Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill

It is a pleasure finally to rise to speak to Part 2 of the bill. This is the part that brings in 26 weeks’ paid parental leave, and it brings it in on 1 April 2018. So for all of those members who debated the bill without having read it, naming different dates that are completely wrong, can I encourage them, please, to read the bill. It is 1 April 2018 when this bill proposes that New Zealanders should be able to embrace 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. And why 26 weeks’ paid parental leave? Well, it is not just a figure plucked out of the air; it is not just a figure that is an excuse for trying to filibuster a bill. It is a number that is based on—

💬 Hon Member: Politicise—politicise.

No, no, it is not politicising the issue of children and their families, as the Government is so interested in doing. It is based on what the World Health Organization says, actually. So I would like Government members to listen up to that. The World Health Organization recommends exclusive breastfeeding to 6 months. It recommends this not because it is its personal view, but because of the research and evidence that says that if, as a country, we can support women to be able to achieve that—and I acknowledge that not everyone can; but where we can, we should—that will reduce the amount of money the rest of us have to pay on hospital admissions.

Even if we were to be completely selfish about this, that would be a good enough reason in itself. But I am not prepared to be completely selfish about this, because it is also about the health of that child—the health and well-being of that child throughout their entire life, from the age of 26 weeks right through their adolescence, right through their adulthood—and the ability for them to lead the most fulfilling life possible. Is that not what we should all be embracing? Is that not what we here in this Parliament should be dedicating our time towards? I certainly believe that is what we should be doing.

So 26 weeks has not been plucked out of the air, and, yes, there are arguments, as it becomes affordable to this country, to look to extend it further at other times. But that is not the argument that Labour Party members are mounting at this point in time. We are saying right here, right now that, in fact, in 2012—right there, right then—it was affordable, and it still is today. How do I know this? How ironic is it that we are having this debate here today on the very same day that the Government has plucked a figure of $20 billion out of the air for defence? Here we have the Government MPs today saying that 26 weeks’ paid parental leave is unaffordable, but on the very same day $20 billion is magically plucked out of the air for defence—well, that is affordable. I think that tells us everything we need to know about the Government’s priorities: defence spending over children. Is that not what we expect to see from a National Government? And it has been played out again today.

I want to put on the table the agreed figures—not the made-up figures, not the trumped-up exaggerated ones that the Government MPs have been using tonight, but the figures given to us by officials and agreed to by the Government Administration Committee. Around that select committee table, we were able to get rid of the politics for that nanosecond of time and focus on the things that mattered, and here is what we agreed to: we agreed that to reach 26 weeks’ paid parental leave, in the next financial year—that is financial year 2016-17—it would be $12.7 million. In the Budget year 2017-18, it would be $65.4 million additional. At full implementation, in the year 2018-19, it would reach $107 million. That sounds like a lot of money when you are working on your household budget, but here is the other element: we also agreed—because officials gave us research and evidence and data that supported it—that on full implementation there will be around $30 million worth of immediate savings. That is not even going near the big cost savings out in future years, which all the experts tell us are where the big cost savings are to be had. That is on day one—on day one—of implementing 26 weeks’ paid parental leave, which Part 2 brings into law. Then we would save in the order of $30 million every year.

We need to think about this in context, because these are big numbers. What does it mean in the context of Government spending? For next year, it would mean just 0.7 percent of the additional money that the Government has already committed in the Budget. That is not of the entire amount that the Government is spending—that is such a small decimal point I cannot even get my head around it—but just of the additional spending, the $1.8 billion of additional spending this Government did without raising anyone’s taxes and without causing any major drama; 0.7 percent of that amount is what this bill would cost in that year. Let us go to the 2017-18 Budget year. It would be 3.6 percent of the additional spending that the Government is planning for that year. Then, as I said before, finally we would get to the gross amount of $107 million.

