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

I move, That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill be now read a second time—for a second time, because this is a bill that has, essentially, been before this Parliament before, a bill that was drawn out in 2012. So for 4 years—for 4 long years—we have been debating in this Parliament a bill to get paid parental leave to 26 weeks and we have had majority support for this bill passing, and yet the Government has continued to play political games for those 4 long years with families’ lives to try to prevent it from passing. Well, I hope that this is the final time that I will begin a second reading speech on this bill, and I hope that the Government will see sense and remove its threat of a financial veto for a measure that, after all, is asking for children in Aotearoa New Zealand to get the best start in life. What could be less controversial than actually getting it right in the early months? What could be less controversial than that?

I suspect that we are about to see—or are we about to see—the male backbenchers from the National Party rolled out to oppose this bill when, in fact, tomorrow in the Budget we will see the National Government actually propose an extension to paid parental leave. Are we about to witness that—that they are going to put the backbenchers up as fodder to actually argue against it and oppose it, while Bill English has in his back pocket a plan to actually extend paid parental leave? I believe that is exactly what we about to see played out. But we will wait and see for tomorrow.

It would be an extremely foolish measure of a Government that has become arrogant and stopped listening to New Zealanders to continue to oppose this measure. Why do I say that? Because as the Government has continued to play politics with this issue, as it has tried to buy people off with the idea of a couple of weeks here or a couple of weeks there, the passion for this has just got stronger. The passion for this has got stronger not only from the Labour Party but it has got stronger from the New Zealand public. How do I know this? Because the first time round, this measure in this bill had around about 3,800 submissions made on it. That is a substantial number of submissions on an issue. But the second time round, after the Government had been forced to increase paid parental leave to 18 weeks, that number grew to 6,800—so it nearly doubled the number of people who were making submissions on this bill. But that is not the end of the story, because the numbers supporting it grew also. Of those 6,821 submissions made this time round on this bill, 99.94 percent of them were in favour—99.94 percent were in favour.

But the Government is completely out of touch on this issue. It does not get what most New Zealanders get. Most New Zealanders understand that it is just smart economics to put a little bit of investment in, in those early months of a child’s life, in order to get the bonding and attachment right between parent and baby and in order to support good breastfeeding regimes, so that as taxpayers we do not continue to pay an ever-increasing amount of money on hospital admissions, on bad education outcomes, and even on building more prisons. All the evidence and research says that if we do not get this right, if we fail to invest and give children the best start in life, we as a country are going to end up spending more and more money on bad outcomes. We on this side of the House, we in the Labour Party, want to invest taxpayer money in making sure that we are giving children the best start in life and that we do not continue to spend money on bad outcomes. That is what this bill is all about.

I said that this was the second time that the second reading is happening on this bill, and that is true. That does not happen very often in this Parliament, but it is happening on this occasion. I just want to reflect on the last time that the second reading came before this House, because I have talked about the political games, and, boy, was that second reading ever the pure demonstration of the amount of politics that the Government was prepared to play just in order to deny parents this level of support, which is afforded in so many other countries—so many other countries. That is the sort of politics that it has been playing.

So what happened? I just want to recap: last time round the Government actually stopped talking on a bill before mine in order to try to make sure that the second reading speech could not continue. That is what it did. It was foiled in that attempt because another one of my good colleagues got up and took the call and we were able to continue, but that was not the end of the political games.

What happened next was that I discovered that one of the parties supporting the bill, the Māori Party, had one of its MPs called out of the House urgently because his daughter was giving birth to one of his grandchildren. Te Ururoa Flavell was called out urgently, and we sought leave from the Government to have his vote counted on the second reading debate. And do you know that miserable Government denied leave for that to happen? Here we were, talking about paid parental leave and the importance of it—the Government was trying to convince the country that it thought it was important too, and it denied leave to Te Ururoa Flavell to actually go and attend the birth of his grandchild and have his vote counted. That is what the Government did. Then what happened next was that the Government incorrectly cast the Māori Party vote against the bill, which meant that on the night it was defeated. But, fortunately, the Māori Party corrected the vote on the bill the next day in Parliament and it was allowed to proceed on its way, but that is the level of political games that the Government has been prepared to play over this.

💬 Tim Macindoe: No, this is the level of dishonesty of this member.

I still recall, Mr Macindoe, on that night, watching Pita Sharples come down to the House to correct the Māori Party vote, being taken out of the Chamber by you—by Mr Macindoe, not you, Mr Assistant Speaker—and stopped from correcting the vote on that night. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I know there is some heat in this, and there are some accusations that are being made. There is an opportunity for rebuttal, and I would just ask members to tone it down.

It seems that nothing has changed on that count. But I really do hope—and I am pleading with the Government for the political games to stop now. It is time to give it up, because even the ballot goddess is against the National Government on this one. The ballot goddess made sure that this bill got drawn out again so that we could debate, once again, some of the things that are important for families in this country, and put their interests firsts and prioritise their needs.

Some other things have changed since the last time we were debating this bill. This time round, the thing that really struck me about the submitters who came in and told us their stories was the number of young women—and by that, I am talking about women in their 20s and 30s, so anyone younger than me is a young woman. They came and told their stories about how, under John Key’s Government, they were having to make decisions about whether they paid off their student loan, whether they saved for a house, or whether they had a baby. These are the sorts of decisions that young people are having to make under this Government. They are having to decide, with the huge housing costs that they are facing, whether they are going to spend their lives trying to get into homeownership or whether they are going to have a family. Those are the very serious issues that confront today’s young people in making these decisions.

I never had paid parental leave when my children were born, but I will not be one of those people who say: “I never had it, so neither should anyone else.” Instead, I take the view that we need to make progress as a country. We can do better. We now have the research and evidence in front of us that tells us that this is a wise investment, and we should not pretend otherwise. Tomorrow the bill that I am proposing would cost just 1.27 percent—1.27 percent—of the amount of new spending that that Government is going to propose in its Budget. It has said that it is going to propose at least $1 billion of new spending, so it cannot argue that this bill is unaffordable—1.27 percent of Budget 2016 is all this bill would need in tomorrow’s Budget, so I do not want to hear the members opposite get up and pretend that this is unaffordable. It is simply about priorities, and the priority should be families and giving children the best start in life.

E Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema. In rising to take a call on this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill in the name of Sue Moroney, I want to begin by rejecting some of the suggestions that Ms Moroney has tossed across the House. We on this side do not need to be lectured by that member on playing politics. This is, after all, the member who brought a funerary urn into this Chamber to play politics over a tragedy, something that was actually offensive to members on this side and to many Māori people, by violating decency—common decency—and the tapu of this House.

I want to talk about the positive things that this Government has been doing in this space and why this bill is not actually required in the form it has been presented to the House by Ms Moroney. This bill intends to amend the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. There is a certain irony in this, in that, once again, we have had a lecture from the other side on what a miserable Government this is—well, it turns out that in 2007 the Families Commission gave the then Minister of Labour Ruth Dyson a report recommending that paid parental leave be extended to 13 months by 2015, including a month for fathers. Having the power, as it did at that time, but also running a surplus, Labour still chose not to implement those changes. It chose to do nothing while it had the opportunity to do it; rather, it plays politics with it once it sits on the Opposition benches.

This is a Government that is committed to giving children the very best start in life—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I am actually trying to hear the member, and there is barracking on both sides. Barracking is fine, but it should be reasonable, and I actually want to hear what the member is saying.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. We are a Government committed to giving kids the very best start in life, and that is why, in our view, this bill is neither necessary nor affordable. Under the watch of John Key and this National–led Government, we have actually extended paid parental leave from 14 weeks to 18 weeks over the next 2 years, as was announced in the 2014 Budget. We have consistently said that we are prepared to extend paid parental leave in a way that is affordable for the taxpayers of New Zealand, as fiscal conditions permit, but also affordable to the employers of New Zealand. The last thing we would want are measures that create greater unemployment in this country. We want as many New Zealanders as possible to have access to high-quality jobs. That is why we believe that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment estimate of the cost of this bill, which is $445.8 million over the next 4 years, is unaffordable. We have extended paid parental leave in a way that the country can afford, and this bill is just another example of Labour writing cheques that it knows it cannot afford to pay for.

The other provisions in this bill that were examined in the Government Administration Committee and to which I paid particular interest were around the suggestion of contact hours. No doubt this was a well-intentioned provision by the member, but it was somewhat superseded by events, in that on 17 March in this year the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Act 2016 received the Royal assent. That legislation provided for keeping-in-touch days—which are, essentially, the same as, or very similar to, contact hours—that allow an employee to stay in touch with their workplace and to keep up to date with changing practices in order to maintain that network without invalidating any of their entitlement to paid parental leave. This is actually a sensible and logical measure. It was championed in the previous Parliament, and before that, by my former colleague Katrina Shanks, the then National list member, who actually introduced the concept, I recall, as a remit at a National Party conference. This was a positive, sensible, logical concept, and it has actually already been implemented by the Government. So the select committee made the sensible—

💬 Chris Bishop: It was resurrected.

