that I think we have missed an opportunity. I do not know whether the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety would agree, but I just felt that there should have been a complete purpose clause written in this piece of legislation as to why it is important for this Government and future Governments to entrench paid parental leave.

You see, most young people today will not know that this is a basic human right. It is an internationally recognised human right. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes reference to the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of workers and families. Subclause (2) of that article says: “Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.” So I think there should have been a specific purpose emphasising the reason why this Government has deemed it necessary to have paid parental leave. I think that is something that we probably need to work on because I think many, many young people do not yet realise that this is a basic human right for the protection of children and the protection of women as well. I think it is timely that it has been raised on International Women’s Day.

I want to refer the Committee to the regulatory impact statement, at page 6, where it makes reference to the benefits of why it is important to have paid parental leave. It will “reduce long term fiscal costs (for example, costs that may arise from poorer health and social outcomes)”. I will give you an example: 2 weeks ago Caden Wong Singh turned 1 year old. His mother was forced to go back to work—they literally cannot have just one person working to sustain and support their family, with rent, etc. Caden is my grandson. A couple of weeks ago I saw Caden, and he had some sores around his cheek that concerned me. When I asked his mother what had happened, it occurred at the day-care centre where Caden was left by the mother, who goes to work.

I make that point as an example—most mums would want to be able to stay home and take care of their children. It is to the benefit of our country if we have mothers staying home to support the raising of young children for as long as they can. Everybody benefits from it. This is not about how much it is going to cost the country; this is about the benefits that arise if we are able to protect women and protect children long term.

Another benefit, according to the regulatory impact statement, is that it enhances the retention of skills and institutional knowledge if women are protected and know that they can take time off, have the time to have their child, have the time to recover from giving birth to a child, and know with confidence that they can return to the workforce. That does not only benefit women; it benefits the workplace by retaining the skills and institutional knowledge that that business requires. Another benefit that is recognised is reducing recruitment—

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. Tēnā tātou katoa. It is my pleasure to take a short call on the Employment Standards Legislation Bill and, like all speakers, we are talking about Part 1 here. We have, obviously, pushed for more than 18 weeks, but here we are, passing a piece of legislation that is lifting paid parental leave from 16 to 18 weeks. For many of us in here, it is just a commitment that we have to keep pushing for that particular commitment from this Government. I want to draw your attention to the commentary in the report back by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, where, in the introduction, it says: “The overarching policy goal is to make workplaces fairer and more productive, for both employers and employees.” I would say that there is not anyone in this Committee who does not support workplaces that are fairer and more productive for employees and employers. I guess the question is one of balance.

My short contribution on ensuring that we meet this overarching goal is reflected in new section 30B—and if I have got time, down to new section 30F—inserted by clause 34 in Part 1. That is where we talk about the mechanics of how an employee or a caregiver goes about applying for the leave, the process that they need to adopt, the time they need to get their request in, and then the role of the employer to either approve it or not approve it and the reasons why an employer will decline. When I read through new section 30B, particularly subsection (3)(a), it talks about 3 months prior to the date of delivery. The negotiated carer would require 3 months before the expected due date. Then we go down into subsection (3)(b), where it says that in all other cases it is 14 days prior. Essentially, I am flagging that probably we need some more clarification of when the 3 months apply and when the 14 days apply, just so that we are very clear as to when things need to be triggered. I will just leave that there. Maybe the Minister can clarify when 3 months apply and when 14 days apply.

If I go to new section 30C, I look down and it talks about what is required in writing: the employee’s name, the date, and then a statement in respect of care for the child during the specified period and the period that entitles the negotiated caregiver to parental leave payments. I guess that calls to mind the question of what happens in a shared leave application. This part here I thought would actually talk about, potentially, the option to have shared leave. It may be somewhere else in the bill, but it does not speak volumes in that part.

I move to new section 30E, and it talks about grounds for refusal, and that is where, in subsection (2), it specifies all the reasons why an employer can refuse the request for a caregiver to take leave. It is listed there: “(a) inability to reorganise work … (b) inability to recruit additional staff: (c) detrimental impact on quality: (d) detrimental impact on performance: (e) planned structural changes: (f) burden of additional costs: (g) detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand.” I guess it goes to the point that my colleague Peeni Henare talked about, and that is the resource to ensure that these points on which an employer can refuse an application for leave are actually monitored, and monitored fairly, so that an employer does not invent a reason to inhibit or decline a paid parental leave application. When I look at that, the question is who would monitor that and who would ensure that an employee’s request for leave is treated in a fair way.

When I go down to new section 30F, it talks about the employee not being able to challenge, once the employer has made their determination. Again, as I stated at the start of my contribution, it is ensuring that the workplaces are fair and accountable and that everyone is given a fair go. These clauses, particularly, throw up a whole lot of questions.

I move, That the question be now put.