People might wonder why there is a bit of disagreement going on between the National Government and this side about what the costings are. There should not be any room for disagreement, because the officials’ figures are the official figures. But here is the game that the Government is playing. What it is doing is it is adding all of those years up together for 5 years, and then it is adding a bit on the top as well. That is what it is doing, because I heard several of those members say $500 million dollars.

💬 Brett Hudson: It’s $466 million.

It is not even $466 million either, Mr Hudson.

💬 Brett Hudson: Yes, it is.

No, it is not. What we have agreed in the select committee is to work on the return to work assumptions. What this means is that not everyone is going to take—

💬 Paul Foster-Bell: Assumption. It’s a word.

No, they are—well, they are not assumptions, because they are based on what actually happens right now. It is based on what actually happens right now. Not every single woman—when they take their 18 weeks’ paid parental leave, they do not all take 18 weeks. They do not all take the 18 weeks. So it is based on real-life data—what we know. I am surprised that members who were on the select committee do not understand this, because we went through it and dotted the i’s and crossed all the t’s on it. We had a lot of debate about it, and they still do not seem to get it.

What we know is that 2 months before the paid parental leave provision runs out, around about 5 percent of women will return to work. Why will they return to work? Well, there are a number of different reasons. More and more frequently, it is because the payment for paid parental leave is nothing near their ordinary wage, which means that they cannot afford to stay off work for any longer. As that Government keeps putting housing costs up all the time, they are struggling to pay the rent. They are struggling to pay the mortgage. They are never going to be able save to get into their first home. So people are returning to work sooner, and 5 percent of them will come back in the fourth month. A further 10 percent of them, we know, will come back at the fifth month. By the time we get to the sixth month—the 26 weeks—another 15 percent of them will have already returned to work.

Those are the figures that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) used—“MoBIE”, sorry; I should call it by its correct name. “MoBIE” used those figures to inform the select committee. Now that Government is using other figures to try to trump it up to make it sound like it is more expensive than it actually will be. What is its motivation? What could possibly be its motivation? It is trying to give some sort of bizarre justification to a financial veto. That is why it is using trumped-up figures. It is disrespectful to families, it is disrespectful to the select committee process, it is disrespectful to all of the submitters who came and talked to us and asked us to make sure that we got it costed properly, and it is disrespectful to the officials who worked hard on providing this information for the select committee.

I urge Government MPs not to continue to play politics with this bill, not to continue to exaggerate the figures when they know the truth of the cost, and not to try to give themselves an excuse for the embarrassment that they are now bringing upon themselves to suffer of putting a veto against the democratic process in this Parliament. That is the position they are putting themselves in. They are arguing against the majority of New Zealanders. They are arguing against the majority of MPs. I want to say to those MPs who are taking this seriously, who are giving it the due respect and the scrutiny that it deserves, that those MPs have made this decision after giving full scrutiny to the research and evidence and to the financial information, looking at the broader picture and saying, yes, this is affordable for New Zealand now. Not only is it affordable but also if we do not do it, then we are choosing a future that is not good for New Zealand.

E Te Kaiwhakahaere, tēnā koe. Thank you for this opportunity to contribute to Part 2 of this Committee of the whole House debate. I want to pose a couple of questions to the member on Part 2 of this bill. I do not have high hopes that they will be answered or even addressed given what happened with my questions on Part 1, but I am going to ask them anyway. I have a couple of comments to make first, though, on the contribution of the member in charge of this bill, Sue Moroney.

Firstly, I think that the comparison that has been drawn between the extra funding that has been sought via this measure and the $20 billion investment into our Defence Force, which is being considered in the white paper process, is completely fallacious and specious, and, I think, quite misleading to the public. I think Governments over a number of generations now have accepted that the defence of the realm is the first and absolutely primary responsibility of any Government. No child in this country—

💬 Richard Prosser: We haven’t seen any proof of that out of you lot.

No child in this country, Mr Prosser, is able to live a happy and healthy and productive life in this country if they do not live in a safe country that is well guarded and well defended, and that is why that investment in our Defence Force is required.