It was resurrected by the Government, but it was a sensible step to take this out of the actual legislation, given it had already been passed.

In the select committee we listened very carefully to a wide range of evidence. I took particular interest in the submissions from officials from the Ministry of Health around breastfeeding. We know that the research of the Nobel Laureate Professor James Heckman shows that the investment that you make in children from preconception to the age of 3 is the best possible investment you can make. It pays maximum return. We know that children who are breastfed exclusively for as long as possible will have the best possible health outcomes. However, the evidence submitted from the Ministry of Health failed to show conclusively that, in the New Zealand instance, the extension of paid parental leave to the extent that the member is proposing would have that equally positive effect—particularly among Māori and Pasifika communities, which have a lower than average rate of breastfeeding, and particularly exclusive breastfeeding, than the general population.

There are considerable costs to this bill. There are potentially benefits from extending paid parental leave, but, because of that lack of conclusiveness to the evidence—the scientific research and empirical studies that were referenced in the material provided by the Ministry of Health—members on the Government side are not entirely convinced that it would have a benefit that would outweigh the significant financial costs to both the taxpayer and indeed to employers, and ultimately to the employees, if those jobs were extinguished from our labour market.

National has done much to increase the duration of paid parental leave, certainly much more than the last term of the previous Labour Government ever achieved. We have done a number of other things that help parents, including Home for Life carers. We have whāngai parents, grandparents, and permanent guardians who have all had their entitlements extended.

I want to pay tribute to my opponent—but friend—Tracey Martin, who came into this House with a very sensible, pragmatic bill that extended a clothing allowance to orphans. That was something that this Government could pick up and run with, because it was done in a way that was not political. She did not play petty politics with that. She came in with a sensible bill and we were happy to back it, phase it in in a way that was affordable, and make that extra entitlement available to some of the most vulnerable children in the country and their parental and, actually, grandparental guardians—often it is grandparents or immediate whānau members who are the guardians—when previously they had access to no such entitlement. So I am quite proud of the work that the Government has done in that regard.

We are also extending paid parental leave to Kiwi workers who previously were not entitled to it under the penny-pinching and miserable scheme offered by the previous Labour Government. We have, for instance, those who are self-employed, but we also have casual, seasonal, and contract workers. We know that some of the most vulnerable in our workforce are those casual, seasonal, and part-time workers, who previously did not actually get that opportunity. The seasonal workers who come in to do the vital work of picking fruit in the orchards, helping out on the dairy farms, and helping in our tourism industry, which is very seasonally variable—those people are often on lower salaries, and extending paid parental leave to them offered them a considerable improvement over the miserable scheme that the previous Labour Government left in place.

Another area where I am quite proud of the work that the Government has done is in extending paid parental leave to the parents of pre-term babies—that is, babies who are born early—giving an extra week of paid parental leave for every week that a baby is born pre-term. I know that there is not always exact certainty over when a baby is due, but given that we have many babies in this country who are born a month or even 6 weeks before term, their parents need that extra support. I am quite proud that this is a compassionate Government that John Key leads—a caring Government—and that we have come in and brought in that entitlement where none existed under the previous miserable scheme offered by the last Labour Government.

Also, the extension of parental tax credits is a very positive measure. We have extended paid parental leave but also increased the parental tax credit, to give parents more choice about what is important to them during what is a very important time in any parent’s life. I think for all of these reasons that this is a bill we should not be supporting, and I personally will be voting against it. Thank you.

Well, that was a typically long, rambling, and incoherent contribution from the member Paul Foster-Bell, and it sounded very much to me like someone on the defensive—someone who knows that his party is on the wrong side of this debate. Just like so many other issues at the moment, the National Party is firmly on the wrong side of this debate. It is trying to tell us that Sue Moroney’s bill to extend paid parental leave by just 8 more weeks—that is all we are talking about, 8 more weeks—is neither necessary nor affordable. So let us explore that.

The first question is: is it necessary? Well, the only way in which you could argue that it is unnecessary is if you believe that the 18 weeks that we have at the moment is sufficient paid parental leave. If you look around the world and look at the other countries that we like to compare ourselves with—Italy, 26 weeks; Germany 156 weeks; the UK, 39 weeks; Belgium 32 weeks; Ireland, 26 weeks; Portugal, 30.1 weeks; and Japan, 58 weeks. In fact, the OECD average is 26 weeks. So all we are asking with this bill—all we are asking—is to make New Zealand average. I know that the Government is usually pretty happy with that. It does not like being out in front. It does not like being the leaders. It likes to be the mediocre, average, fast-follower. All that this bill would do is make New Zealand average, rather than sub-par, below average, and behind the pack, which is where we always end up under this National Government. So is the bill necessary? Well, if you believe that the other countries have got it right and that we, perhaps, need to catch up, then, yes, it is absolutely necessary: 18 weeks is not enough. So that destroys that argument from the National Party.

The next question is: is it affordable? This is why National has always opposed paid parental leave. I know it had a road to Damascus moment a couple of years ago when it realised that it was so far on the wrong side of public opinion, and Labour and Sue Moroney had done such a good job of articulating the merit of extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks, that it finally decided that it would get on board with paid parental leave—15 years after everybody else in New Zealand did. The National Government finally got on board, but every time—when Labour first introduced it, when Labour extended it for the first time when we were in Government, when Labour extended it for the second time when we were in Government—the National Party opposed it, because it said it was unaffordable.

💬 Brett Hudson: That’s true.

“It’s true.”, says Brett Hudson. It is true that the full cost of this, after full implementation, is $107 million a year. That sounds like quite a lot of money, but just the other day the Prime Minister said “$3 billion worth of tax cuts”. That is affordable, apparently, but not $107 million worth of paid parental leave. The Prime Minister comes out and says that at a time when people are living in their cars. At a time when health is so stretched that people cannot even get on the waiting list, at a time when people are paying more for their children’s education than they ever have before, the Prime Minister says that paid parental leave is not affordable but $3 billion worth of tax cuts is affordable.

We know this Government does not like its mates having to pay tax. It stood up for the tax dodgers. It did not stand up for working people who would benefit from paid parental leave, the people who pay their taxes through PAYE, who do not have foreign trusts, who do not have the opportunity to avoid their taxes. That is not who this Government stands up for. It stands up for its rich mates, and it wants to give its rich mates more tax cuts. I do not know whether they even pay any tax, but the Government wants to give them more tax cuts rather than funding something that actually gives working families a hand up, that actually gives kids the best possible start in life and the best opportunities to get ahead.

What a miserable Government. What a miserable Government, which is prepared to spend outlandish and ridiculous amounts of money on tax cuts at a time when they are utterly unaffordable but cannot find what is, in the Government’s terms, the tiny amount of money to extend paid parental leave only to the point where New Zealand would be average. Does that not tell us so much about where the National Government’s priorities lie?

💬 Dr David Clark: Disdain for middle New Zealand.

They lie not with middle New Zealand, not with children, not with working people, but with the very, very few at the top who will be the beneficiaries of those tax cuts if John Key gets his way and is able to roll Bill English, who, of course, told us that tax cuts were off the agenda.

Labour has always been consistent on the issue of paid parental leave. As I said, we introduced it. We extended it once. We extended it twice. We always knew the time was going to come when the extensions in time were going to be required and the extensions in terms of who was going to be eligible for it were going to be needed. But, of course, we started carefully because we faced so much opposition from the National Government and its supporters. So we started carefully, we bedded it in, and we extended it, and now is the time to extend it to 26 weeks.

It is thoroughly affordable. It is well within our ability. We simply have to make it a priority, but children and families, warm, dry homes, security, jobs—those are not the things that are priorities to that Government over there.

Of the submissions that the Government Administration Committee heard, 99.94 percent were in favour of increasing paid parental leave to 26 weeks. Submitters cited the importance of longer leave for enabling good bonding and attachment between parents and baby. I hear so many times, particularly from groups in society who tend to support that party opposite, not ours, about their concern about the breakdown of the family and the breakdown of society. Actually, one of the most important things we can do to support families is to give working parents the opportunity to actually bond with their children.

Paul Foster-Bell is nodding, despite the fact that he is going to vote against this legislation. Paul Foster-Bell also actually pointed out the return on investment that we get if we invest in children from conception, or even pre-conception, through to 3 years of age. This policy has an incredibly good return on investment. It was part of the recommendations that the cross-party Health Committee report recommended. Dr Paul—we miss him; we miss Dr Paul—led that inquiry, the National Party’s MPs agreed with us, and this recommendation was in that report. Yet National still consistently opposes an extension for paid parental leave.