Secondly, the term over which the member is talking is quite different. She is comparing apples and pears. That is an investment to be considered over a 15-year period, whereas the costings that the Government side has been quite correctly using—and let us point out that these are Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment costings, and I think it is disrespectful to the officials who did their very best work and submitted those figures—in some cases they were estimates, Ms Moroney, and in some cases they were forecasts. They are predictions; they are guesses, because this is something that might happen in the future. Those very best guesses that the ministry was able to give us were in the range of just under half a billion dollars, but over a 4-year period once this policy takes full force. So she is comparing something over a 4-year period with something over a 15-year period. I think that that is a very false comparison to make, and it is quite misleading to any of the poor unfortunate viewers who may be following this debate this evening.

Thirdly, I want to turn to the fact that there was a split view—in fact, a mixed series of opinions—given to us as we heard submissions on the Government Administration Committee. I want to reference, in particular, the submission made to the committee by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), because I think that evidences very much the fact that there is not universal agreement on this among the NGOs and those who care very deeply about the well-being of children in New Zealand. In referencing the submission presented by Associate Professor Susan St John, the respected professor at Auckland University, I would like to quote directly from the submission if I may.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): You are talking about 26 weeks now.

So in terms of the 26 weeks, what the Child Poverty Action Group had to say was “Extending the duration of [paid parental leave] will have no impact on child poverty, which is the most critical issue at this time, and a stated priority of the Government.”—

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Nothing the National Government has done has had an impact—

—contrary, it seems, to what the Opposition whip is screaming out at the moment. “In fact,”—it went on to say—“spending more on PPL may preclude other more vital spending for the 250,000 children in New Zealand enduring poverty, such as extending the full Working for Families package to all the low income families with children as CPAG has recommended.”.

So in its submission, No.1, the Child Poverty Action Group submitted that the extension of paid parental leave to 26 weeks, as is proposed in Part 2 of this bill, be delayed until there is adequate recognition of the needs of all newborns. This, I think, backs up some of the points that members on this side of the Chamber have been making thus far in the debate. There are always competing priorities for precious taxpayer dollars. This is one very important area—looking out for our youngest and most vulnerable citizens—but it is not only this measure that is competing for those precious taxpayer dollars, and to divert resources from our hospital system, from our education system, and even from the defence of this country in order to extend this measure to something that we are not able to afford is, in my view, the wrong path of action to take. It is not just members on this side of the Chamber who are saying it. There are other people saying it, including some whom we would often disagree with, such as the Child Poverty Action Group, which I think gave quite a persuasive submission to the select committee.

So I would like to hear from the member in the chair, the sponsor of this bill, what her view was on its submission and why she thinks it is important that we ignore that and actually proceed with 26 weeks, which she argues is not an arbitrary figure but is a World Health Organization - mandated figure.

It seems to be my lot in life at the moment to follow Paul Foster-Bell in this debating chamber, which is fine by me because he gives me plenty of material. So what this comes down to is whether the Government will support extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks or whether it will not, and it comes down to priorities. We have heard from the Government that it is not prepared to spend the money on extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks. That is all it comes down to.

Then we heard from Paul Foster-Bell: “Well, if we did that, we’d have to take the money from health or we’d have to take the money from education or we’d have to take the money from some other part of the welfare State.” I have got a suggestion. The Prime Minister says we can afford $3 billion worth of tax cuts—not $3 billion over 15 years or $3 billion over 20 years, but $3 billion year after year after year. The Prime Minister says we can afford $3 billion worth of tax cuts. Take it from that. Take it from that.

I am not even sure what the percentage is, because it is so minuscule. It is such a tiny number—far less than 1 percent of what the Prime Minister says we can afford in tax cuts—that we could use to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. That is a far better use of that money. The return we would get on that investment is far better than simply handing out $3 billion, and we know where it goes when the National Government gives tax cuts. It goes to the people at the very top. It certainly will not be going to the people who would benefit from getting paid parental leave extended to 26 weeks. So there is the solution.

Paul Foster-Bell has been asking questions. He wants to hear the answers. Where is the money coming from? There is—

💬 Paul Foster-Bell: What’s the answer?

There is the answer, Paul Foster-Bell. There is the answer—0.03 of a percent. So the Prime Minister can still have his tax cuts, and we want just 0.03 percent of that to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. There is the answer—there is the answer. I get all these spurious questions, and Paul Foster-Bell laments the fact that he is not getting answers from Sue Moroney in the chair or from the members opposite. There is the answer. It is very straightforward.

This Government can find money for its projects that it prioritises. It has already accepted that paid parental leave is a good investment. It took it a while. It took a long time to catch up. It insisted, back when Labour and the Greens—and I am not sure what New Zealand First’s position on it was at the time, so I will not put words in its members’ mouths, but back when paid parental leave was first introduced, back when we had those surpluses David Seymour was talking about earlier on, National members said it was not affordable then. So they have never thought it was affordable because it has never been a priority to them.

The money can be found. It can be found from all sorts of different places if we just set this as a priority, if we just make children a priority. But the easy answer is to take 0.03 percent of the tax cuts the Prime Minister says are going to be affordable. Take that money and extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. It is not hard.

It is my pleasure to take a call on Part 2 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill and to talk about the proposed 26 weeks of paid parental leave. I was a bit worried about Mr Prosser, because a burst blood vessel is actually really bad for your health, Richard. I want to acknowledge Clayton Mitchell and the contribution he has made. I would invite him to get up and make another one.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: It’s not the Academy Awards. Just talk about Part 2.

I just want to—oh, Mr Lees-Galloway is getting excited over there, again.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): So here we go.

Sorry, Mr Chair, you are right. What I would like to do is just address some comments that the sponsor of the bill, Sue Moroney, made in her speech, and that was around the third time tonight that I have heard her talk about the announcement that was made today about the defence white paper—and if you will bear with me, Mr Chairman, these comments were made by the sponsor of the bill—and the fact that the Government has committed $20 billion over the next 15 years to invest back into our New Zealand Defence Force. But I just want to highlight the fact that, in actual fact, in terms of spend in New Zealand, we commit about 1.1 percent of our GDP annually to our New Zealand Defence Force, and if we compare that to, say, the US, which—

💬 Richard Prosser: That’s not the net figure, though, is it? Take off depreciation and take off the capital charge, it’s about 0.87. More disingenuity from National.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order!

I have not fact-checked this—I am concerned about the blood pressure as well, Mr Chair—but I have not fact-checked this and I think the US is about 3.4—

💬 Denise Roche: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. In the previous parts, we have had lots of instruction to keep our comments to within the part in the bill that we are discussing, and I really think that the speaker on that side has gone off point.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Well, thank you for your guidance. Relevancy is a matter for the person in the Chair at the time. I had the privilege of listening to that debate on the radio as I was driving down—which says more about me than anything—but I invite the member who has the call, Mark Mitchell, to continue and make his point succinctly.

Thank you, Mr Chair. So if we look at Australia—and, again, I think the Minister of Defence commented today at his press conference—it is about 2.1—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Yes, OK. You are not doing it, so move on.

—and Canada is pretty close to us. But I want to make reference to the fact that the sponsor of the bill highlighted the investment into the New Zealand Defence Force as if to say that if we can make that type of investment as a country, then we should be able to take that money and allocate it to paid parental leave; but they are two totally different, separate issues. Actually, if you are talking about the health and well-being of our children, the security of our country and our economic zone is actually pretty important to the health and well-being of our children. I watched with great interest the debate in the House of Commons in the UK towards the end of last year, when the chairman of the Defence Committee got up and made a very compelling argument for increased spending, actually, in the UK’s defence forces because the threats and the security situation—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! The member has been given as much latitude as he is going to get. He either gets to Part 2 or he sits down. I notice he is currently sitting down.

💬 Hon Members: He’s coming in to land.