Some submitters also said it will support families by providing income stability. Is that not something that families need more and more of today? As our working environment becomes more and more unstable and as people face insecurity of work, insecurity of income, and insecurity of accommodation, we need to do everything we can to make sure that babies are born into secure environments. Being able to give parents an opportunity to take time off work but to know that there is still enough money to come in, pay the bills, pay the mortgage, pay the rent, and put food on the table—that is what babies need. And when those babies grow up in that secure environment, they go on to thrive. They go on to do well. They go on to be successful. Is that not what every single one of us is in this House for—to ensure that Kiwis grow up to be successful?

So come on, National members. Drop the ideology. Drop the silly arguments. You are on the wrong side with this one. You are on the wrong side of public opinion, you are on the wrong side of the evidence, and you will be on the wrong side of history again. Change your minds. Vote for this legislation. Do not use the veto. Get alongside working New Zealand families.

I am very pleased to stand to take a call on this, the second reading of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the sponsor of the bill, Sue Moroney, and I would like to just make some opening comments about something that she said in her opening comments in the House today. She looked across the House and she said: “The National Party is going to get a whole lot of their male MPs to get up and speak to this bill.” The inference from that is that we as males and fathers and parents somehow have got no skin in the game, and cannot actually comment on this. I just want to highlight a point that I made, actually, through the Government Administration Committee and hearing process, as well: the fact that my own experience as a parent was as a single parent raising my daughter. At the time, I was a police dog handler—

💬 David Seymour: Sorry, mate. You’re disqualified. You’re a man.

Exactly—exactly, David. I was also a proud member of the armed offenders squad, and therefore I had some fairly heavy demands on my time. But I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed my job. I thoroughly enjoyed being a father. I was very lucky that I had support, both some paid support and also some family support, to raise my daughter, but I cannot help but feel a bit offended for the men in this House who are parents, who were somehow diminished in our role as a parent. So that is the first issue that I wanted to raise with you, Sue.

💬 Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member has said that he is offended. I am wondering whether he is saying that he is personally offended and asking for your intervention. Is he?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, that is not a point of order.

Thank you. The second point that I wanted to raise is around the fact that most of us in this House—I look around the House; most of us have been raised—[Interruption] I will come back to you guys shortly, all right? I am not going to forget about you. Most of us have been raised by parents—in fact, all of us have been raised by parents who did not have access to parental leave. They did not have access to parental leave, right? I feel like I bonded with my parents quite well.

I do not feel that parental leave needs to be tied back to how we bond with our parents, or the relationship we form with our parents. I do not believe that parental leave can be tied back, as Ms Moroney says, to the fact that we need to build more prisons to accommodate people who are going to offend because they are unable to bond with their parents. Effectively, what you are saying is parents who choose not to have parental leave or have access to it are not going to be good parents and are not going to be able to bond with their parents. The next Labour speaker can get up and they can clarify that issue for us in the House, because that is certainly what I heard in your opening address, Ms Moroney. So that can be cleared up.

The other point I would raise, and I will be very interested to hear from a member of the Opposition—and Mr Lees-Galloway raised the issue—is that it is only $107 million a year. Well, actually, that is a fairly significant amount. What I am really interested in—and, actually, if we go back to 2011 and we think about the general election campaign and the debate that took place down in Christchurch, I think it was, between the then Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Phil Goff, and our Prime Minister, when our Prime Minister challenged him on it, he said: “Where are you going to get the money, because you’re spending like a drunken sailor?” I do not know whether everyone in the House can remember, but there was a moment there when the look on Phil’s face was that of a stunned mullet. He looked like a stunned mullet. He was not expecting to be asked: “How are you going to fund it? Where’s the money coming from, Phil?”. He was caught out by the PM. He did not have an answer. It was terrible. It was so embarrassing. I mean, I felt sorry for him, watching it.

So what I would ask a member of the Opposition to do—because this seems to be a massive Phil Goff moment that is going on—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The constant barracking is out of order, and I want you to tone it down.

Someone from the Opposition has to stand up and explain to us where the money is coming from, because all of us understand when we are running our household budgets that if we take money from somewhere in our budget, or we are going to use it somewhere else, we are making a sacrifice somewhere or we are giving something up. What I would like is I would like a member of the Opposition to stand up and walk us through where the money is going to come from and how you are going to fund the policy.

In relation to paid parental leave, do we think it is important on this side of the House? Absolutely, we do. Absolutely, we think it is important and we think that in this modern world if we are able to provide that, then we should provide it. At the moment we are providing 18 weeks and, actually, under this Government, there has been the biggest increase in paid parental leave than under any other previous Governments.

I go back to 2007. This will interesting, too, to get some comments on this. In 2007 the Families Commission gave the Hon Ruth Dyson—I want to acknowledge Ruth because she is a very good chair of the Government Administration Committee—who was then the Minister of Labour, a report that recommended that paid parental leave provision be increased to 13 months by 2015, including a month for fathers, which, you can probably work out by now, I would support. Labour chose not to follow—

💬 Sue Moroney: Because we weren’t the Government.

—these recommendations, even though the Government was running a surplus. Oh, you were not the Government then? Oh, in 2007 you were not the Government?

💬 Hon Annette King: No, you said 2015. You said 2015.

No, I said—well, if I said 2015, I apologise. I will correct that—2007. Let us go back to 2007 when you were the Government.

The next question I have got is: why did you not follow these recommendations? Even though you were running a surplus, even though global economic conditions were very, very good and you were in a position where you had a surplus—please get up and explain to me why the then Minister of Labour, the Hon Ruth Dyson, decided not to take these recommendations and extend it. There is probably a very good reason for it.

The other thing I would be very interested to hear is why, over the 9 years that Labour was in Government, it did not progress paid parental leave.

💬 Hon Annette King: We did—2007, twice. Twice.

Well, unfortunately—I acknowledge you did it twice, in small incremental changes that when we came into Government we increased significantly. It would have been nice if you had actually taken the same approach that we have and you had actually given it a real proper nudge and had a real go at it.

Let us go through some of the things that we are doing. Not only has National increased the duration of paid parental leave in the last 12 months but we have actually widened the eligibility and increased the range of care arrangements. Home for Life carers, grandparents, and permanent guardians have had their entitlements extended under the paid parental leave scheme. We have built that in. We have extended paid parental leave to more Kiwi workers, and I come back to what my colleague Paul Foster-Bell said about casual, seasonal, and contract workers, as well as employees who have more than one employer.

I think the other thing I need to just highlight is that we cannot ignore employers in the legislation that we pass in this House, because they are the ones who actually create the jobs. They are the ones who create the wealth. We do not do it. We do not do it. We rely on them. So, actually, their voice is pretty important and pretty significant in this debate.

When we talk about the submitters who came in front of the select committee, we did hear some compelling submissions from employers in terms of how this type of legislation can impact and affect their business. The Government also extended paid parental leave to eligible parents of pre-term babies.

I rise to take the first call for the Greens on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill. Firstly, I want to just acknowledge the previous speaker, Mark Mitchell, and his remarkable contribution of mansplaining. I found it quite interesting. But, more seriously, I want to congratulate our colleague across the House Sue Moroney on her hard work and her persistence and her patience with this bill, and also on her luck. It is quite unusual for a member to have one bill drawn out of the ballot—like a lucky dip—but it is very unusual to have two. So here we are, again.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Phil Twyford’s had five.

Five bills! Well, this is the second one on the same issue around paid parental leave, and here we are again voting on and debating another bill around paid parental leave.

I am disappointed because, actually, we could have passed this bill in 2014, the last time it came up. Actually, the fact that the National Government did not support it then means that thousands and thousands of New Zealand babies and their mums and families have missed out on extended paid parental leave. So this is an opportunity, I think, for National to be on the right side of history. We have seen National do its usual adoption of an Opposition policy, and do it half-heartedly, by raising paid parental leave last year, first from 16 weeks to 18 weeks. Actually, 18 weeks is better than 16 weeks, but 26 weeks is better than all of that.

As with the last time, this bill received near unanimous support from the public submissions and the wider public. I filled in for my colleague Mojo Mathers on the Government Administration Committee and was part of the proceedings. I want to thank both the committee and the chair, the Hon Ruth Dyson, for having me on the committee. It was very interesting. This bill received 6,755 submissions, which, as others have said, is twice the number that were received on the last paid parental leave bill in Sue Moroney’s name.

The submissions were actually really well received, and the evidence was of a very high standard. They were all calling for 6 months, or longer. I acknowledge the submissions made by quite a wide variety of groups—from the Council of Trade Unions, Family First, the University of Auckland, and the New Zealand Police Association, for example. The diversity of groups that support the bill indicates that this is something that lots of families are crying out for.

This bill is an example of smart investment in our families that will make a practical difference for many working families. As I said in my speech in the first reading of this bill, it is actually really crucial that we invest in our young people. It is cost-effective. The return on the benefits of investing in our young people between the ages of zero and 3 years old is something like between $1.80 and $17 per dollar invested. The investment that we make now gives a return further down the track in savings.