I am coming in to land—I am coming in to land.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No, he cannot come to it eventually; he has got to come to it now.

Thank you, Mr Chair. So my point is that I cannot make the link between saying that the Government has committed to an additional $20 billion of funding over 15 years for our New Zealand Defence Force and money that we are talking about now over the next 4 years for paid parental leave, because the reality of the matter is that—and we spoke about it earlier in the night—when this Government came into office, we were facing deficits for a decade. The Minister of Finance and our economic team in Cabinet and caucus have been fiscally disciplined around making sure that we get the country back into surplus, which is what we have done. It might be a thin one, but it is growing every year. That will provide opportunities and that will provide, in the coming years, decisions for the Government to make about where that additional money and funding will be spent. Of course, the decision will always be whether we will continue to pay down debt, because if we are talking about kids, the last thing I want is our children or our grandchildren inheriting a debt that we have built up over time because we have been irresponsible in the way that we have spent the money that comes in.

I think that the argument that the Opposition whip put up around tax cuts is—let us understand one thing. If we make a tax cut—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: I’m not a whip. I am just sitting here.

Well, he is pretending. Maybe he is the pretend whip—I do not know. He seems to be a lot more vocal than the whip tonight—I will put it that way. But the point that I would make is that if the Government decides to make a tax cut—

It is wonderful to take a call on Part 2 of tonight’s bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I have to say to Mark Mitchell: “Mate, you were putting a glass eye to sleep with that speech.” Let us just try to bring some context back to what we are here to talk about, which is the extension of paid parental leave from 22 weeks out to 26 weeks.

What I am hearing over there—although it is a bit of fluffery and a little bit of pokery—is that the Government members would like to support this because they can see the sense in it, “But, you know what, we just can’t quite afford it at the moment.” This is what the discussion is all about. Yes, we are right on the mark, are we not? Except you are not very good at articulating that tonight—the National members just seem to be fighting over a chip like seagulls, mate—so let us try to put it very clearly.

The reality is that it is going to cost around $100 million per annum to extend paid parental leave out to 26 weeks. If I look at that—$107 million, I think somebody is giving me the nod for, but we all agree that it is around the $100 million mark. I think the honourable member Iain Lees-Galloway does make a very valid point: building up to the election, we were talking about tax cuts that we could no longer afford, and they are likely to be on the table for next year—and 0.03 percent of the tax cuts that have been put forward for next year’s Budget is more than enough to pay out on $100 million of paid parental leave.

You might not think that that is enough money to find, but if you go back through the coffers of the National Government’s decisions over the years, you will see that when times were tough, when we had a global financial crisis, this Government, which sits across from us today and says it cannot afford $100 million a year, found $1 billion to bail out its South Canterbury Finance mates—$1 billion. When times were so tough and businesses were hitting the wall, the Government found $1 billion to go and do that. Just this year, when times were so tough, it found $27 million to do a flag referendum. It found $16 million to go and invest offshore over in Saudi Arabia, in the Middle East there, to build an abattoir that gives no benefit to New Zealand businesses. It has found $140 million to go and invest in China’s infrastructure. When this Government decides to find money, it knows exactly where to find it.

What this comes down to is the Government’s mean-spirited nature in stopping a bill going forward that is going to benefit families and our communities in this country. That is what it comes down to, Mr Mitchell, not this: “Well, we can’t quite afford it.” If I could just bring people’s attention—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Just come back to the bill.

Twenty-six weeks—that is what it is about, and the affordability of it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): And the movement to 26 weeks from 22. That is what this part is about, so let us—[Interruption] Clear the hell out of that. Go on.

I do want to note that when we talk about the OECD, when it suits, the Government members are the first people to jump up and say: “OECD figures show that we’re at the top 4 percent when it comes to jobs.”

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): This does not really sound much like the part we are talking about. [Interruption] You have spent two-thirds of your time talking about the other bit.

When we talk about paid parental leave, the Government says: “It is not in our interest; we are not interested in what the OECD is.” But it is interesting to know that when you look at the 41 countries here, New Zealand is currently in the bottom seven when it comes to paid parental weeks given—18 weeks. But, in actual fact, by the time you look at the average payment rates of all of these countries in the OECD, we are in the bottom three countries. We pay out only 47 percent of the average of the rest of the world. These countries that pay out 16 weeks’ paid parental leave or 14 weeks’ paid parental leave invariably give 100 percent of the national average annual salary to take home, which doubles that figure. We are still, even going to 26 weeks, going to be well behind the rest of the world when we compare ourselves with countries in the OECD.

This is affordable. This is about our communities. This is about connecting our families. It is about putting priorities back into, from the Government’s position, actually holding privileged positions to make sure that our families can look after themselves properly. We need to get back to enabling one-income families to support themselves, moving forward. We need to get back to families being given the time to spend, to connect, to bond with their children, and to nurture and to breastfeed them. This is what this bill does, and I cannot see any justification from this Government’s position to say otherwise.

I would like to speak to this, Part 2 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, brought forward by Sue Moroney. Others have spoken, I think quite coherently, about and demonstrated quite clearly the meanness of this Government in refusing to support this. So, in this contribution, I am actually going to try to dwell on the benefits of 6 months—of the 26 weeks, as opposed to the 22. I am hoping the Chair is going to appreciate that effort.

There are very significant reasons for the 6 months. The first one, which was already mentioned by the sponsor of the bill, is that the World Health Organization recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of a baby’s life. Anyone who listened to the submissions and anyone who has been in a family, who has had a baby, and who has tried to juggle work and the needs of their baby and breastfeeding will know that it is an exceptionally difficult thing to do. We certainly heard from people presenting to the Government Administration Committee about how they were unable to manage work and breastfeeding and their sanity, so they left their jobs because they could not manage those things and they had to put their child first by continuing to breastfeed. That had a very significant financial cost to those families, and it had career consequences for those women.

It was a demonstration of a time when they were trying to juggle those things. The stress on them and their baby was unacceptable. That is, ultimately, what this bill is about—removing that stress and ensuring those babies and those families are supported by our employment laws to be able to work and maintain attachment to the workplace and have a family. You know, that is how most people live. As a country, we have a responsibility, collectively, to our children, and our employment law is one way we can demonstrate that.

Another reason for the 6 months—the 26 weeks—is that, actually, employers told us it would help them manage workflows and leave. It is much easier to find somebody to fill in for 6 months. When it is a shorter period, they typically fill in and have other people cover that person’s job, and it is actually much more difficult to manage. Also, the other benefit of the 26 weeks is that when they employ somebody on a contract to fill in for those 6 months, somebody else is getting access to the job market who was not in it earlier. There are so many benefits that kick in at 6 months, and they do not kick in earlier.

The Green Party’s policy is for 13 months, and I do not think that is unreasonable when I consider that booming economies like the Czech Republic and Estonia somehow manage to offer 3 years of paid parental leave. It does just kind of grate a little bit to hear from this Government that it thinks 26 weeks is just too much of a stretch and out of our affordability range. I am personally more aspirational for New Zealand. I think we can do 6 months. I think that with the will of the people and with our economy—you know, the resources we may have as a country—we can cover it.

When we hear the arguments about the in-work tax credit and how that should be more of a priority—I absolutely believe we should extend the in-work tax credit to people. I do not think that it should be either/or; I think it should be both, and that we will be better off as a country and that our children and babies will be better off if we do both. But, strangely, this Government has voted against both of those things repeatedly. So it is telling us that an argument against this is the in-work tax credit—hmm! Strangely, it has a record of not supporting that either.