We are also supporting this bill because we know that policies that enable women to participate in the workplace, unsurprisingly, help to address the pay gap between men and women. The reality for many women in New Zealand is that the pay gap is between 11.8 percent and 14 percent, and women are still facing barriers in the workplace—not just in the pay gap but also with leadership in both the public and the private sector. The recent report from the Ministry for Women said that only 43.4 percent of women are in senior positions at board level in the public sector, and in the private sector it is only around 14 percent.

I think we also need to acknowledge that there is a lot more that we could be doing to support families and the most vulnerable in our society. Our policy is for 13 months’ paid parental leave, and it was nice to hear that side of the House mentioning that this is the recommendation from a 2007 Families Commission report. Thirteen months would certainly be better for the family, but we also need to look at other things, aside from paid parental leave, that we could be providing.

I want to acknowledge the submissions from the Child Poverty Action Group and the Children’s Commissioner, who both said that parents of 30,000 babies—nearly half of all babies born annually—will not be eligible for the paid parental leave benefit because it depends on sustained labour force attachment as the criteria for eligibility for the scheme. So that means that some of our most vulnerable babies are still being born into households where they are unable to access any kind of support, and they need our help too.

We could be doing more. We could strengthen the power of workers in this country to bargain collectively, so that there are higher wages, and frequently that leads to higher productivity. We could invest in high-quality housing stock so that we do not have babies and families living in cold, damp, and unhealthy housing. We could invest in the smart Green economy, with integrated transport, with clean energy, and with liveable cities. We could be making things better.

For those who say that we cannot afford to increase paid parental leave to 26 weeks, which, as others have said, is only $107 million—to those who say we cannot afford it, I say to them that that is what the opposition said when we wanted equal pay for women, and that is what slave owners said when we abolished slavery. I think the time is right for this Government to show its support for families and to approve this bill and vote for it.

I rise to speak on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill. This National Government supports parents and supports greater paid parental leave. We do not support this particular bill.

I would like to acknowledge Ms Moroney’s heartfelt and honest views on the subject—the various instances when she has raised this bill or variations of it, and had them drawn from the ballot. I would also particularly like to note the very constructive working relationship in the Government Administration Committee, even though it was apparent to members on that committee that we would not all be voting the same way on the final bill. We did work very constructively. Submitters were treated with respect. They were heard, and were allowed to express their views, irrespective of what those views were.

But I would note one of the comments that my colleague Mr Mitchell made, when he charged that Ms Moroney was perhaps, this afternoon, undermining the role of males as parents in the comments she made. I will not relitigate that particular statement or offence, but I would note the real-time nature of the media, both in this place and with the advent of social media. During the speech that Mr Mitchell gave, Annette King has been reported in the media already as having said to Mr Mitchell that the purpose of this bill is to promote breastfeeding, and men cannot do that.

Well, I acknowledge the veracity of that statement. It is very true. It would be something of a medical miracle if men were suddenly able to breastfeed. But what it raises is a deep, concerning point. Ms King—and I also note she is the Labour health spokesperson, so therefore presumably, from a health perspective, she speaks for Labour on this matter—thinks this extended parental leave is all about breastfeeding. So what does that mean for women who cannot or do not want to breastfeed? One can only take, from her own statement in the House, that they are somehow less worthy.

💬 Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not make a statement in the House. I responded to the comments being made by other people.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! These are debating points. [Interruption] It is a debating point.

Such comments and interjections may be reported by members of the press gallery, as that one was. So Ms King must now live with the comments she made in this House, as she should. Therefore, one can only interpret from her own words that women who cannot or do not wish to breastfeed are somehow seen as being of less import to the Labour Party and this bill. I think that is an absolute shame. Not all women can and not all women want to breastfeed, certainly for perhaps a 6-month period, and some have other choices that they make that actually are supported by this National Government in the flexible way that we have dealt with paid parental leave, but which, presumably, is of less significance to the Opposition.

The bill in question, as it is reported back to the House, if it were to pass, would extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks—22 weeks from 1 April next year, which was a constructive change that the select committee made. Originally it was going to be 22 weeks from 1 April this year, and of course that date has already passed. So that was a good example of the committee working together at least to report a sensible bill back to the House. It would then be 26 weeks from 1 April 2018.

A very worthy part of the bill as it stands, I think, is allowing for work contact hours. In respect of the way the bill is reported back, I think that is quite a sensible approach. If you happen to be on paid parental leave for 22 weeks or more, you can have up to 42 hours of paid return-to-work time. Taking in the extended period, you could be on parental leave, much of it unpaid—a total of 156 hours could be taken in paid return-to-work contact hours and the person returning to work would not be deemed to have ended their parental leave, paid or otherwise. In the context that the House was going to progress a measure such as this, I would make the point that I think that is a very sensible provision to have.

When we come to the Government’s stance on this particular bill, it is a consistent one. Before I move on to what the Government has done around paid parental leave—the Government’s position has been clearly stated all along. It is that the total cost of 26 weeks’ paid parental leave is unaffordable in the present circumstances—the total cost. It is not the incremental cost. The Government has never made a statement that an additional $1 of paid parental leave was unaffordable. In fact, the Government has increased paid parental leave from 14 weeks to 18 weeks, across two 2-yearly steps. So the Government was not of the view that a single dollar extra in paid parental leave was unaffordable. It remains the Government’s position that it is the total cost of the scheme as proposed by Ms Moroney that remains unaffordable, given current economic conditions.

That is backed up by data that the committee requested from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). I quote from a very recent document for a specific question that members on the committee asked of MBIE, and it has made an assessment of the costs of the implementation of this bill through to the financial year 2020-21 of $466 million over and above the cost of the plan that this Government has already put in place. That reinforces the point that the Government has maintained all along. It is not that an additional dollar of paid parental leave is unaffordable; it is that the total cost of the plan is unaffordable.

I have to say that I feel that a number of submitters did not grasp that specific element. They appeared before us and just said “Well, you’re almost there. You’re almost there. You’ve already spent this amount. What’s a little bit more?”, which does, quite frankly, miss the point. It is not the little bit more that was the problem. It has always been that the total cost of such a plan would have been—and still, in current conditions, remains—unaffordable. The Government has done what, within our fiscal envelope, has been possible, and that has been several things.

One is, obviously, as I have pointed out, that we have increased paid parental leave to 18 weeks from 14 weeks. But even more than that, because I think it is very relevant, and it captures elements that are not considered in Ms Moroney’s bill, it is extending paid parental leave to other caring situations and other work arrangements. We have extended it to include life carers, whāngai parents, grandparents, and permanent guardians. Different parenting arrangements, arrangements that suit families where both parents presumably may be returning to work, and also broader family structures—we support that and we have ensured that paid parental leave entitlements can be gained by people in those situations.

We have also extended and addressed an issue where Kiwi workers who may have been working for more than one employer or might have been under casual arrangements, seasonal or contract workers, and those who may have limited or no eligibility in the past, can now be eligible for paid parental leave. So what we have done is ensure that what we are able to afford to do is now able to benefit a broader range of New Zealand parenting arrangements and workers across the country.

Beyond that, we have also understood that not all parents choose to want to have an extended period of time off work. Some parents—and I know of several myself—have made the choice that they do wish to return to work earlier. So the Government increased the parental tax credit. It not only increased the tax credit by $70 a week to $220 but also extended the eligibility from 8 weeks to 10 weeks. So we are supporting parents who make a different choice, which, again, leads to a Government that is supporting a broader range of circumstances across the country.

I would also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the work of David Seymour, who came to this House with a proposition that suggested that parents with pre-term babies are in a particularly challenging circumstance. No one chooses to be pre-term. No one chooses to have a pre-term child. So Mr Seymour put up the proposition that perhaps we could extend additional weeks of paid parental leave to parents in those circumstances. So we were happy to support that very sound measure and have extended 1 week of paid parental leave, in addition—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Barracking across the House is unacceptable. Speaker’s ruling 69/2 states that you can only interject on the person with the call. You cannot do that across the House. I brought this up earlier on. The Speaker’s ruling—I suggest you look at it—is 69/2.

We support one additional week of paid parental leave for each week the baby is born pre-term. That is a very sensible measure, and I would like to congratulate Mr Seymour on bringing that to the House. [Bell rung] I am very proud to sit in a Government caucus that supported that measure.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry. You have got 15 seconds remaining.

Oh, is that right, Mr Assistant Speaker? We do oppose this particular bill, but we have done much for parents and will continue to do so. Thank you.

I rise to take a call and speak to Sue Moroney’s Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill. It gives me great pleasure, on behalf of New Zealand First, to strongly support this.

I am going to have some time to talk about that and tell some stories. But I have to acknowledge, first and foremost, the enjoyment that I had—with much due respect, in fact, to Mark Mitchell, whom I do hold in some sort of regard, who did get completely and utterly punked by Denise Roche when he was caught mansplaining, which I thought was very, very funny, and I think very, very apt also.

It was only 2 weeks ago that we had Mother’s Day here in this country and around parts of the Commonwealth, where we took time out to spend time with our mothers, our matriarchs, our wives or our partners, and actually acknowledge the great job and the great role—a very important role—that they have in all of our lives. I too took that day out with my wife—unfortunately, my mother lives in Australia so I was not there, but it was fair to say that contact was made and we certainly wished that we could have been together. We value our mothers. They are extremely important.

I cannot sit here and listen to this Government rhetoric that puts down the fact that we cannot afford to increase paid parental leave. It is not just about mothers—I will get to that in a moment—but it is largely to do with paid parental leave and that engagement that mothers have in early childhood learning. I cannot sit by and listen to this Government’s rhetoric that we cannot afford it, because we cannot afford not to do this.

As I get further into my speech I will give you facts and figures and talk about the OECD and what an impact—in a positive manner—that that is having in extending paid parental leave and paying adequately those parents to support them so that they can raise their children. I find myself, like probably everybody in this House, in a very privileged position to be in a position to be able to raise my family. My wife, who looks after our kids full-time, does not have to go to work, and that is a choice that we made.

It used to be, many years ago, that one income was enough to raise a family by itself. Invariably it was the father who would go off to work, as it was in the early years of my childhood until my mother and father split up. And then my mother—without paid parental leave—was forced to go out to work. That was not a choice. She would have much rather stayed home to look after and raise her kids to make them the best that they could be. I could have actually probably been a little bit better had she stayed home—some of you might have a comment to make on that, or not—but, who knows? I could have risen right to the top. Do not look so surprised there, Alastair. Anyhow, I say that in jest, but the reality is, you know, very severe, because we are not doing enough for our mothers at home.

I call it not just good luck, but I almost call it divine intervention—and some certainly would—that Sue Moroney has had this bill drawn out of the ballot twice in 4 years, and we sit here now in the second reading of this very similar but slightly different bill, which actually involves work contact hours, to get that through. Of course, earlier this year we had the legislation arising from the Employment Standards Legislation Bill that went through the House, which had full cross-party support. New Zealand First also supported the amendment put forward by Sue Moroney to increase those paid parental weeks to 22, and then on to 26 weeks, and it was obviously lost in the House. Of course, we know the story: last year in February 2015 the third reading failed to go through for the very same thing. So it is more than luck; this is meant to be. I do not necessarily believe in divine intervention, but I do believe that things happen for a reason. This bill is meant to go through. This bill needs to go through.

Let me just draw your attention to how the rest of the world values our mothers and values our families and values the importance of those family nuclei. In Austria, they give 60 weeks in paid parental leave; Canada: 52 weeks; Czech Republic: 110 weeks; Denmark: 50 weeks; Estonia gives 166 weeks; Finland gives 161 weeks; Germany: 58 weeks; Hungary: 160 weeks. It goes on. What do you think the average number of weeks of paid parental leave is in the OECD? It is 54.1 weeks. That is the average. We are talking about—no, no let us get this right—the total paid leave available to mothers. The total leave available—it is not just paid maternity leave; you have to look at the total.

There are only seven countries in the OECD that are below what we in this country consider fair and reasonable for paid parental leave, which we have only in the last 6 weeks put up to 18 weeks. Seven countries, but get this—let me just list those countries. Those countries are Israel, which gives 14 weeks; Mexico, which gives 12 weeks; the Netherlands, which gives 16 weeks; Spain, which gives 16 weeks; Switzerland and Turkey, which give 14 weeks; and then we have the United States, which gives no time at all. Interestingly, when you look even further, despite Israel giving only 14 weeks of paid parental leave, it pays paid parental leave at 100 percent of the earnings of that person, of the median income.

We pay out only 47 percent of our median income—$409, on average—to our mothers whom we value, to whom we send flowers and chocolates, to whom we take time out to give kisses and acknowledge their sacrifice. They sacrifice their bodies, they become selfless to our needs for our entire lives, and those members can sit there and say that we cannot afford it. Well, I challenge you, and I think it was a comment that was raised by Iain Lees-Galloway: show us the money—show us the money. I will show you where the money is. Let us talk about the $27 million flag referendum that nobody wanted. What about the $16 million for the Saudi businessmen to build an abattoir in the Middle East that nobody asked for? What about the $126 million that this Government found to go and invest into China’s infrastructure and not even invest in ourselves? What about the estimated $7.5 billion in corporate taxes that is not collected by this Government? Goodness me, people, there is a lot of money, and we have only just scratched the surface of how we can make this affordable.

This is a cost-benefit ratio of which you have to look at the upside. We have got a degradation of our communities. We have got high unemployment. We have got a social disconnect—a dysfunctional society in many respects, and it was even acknowledged by Paul Foster-Bell in a current study that was put out. It is irrefutable. It was impartial; the facts are the facts. I just want to take a moment to read some of that out. The scientific report identifies health and behaviour risks for kids in care: “A boom in daycare is seeing children spend up to 10,000 hours in care by the time they start school. A major childcare report shows increased risks of childhood respiratory illness, obesity, aggression, and hyperactivity. The new generation of babies placed in childcare face behavioural and health risks, says a major new scientific review.” It goes on to say: “Brainwave Trust researcher Keryn O’Neill said they don’t want to make parents feel guilty, but can’t fudge the facts for fear of making people feel bad. … ‘One of those is that while there can be benefits for children from three years old, there can be risks for children under three. Those risks increase the younger the child is.’ ”

We have to implore this legislation to be passed. We have to support Sue Moroney’s member’s bill. We need to make sure that we value our families and our society because, at the end of the day, it really comes down to where we are headed, and we are heading for the weeds if we do not spend more time inwardly looking at what is going to make a huge impact for the positive future of our communities. Our families grow into growing our economy and making it a safer environment for us to live in, and certainly a happier one. I hope the National Party has a change of heart and we get some support for this bill in the House today.

Just when the Government Administration Committee thought that they had seen the back of me, I rise to take a call on this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill. I just want to take it down a notch and pay tribute to Ms Moroney. This side of the House agrees with the spirit of the bill, and I have had the pleasure of working with her on the Government Administration Committee for this bill for a short time before I was moved on under the able chairmanship of Ms Ruth Dyson.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: We miss you—we miss you.

You do miss me, and I miss you too. The Government Administration Committee actually does—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am not involved in this and do not want to be drawn into it. Thank you.

Sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker. We do get some very interesting bills, including this one, and I also have had the pleasure of sitting with Ms Moroney on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which heard the Employment Standards Bill that extended the paid parental leave concept as well. I do have to pay tribute, as a mother of two premature babies, to the concept of paid parental leave and to the benefits that it provides for women, for parents, and for dads—connecting them to the workplace and, of course, allowing time to bond with baby without the financial stress that often having children can bring.

Before I begin, I think it is probably important to talk about the history of paid parental leave because, if you think about the evolution of it throughout time, it started as an almost primitive concept. When it first came on to our law books—I think it was in 2002—it was simply providing protection for somebody’s job, and that was the extent of it. Since then it has evolved and we have seen financial assistance. We have seen it extended to more than just the mother, and that has been a good thing.

It has slowly evolved. It has been a long row to hoe in respect of the lobbying but, as part of that, as each Government has extended it, what both Governments of the day had to do was look at a suite of measures in managing this fine country. You have to prioritise, given that you have limited funds and limited taxes to go around and spend on social initiatives. You have to decide what you spend it on. On this side of the House we are about providing a suite of measures to best provide for children—to allow them to thrive in our community and grow—and for families. As such, we do oppose this bill and the extension that it sets out.

But I come back to the benefits of paid parental leave. We have heard from some of the previous speakers that it is about breastfeeding and, yes, certainly that extra time and alleviating the financial stress on parents allows a mother, the biological mother, to bond with the child. It does alleviate the stress, which allows a mother to breastfeed, and of course breastfeeding is acknowledged as providing the right mix of vitamins for baby. But also I acknowledge that breastfeeding is pretty hard, so having that time to bond with baby and do that—hey, that is brilliant if you can actually breastfeed, and that is wonderful. But if you cannot, the time still affords some benefits through bonding with baby. It helps mothers’ and carers’ mental health when the new baby comes into the home. It prevents postnatal depression in women. Postnatal depression can have really devastating effects on families and family members, so it is quite a significant thing to overcome, and to have that time, and the financial stress alleviated really does make a difference. There is the physical health of the mother—they do not call it labour for nothing.

Paid parental leave certainly allows mum to rest and come back to physical strength after having a baby, and it allows for a connection with wider community as well. That is one of the things that I want to focus on because a connection in isolated areas with the wider community is something that paid parental leave allows and enables. I had the privilege of attending as the MP for Invercargill the Mums ‘n’ Bubs Expo in Invercargill recently. That was an initiative—an inaugural event—that was put together by two young mums to bring people together with their young babies and families to discuss the challenges of having babies in the modern world. One of the risks that was identified was actually isolation in a community. So if you are away from family members, if you do not have the support of your wider whānau, paid parental leave allows you that time to get involved with community groups and to strike up camaraderie with other mothers or fathers, or families who have young children and learn from them. Again, it alleviates the pressure or that psychological stress of having children.

I talked about this in the first reading—that one of the things I did as a young mum was to join the Supporting Parents Alongside Children’s Education (SPACE) group, which was facilitated by Playcentre. That was a group of first-time mothers who came together with babies aged between zero and 4 months. We met weekly, and it allowed us to form great bonds together as our children went through the same developmental processes, but also it facilitated learning about those processes, as we had guest speakers come in to speak to us about different things, different aspects of a child’s life. So not only did we have the education about children, as mothers and fathers—because there were some fathers who did that course as well—but the camaraderie really was a great support for me and for others in that group. As I look back on that course—it was one of the courses that I recommended at the Mums ‘n’ Bubs Expo—some of those people with whom I went through that SPACE group are my best “mum-friends” now, moving forward, and we still have that connection and the children still have that connection.

As I come back to the bill, although this Government opposes the extension as it is set out, we do believe in having a suite of measures that we need to put in place to support children. It is not just about paid parental leave. Some of our policies, such as free doctors visits and prescriptions for under-13-year-olds, go to the heart of making sure that our families are well taken care of and that our children get the medical help that they need early on in the piece. So we are taking that financial burden off families so that they can get their children to the doctor early if there is some sort of health issue, get them taken care of, get them the medication that they need, and get them well to set them on the right path to thrive and become productive members of society. There are many other policies that we have in place that look to care for children and families—some of our key performance indicators in respect of immunisation, making sure that the information is out there for parents in respect of the pros and cons of immunisation, and making sure that the bulk of our kids go through being immunised against some of those really serious diseases so that the effects of that are avoided and mitigated.

So, look, this is a Government that definitely cares about children. It cares about families, but it is about a suite of measures, not just paid parental leave. Despite and notwithstanding the benefits of paid parental leave—which are recognised by this Government, given that we have extended it from 16 weeks to 18 weeks; or 14 weeks to 16 weeks and then to 18 weeks—we do need to look at the raft of different measures, the suite of different measures, that need to be put in place to care for our families and our children. So I certainly support the concept of paid parental leave and acknowledge Ms Moroney’s tenacity in raising this again in the House. It is an important debate to have but, look, at the end of the day, we have competing priorities, and as such we oppose this bill.

It is with great pleasure that I rise to take a call on this, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill put forward by Labour member Sue Moroney. I am not sure that I have spoken more often on any other topic in this House in my 4 years here. I think this is the third piece of legislation, and the second member’s bill from Sue Moroney, that I have had the great pleasure of supporting on this topic.

The Green Party supports the public view that extending paid parental leave is to the benefit of us as a country. For me, one of the main reasons that I support this bill—and there are so many, as has been outlined by the previous National speaker, Sarah Dowie—is that I think it helps us update our employment settings and our workplace legislation. It is 2016 and still so much of our employment legislation treats our society and our people in the workplace as if we are still in the 1950s—as if there is one breadwinner who is there earning and providing for their family, who is nicely nurtured in a nice warm, dry house. That is just not the reality of this world. In families, both parents are so often having to work—and so many parents both want to work—but they also have children. We actually need our employment settings to recognise that.

It was really interesting to me that we heard, in the last term, that on the bill to extend paid parental leave to 6 months there were 3,795 submissions, 99.6 percent in support of it. This time around, with a very, very similar bill, there were 6,755 submissions, most of which were in support of this bill. So the public support—having heard all of the Government’s arguments about affordability, about the other measures that it is putting in place—for having 6 months parental leave has increased. People have heard the arguments, they have made their decision about priorities, and I think this Government should listen. The people of New Zealand are saying that it is time for us to update our employment legislation—that it is time for us to support our families, particularly in those first 6 months. I do not think you can argue with that.

The submitters, as has already been stated by my colleague Denise Roche, were from a very wide range of groups: from Family First, to the Council of Trade Unions, to a lot of employers and employers’ representatives. We have heard from the Government side that it has to consider business and what business needs, because business is really what provides the money that drives this society—it is nothing to do with the people doing the work or the family supporting that work. But even then the Government got it wrong, because businesses were telling us that for them 6 months is easier to manage than 18 weeks, because 6 months is a length of time that enables them to get somebody else in to fill the position. Below that level, they are often juggling and just infilling, which puts pressure on the remaining workers to be covering those jobs, and it is not good for their workplaces or their staff.

This bill is good for babies. There is no question about that; all of the evidence tells us that. It is good for women’s employment and keeping them in jobs and ensuring their ability to progress, and for closing the gender pay gap. It is also good for employers, in managing their workplaces and supporting all of the workers in those workplaces. To be opposing this on the grounds that it is unaffordable, when booming economies like the Czech Republic and Estonia seem to be able to afford up to 3 years of paid parental leave—and we have only been able to increase paid parental leave from 12 weeks in 2002 to 18 weeks now, despite very, very significant increases in our GDP—just does not ring true. If our economy is going to grow, we need to share it and support our families.

I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this bill. I would like to warp back to a couple of the contributions we have already had in this debate, in particular to Clayton Mitchell, who really took us back to the 1950s, making his entire contribution about mothers. He spoke about mothers so much that it was getting somewhat Freudian. Well, perhaps he has missed the point—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

—that this is about paid parental leave for fathers and mothers, rather than just mothers. We heard from Sue Moroney a rather veiled inference that, somehow, men are not eligible to speak in terms of this debate. She was nowhere near as explicit or as bad as Clayton Mitchell from the 1950s. She did not mean it to come out, but it came out.

So let us be clear that this is a debate about parental leave. Iain Lees-Galloway, in his fine King’s College debating form, said that the questions are: is this bill necessary, and can it be afforded? His argument was that it is necessary because other OECD countries have, on average, longer paid parental leave periods. Well, if this Parliament made laws on the basis that we should always regress to the OECD mean, then we would never ever have voted for women to be able to vote in general elections, or for a large number of other policy innovations that this country has made. We also would have adopted a number of very bad public policies, and it would be an example of that if we were to adopt Sue Moroney’s bill.

But then he made the argument that it is affordable. Well, this has always been about politics for the Labour Party. Funnily enough, Jacinda Ardern in an earlier debate actually betrayed the Labour Party and showed us just how political this has always been. Jacinda Ardern told us that when there was a $2.5 billion surplus in 2002, that was when the Labour Government, under pressure from the Alliance party, first introduced paid parental leave—2002 was an election year, remember? Then, in 2004, when the National Party’s polling went up and the surplus was $5.6 billion, Labour decided to introduce extensions to paid parental leave. Then, when there was no surplus at all but the Labour Party did not have the burden of governing, those members were keen to further extend paid parental leave. When it suits them, they make the argument about fiscal responsibility, and when it does not suit them, they do not talk about fiscal responsibility at all.

But the reality is that the current situation is not one of the Government having a large surplus. It is not time to consider such large spending increases, and when the Labour Party is in Government, it knows that very, very well. Why is this purely political? The fact is that paid parental leave is not a reality for half of New Zealanders who have children. In this country, every year, there are 60,000 babies born, give or take a few, and how many people actually sign up for paid parental leave? Fewer than 30,000. So this cannot be necessary. If it is necessary, then what do we say to the half of parents who have children yet do not take advantage of paid parental leave? The fact of the matter is that this is purely political, it is purely posturing, and it is purely vote-buying on behalf of the Labour Party.

But there is one small innovation in policy in this area that I would like to take a little bit of credit for, because one thing the State should do, and one reason we pay taxes, is to give people financial compensation in times of unexpected need, such as when they have babies prematurely. I am pleased this Government has introduced additional paid parental leave for people who find themselves in unexpected situations, but I am also pleased to be part of a Government that opposes wholesale vote-buying that affects only half the population, that is based on the shonkiest of research, and that will make no difference to most people except for the Labour Party and its polling. Well, folks, you are going to have to work a lot harder to make this work. I oppose this bill. Thank you.

I rise to take a call on this bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill in its second reading. I just note the comments that were made by David Seymour, the previous speaker. The figure is that, annually, it is about 26,000. So he is absolutely right. It is even lower than that—lower than the 30,000. He is absolutely right that on average, per year, that is the number that actually applied for paid parental leave.

But I want to start my remarks by taking up a point that my colleague and friend Mark Mitchell got up and talked about in his speech, which is the importance of the role of fathers. It is just as important. I know that Denise Roche spoke about that and called it mansplaining. Clayton Mitchell then went on and started bandying on about this and saying that she was absolutely correct. I have to say that that really does take away the essence of what Parliament is actually about, which is the equity of all to have an opportunity to debate this issue. I think that that is really important—

💬 Sue Moroney: That’s why it’s called parental leave.

—just as it is for Mrs Sue Moroney to be able to do that, and I respect that. I just think that there needs to be a little bit of respect that he had a view, he was not mocking anyone, and he was giving his explanation, and I think that is just as important.

I will just say straight out that, along with the Government, we do oppose this bill, but we do support the intent of the member. I absolutely agree with what the member is saying around paid parental leave, but it is not about the aspect of—because paid parental leave is an opportunity. It is a tool that is used by the Government to provide support where it is most needed at that point in time. The member has shared her own story that when she was raising children, the provision was not available then, so I think that in 2002, when it did come in, I would have supported it, and I believe that that was actually the right thing to do. The workforce had evolved, changes had happened, and so, therefore, the needs and the demands on families were at the point where in most cases, and even today, mums and dads were both having to work. Caregivers have to get into a situation where they need to provide for their family, such is the consumer society we live in, and those are some of the demands.

So the intent is what I actually do support. I think it is absolutely right to give the support that we can give. I am not one of those who say that, well, just because we did not have that provision, others should not have it. I actually support the member in her comments that as time moves on, changes happen, and, for our own children and for our grandchildren, we hope that they will evolve to meet the demands and the needs that are there. I think that is absolutely correct, as well.

I would like to just make some comments about that, because I think it is right. Look, people talk about finances and they say that it is all about the money, but the reality is that in all of the families that we come from, budgeting is something that we do every single day. We make choices as mums and dads in our homes. With the work that we are part of and the income that we bring into our homes, we make a choice as to the types of food that we buy, the type of accommodation that we have, the vehicles we have, the things we do on holiday, and the types of clothes and shoes we have. We make decisions as families every single day on the budget that we have.

It is disingenuous for the other side to say: “You don’t care because you don’t want to give the money.” Well, if it was the case in everyday homes that children would turn round and say “We need to have the latest shoes. We need the latest technology.”, then, I tell you what, they could have the debate and say that it is disingenuous. This Government is being cautious and careful. It has not disagreed with the intent of the member, but it is saying this: as we budget for what is appropriate, we budget appropriately. This Government has done that.

💬 Sue Moroney: You’ve got $1 billion extra that you’re spending tomorrow.

It has gone—and let us just see where it went. The Hon Ruth Dyson is here, and we know that in 2007, she was also faced with a report that came from the Families Commission on which she had to make a decision. I know that she is a wise person who had to make a decision with the constraints that were before her, and she realised that, in actual fact, the Families Commission wanted to extend it all the way through to 13 months—13 weeks. So, to 13—or was it? To 13, yes. So, anyway, it was an extension—I will find it here. But the member was correct—here it is, 13 months. That is right, it was 13 months. [Interruption] I need to get it correct. It was 13 months. But the honourable member, as the then Minister, by—let us see, what was that—by 2015.

💬 Sue Moroney: Yes.

By 2015, right? So let us talk about 13 months, right? Let us talk about this point: the honourable member made a decision on the basis of what was affordable at that point in time, even though I know that the member over here, Mr David Seymour, talked about the fact that the Government had a surplus. It had the ability to extend when it had the opportunity, but it did not. Why? Because it made a calculated and a rational decision. So for the member to turn round and say to this Government, when we do not have the excess of that surplus, that we should make that decision—we are making the same decision as that member made when she was the Minister. She made a rational decision to go by incremental steps.

Let us look at those incremental steps. In 2002 it was 12 weeks, in 2004 it was 13 weeks, and in 2005 it was 14 weeks—14 weeks. So let us just take that into consideration. It means that the member knew that by incremental, by learning, by developing, and by knowing what is affordable, we should make our decisions. So for those who are listening on the outside, who would try to take the comments from the member and criticise this Government, saying that it does not care, it cares just as much as that member did in 2007 right the way to 2009, when it made the decisions that were appropriate, being fiscally responsible, as Sue Moroney thought was appropriate as well. That is very important.

Here is another bit of information, because the member has also talked about the nation speaking. In fact, Mr Iain Lees-Galloway talked about the fact that New Zealand is on our side. He talked about the weight of submissions. The member said we had doubled the number of submissions since 2013. This comes from the departmental report, page 4, and here is what it says in the top paragraph, “Overview of submissions”: 6,755 submissions. But out of that, 5,129 were form submissions. In other words, they were generated off the 26 websites that were set up there. That takes us down to 1,626. That seems to be substantive, does it not—1,626? So we have gone from 6,755 down to 1,626, but then the report goes on further to say that out of that, those other individual submissions had little bits added to the sentences that made them slightly different. So how many were classed as individual submissions? Sixty-six—66 submissions.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Oh, my gosh, Alfred.

I am just reading from the report.

💬 Sue Moroney: So you think the people that filled in the form did not care?

I was not in the select committee, I have to say; I did not hear them. But when one reads from the report, it has to be factual. The report says there were only 66 submissions that could be classified as individual. Let us break it down a bit.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: What!

Well, it is in the report. Let us break it down. Sixty-two submitters expressed support for the bill, two submitters opposed the bill, but then alongside that there were also another two. But here is what gets interesting: one of those submitters was the Child Poverty Action Group. The Child Poverty Action Group neither supported nor opposed the bill.

💬 Sue Moroney: Right.

Yes, that is right. I am being factual—from the report. But this is what they said: until there was enough evidence they were taking into account the adequate recognition of the needs of all new-borns. So, to turn around and say that there is the weight of 6,755 submissions, all the organisational support—you just have to say that that may not be quite true, when it got down to 66, when it got down to 62. And what was interesting was that the Child Poverty Action Group actually neither opposed nor supported this. You have to question whether there is anything in this.

In my few remaining comments I just want to deal with the facts—I just want to deal with the facts. The member then talked about the fact that even the businesses support this. But I am reading from another report, and it is from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill. It is the officials’ report, and, surprise, surprise we have comments here from Business New Zealand, which opposes the bill—and also the New Zealand Retailers Association—not the bill as a whole. What it wanted to do was talk about the different parts that it feels are not appropriate. So the bill as a whole, the intent, it supports. But the parts of this bill that extend the leave to 26 weeks are not what it would not support. There are parts around employment protection that it thinks are absolutely important. I want to put that on record, because some of the comments that have been made have not been quite factual. On behalf of the Government, we do oppose this bill.

Jacinda Ardern—a split call.

I find it appalling that the Government would not only stand up and use the kinds of excuses that I have heard from that side of the House to oppose paid parental leave, but that at the same time it dismisses the thousands of submissions that were made because, in Alfred Ngaro’s eyes, they were not important because they were built around a set of preformed ideas. The idea that someone who is perhaps a parent or a mother might not have as much time as someone else to construct an individualised submission does not seem to have occurred to that member. To cast out those thousands of submissions, out of hand, I thought was insulting. If form submissions are meaningless, if form submissions do not count for something and are not paid attention to, then I suggest that we send a form letter back to those thousands of submitters, and in that form letter I suggest that we include the transcript of Alfred Ngaro’s speech. Let us see whether or not that form letter sparks a reaction from those submitters, because I would wager that sharing his dismissive attitude with all of those individuals would get a response, and rightly so.

We have heard a lot from that side of the House around how this is a political bill, that Sue Moroney and Labour are supporting this bill because it is political.

💬 David Seymour: Don’t lie, Jacinda.

I would like to substitute the word “political”, Mr Seymour, with the word “values”, because that is the reason this side of the House has chosen to support this bill, because we see the importance, based both on evidence and research but also on the moral arguments around paid parental leave, of supporting it. To put up the argument that because half of new mothers miss out that is a reason not to support it—actually, that is a reason to do something for them as well, which is why we have already announced Best Start. We recognised that that was a problem we wanted to address too. We do not have to say that we are not able to do both, when we can if you prioritise.

On the issue of prioritisation, another point I want to raise for Alfred Ngaro, who tried to argue that we should not implement this bill because the fiscal headroom to do it was not available—that is wrong, wrong, wrong. Not only does the first phase of this bill cost half of what the Prime Minister spent on his flag referendum—you cannot tell me that was a higher priority than supporting new mothers and babies—but actually what is being proposed here costs 1.27 percent of what that Government will spend tomorrow in its Budget, 1.27 percent. This is not about whether it is possible; it is about priorities. And on this side of the House we are prioritising children, mothers, families, and, yes, fathers also. It is about priorities.

In fact, we have been so responsible in the phasing in of this, and this is something that Sue Moroney has gone to great lengths over, that she has proposed phasing—18 to 22 weeks from 1 April 2017, moving from 22 to 26 weeks in 2018. It is obviously not just about cost-benefit analysis, but if that side of the House consistently wants to return simply to dollar value, then I ask you this: what is the cost to society of a child with poor attachment? Well, it could potentially lead, if you listen to your own science advisers, to issues around conduct disorder. What does conduct disorder cost us? A million dollars per child—a million dollars per child. What is the cost of a poor start in life? New Zealand currently pays $2 billion per annum for that.

I could give you every single fiscal argument you could possibly want if you want to justify this bill. But here is what I want you to consider instead of just the fiscal value. My friend recently fell pregnant—a very exciting time for everyone. She is a small-business owner. It is paid parental leave or nothing for her. That is what this bill is really about. It is about the individuals. It is about the fact that those 8 additional weeks mean the difference between a mother starting to see her child verbalise little sounds that make sense—the ability to smile, to move to solid foods. Look beyond the fiscal, because this bill is about people, it is about relationships between caregivers and their baby, and it is about investing in the future.

It is a great pleasure for me to stand, once again, in this House and support the proposal to extend paid parental leave for New Zealand parents. I want to give some members opposing this bill some facts, because they seem to have been lacking, and I think that is a very sad thing in a debate that is as important as this.

This is about extending our existing scheme by 8 weeks. It has got some faults, and I do not think we should ignore that fact, but this is about extending what we currently have. It would cost about $12.7 million in tomorrow’s Budget, which is less than 1 percent of the $1.6 billion that the Prime Minister has announced will be in the Budget tomorrow. This is an affordable proposal that we know would benefit new parents and their new babies, and I do not see why we should not have that as a priority. My colleague Jacinda Ardern has just given very good financial reasons. The Government Administration Committee heard overwhelming social and community-based reasons, as well.

The “Brains Trust” from the ACT Party talked about the difference between the number of new mothers and the number of people who applied for paid parental leave. He may not realise that the criteria restricts eligibility. He was not in the House when the legislation was originally introduced in 2002 and became the law, when we first ventured into paid parental leave. He should read the criteria and understand that a whole lot of new parents are not eligible for it. He should also know that a number of new fathers will not apply for this, because the paid parental leave payment is so darn low that a lot of men miss out on having that time with their newborn baby because they just cannot afford that drop in salary. So there are some deficiencies and there are some reasons why some people are not eligible, and there are some reasons why some people do not apply. But he should argue on the basis of fact, not on the basis of made-up Epsom logic, which does not translate into facts, at all.

In 2002, when we first introduced paid parental leave in New Zealand, members of the National Party said that the measure would create dependence on the State in new parents, so it voted against it, despite the fact that every other civilised, developed country that we would like to compare ourselves favourably with has paid parental leave and says it is one of the best investments for maintaining a connection to the paid workforce and for ensuring that new babies have the best possible start in life. In 2006 we were one of the first countries—perhaps the first country; it is debatable—to extend entitlement to paid parental leave for self-employed new parents, and I think that is one of the best things we can do. We know that a large percentage of the labour market in New Zealand is self-employed—we are innovative; that is what we do—so an entitlement for paid parental leave will make so much difference for those people.

But we are still stuck at a time that is not considered best practice in terms of health outcomes. Too many women—and it is mostly women who get paid parental leave, much to my disappointment—still go back into their paid job far too early. We need to offer more financial support, and this bill says we should give another 8 weeks. It is sensibly tranched so that we do not blow the Budget—less than 1 percent of the new spend in tomorrow’s Budget. Remember when you are clapping your Minister of Finance that this bill could have gone through at less than 1 percent of the new spend, and we could have had an additional 8 weeks of paid parental leave.

I want to conclude by saying that I was absolutely disgusted at the response that Alfred Ngaro gave to over 6,500 submitters on this bill. I had the privilege of chairing the select committee that received those submissions. They were accepted as submissions by a unanimous decision of that committee—6,821 submissions, and 6,817 of those submissions supported the proposal to extend paid parental leave. That is 99.94 percent of submissions that supported this bill. I think that is a very clear message, and I hope it is a message that the National Government will get.

This is a move that New Zealand is ready for. It is one of the best investments we can make to support new parents and their new babies, and it is about time we progressed it.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the second reading of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill in the name of Sue Moroney. This bill is to extend the period of paid parental leave to 26 weeks and to have work contact hours for those who are on parental leave. This bill proposes that it should be done in two stages, the first stage being increasing to 22 weeks from 1 April 2017, and then increasing to 26 weeks from 1 April 2018.

This bill was considered by the Government Administration Committee, and I am not a member of that select committee but I understand that the select committee recommended that the work contact hours provision be removed from this bill for a simple reason, and the reason is that this National Government has already provided for keeping-in-touch hours. I can see that this bill is driven by the importance of bonding and various other factors that the member listed before, but we have increased paid parental leave already from 14 weeks to 16 weeks last year, and then we have increased it from 16 weeks to 18 weeks this year.

When we amended the principal Act, it was not just about the length of paid parental leave; we also looked at making this whole scheme modern and practical. What we did is we widened the eligibility criteria for those who can avail themselves of this entitlement. Casual workers, seasonal and contract workers, and those who work for more than one employer can now be entitled to paid parental leave. We also increased the kind of care that is entitled to paid parental leave. We introduced the concept of primary carer, and with that people can, without going through the process of formal adoption, look after a child, have paid parental leave if they are eligible, and No. 3, which is very important, is that parents of pre-term babies can be eligible for longer paid parental leave, depending on when the premature baby is born. The gestation period is 37 weeks, and if a baby is born before 37 weeks the parent receives weekly payments for that many weeks, depending on how early the pre-term baby is born. For example, if a baby is born at 27 weeks, then the parent will receive payment for an additional 10 weeks, making a total of 28 weeks. With our current 18 weeks’ paid parental leave, we are in line with the OECD average.

Having a child can change a lot of things in a family, and having a pre-term child can actually bring more changes in the family. It can create more mental and physical strain because you are looking after that child for the first few days and weeks from a distance. Generally speaking, pre-term babies are kept in medical care before they are sent home with the family. We also increased the parental tax credit from $150 to $220, and we extended the period for that from 8 weeks to 10 weeks. So through giving more parental tax credit, through extending paid parental leave, and through making more people eligible, what we did is we provided choice for people—it is about providing choices.

This theme that we have introduced, this National Government, is about giving more access and about flexibility. In looking at the family structures, how they are changing, how the family needs are changing, and how their work needs are changing, it is really important that we are able to cater for all of that. We are committed to supporting children so that they can have the best possible start in their life. We recognise that families and employees have to plan their personal and financial lives, and that, on the other hand, businesses should be flexible to adapt to changing demands. We also want to see that parents are able to stay in touch with the labour market. This is not just for the wider economic and social good, but it is good for them too.

Every parent goes through different experiences, so I do not think it is fair to generalise those experiences. I actually want to share one of my experiences. When I started leaving my child in a day-care centre to go back to work, I did feel guilty about it. Yes, it is not easy and it is not easy for any parent to leave their child in a day-care centre to go back to education or work, no matter what the age of the child is. Moreover, people also frown at new mums who decide to leave their child in a day-care centre to go back to education or work. It is about making new mums guilty about leaving their child in a day-care centre to go back to study or work. I strongly feel that that needs to be stopped. We want a society that is equal for men and women. We want to see that women have equal opportunities to men and have access to education and work as and when they require, and we want to close the gender gap. I do not support any ideas that promote segregation of women just because of their biological make-up.

A lot of research has been done and members opposite have spoken about research that they are using to support their argument but, in research, the important thing is that the outcome of any research will depend on the question that you ask in that research. So I want to ask: why stop at 26 weeks? Why not make it 16 years, because parenting is a long-term commitment and parents ideally should be there to support their child through their childhood to get into adulthood.

Talking about research, I want to talk about one piece of research. This study is led by New York’s Columbia University School of Social Work. It is published by the Society for Research in Child Development. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development study of early childcare followed more than 1,000 children, so it is a very healthy sample size—1,000 children. These children were from 10 different geographical areas and were up to the age of 7. The study followed their family circumstances and their development. What they found in that research is that, yes, there are some downsides to mums getting to work within a few months of their child being born, but, overall, the advantages are more than the downsides. The advantages include increased income and the overall well-being of the mum. In this research what they finally concluded is that the net effect is neutral. The net effect is neutral because we need to look at the full picture—we cannot just pick one or two points and debate this; we need to look at the full picture. It is about the overall outcomes for the child and for the mother, and the overall effect that they found in this research is that it is neutral.

The research also recognised that parenting is a big thing. The researcher also recognised that it is important for working mothers to be sensitive to their child’s needs. It is about how, when they get back from their work, it is important that they leave their work before they get in the door so that they can give full attention to their child. So it is about having that quality time to have that bonding with their child. It is about being sensitive to the child’s needs. There is no point to someone staying with their child 24 hours, 7 days, if they are not attentive to the child—it is not going to give any benefits to the mum or her child. I spoke about this research because I do not want new mums to feel guilty about getting back to work, and given the work that we have already done in this space, I oppose this bill.