Ms Moroney, it is an absolute delight to take a second call on Part 2 of this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. Part 2, as we have heard, is about extending paid parental leave from 22 weeks to 26 weeks on 1 April 2018. Notwithstanding the arguments about the finances and the fact that this side of the Chamber believes that our funds are better spent elsewhere at this time and that it is about a suite of measures to give children and families the best start in life, and given that this side of the Chamber actually agrees that paid parental leave is a good idea and that I myself have put it on record that the concept of paid parental leave is a very good thing, I am going to focus on what the 4 weeks from extending the 22 weeks to 26 weeks would afford to mothers and/or fathers, because, of course, paid parental leave now extends to both parents and to carers.

We have already heard in Part 1 about the benefits that paid parental leave affords for breastfeeding. As a mother who could not breastfeed, paid parental leave was still very vital in respect of bottle-feeding. We cannot forget that. Yes, breastfeeding is considered best—the right vitamins and nutrients provided for baby—but it is still a very intimate experience to bottle-feed your baby, and that should not be lost or criticised. Some women cannot breastfeed, or choose not to, but it is still a very valuable time to bond with baby and an intimate experience to feed baby.

Moving on from that, in respect of the increase from 22 weeks to 26 weeks, those extra 4 weeks afford more than just bonding with baby. It is something that I have focused on in other speeches on this subject. It is the factor of isolation and the part that isolation can play in a young mum’s or young dad’s life, or in a first-time mum’s or dad’s life, when they first have baby. It can often happen if a person is isolated geographically, but it can also happen in cities if people are isolated from family members. For example, when I first had my child, I had a friend who had migrated from Australia to Southland who did not have the luxury of family and wider whānau support, and because of that, she was isolated. Coming back to what that increase of 4 weeks from 22 weeks to 26 weeks would afford, it is extra time to get involved in community activities with that extra financial support provided through paid parental leave, and to get involved with groups that provide support.

When you look at groups like Plunket—and for me, I have often talked about my involvement with SPACE through Playcentre, Supporting Parents Alongside Children’s Education, a course for first-time parents—it is about getting involved with those people who are going through the same changes as you: raising baby, looking to bond with baby, going through the challenges of the child’s development—

💬 Richard Prosser: You’re sounding like you’re wanting to vote in favour.

Well, I will round it off, Mr Prosser. I will round it off. The extra 4 weeks afford that time to bond with other mothers or fathers, and they in turn give support to those parents—that parent who could be isolated. That is a positive thing that the increase from 22 weeks to 26 weeks allows. It extends the paid parental leave period and gives that extra financial support to that family to enable them to do that.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. I almost feel like allowing the previous speaker another call because she was making such great arguments—fantastic arguments for extending paid parental leave from 22 to 26 weeks, because it makes so much sense. It is a pity that people in this House do not really have the choice to vote for what they believe in sometimes, because I think that member, Sarah Dowie, was expressing a real belief in the importance of relationships with babies, and the importance of parents having strong relationships with babies. Good on her for standing up for that, because one thing we know about our kids and relationships is that the thing we can give them that is of most importance—which is why Part 2 is so critical—is our time.

Our kids need our time, and if we have to go to work, we cannot give them that time. After the initial insanity of becoming a parent, particularly for mothers—because, really, you have no idea what is happening the first time—we need a lot of time to recover. I would argue that 6 months is a minimum—6 months when one’s life has completely changed and has been completely turned upside down by physical, emotional, economic, and social status changes—because we do not actually value parenting in our society, and every decision that I see made by the Government does not value parenting. We need to support this bill because it is going to give people time.

I will tell you why going from 22 weeks to 26 weeks is such a brilliant idea. As we have heard tonight, it is because it is good for employers, it is good for employees, it is good for babies, it is good for mothers, it is good for fathers, it is good for communities, it is good for the future health of the child, it is good for the future education of the child, it is good to break the isolation of parents, it is good for relationships, it is good for bonding at all levels, and it is good for sanity. There is nothing more insane, as I am sure the Government Administration Committee heard, than being torn in 1,200 different directions because, after 22 weeks, you were the person—the mother or the father—who was still feeling that they were just adjusting to this new little person, or people, in their life, plus to all the other people whom they are responsible for. But no, they had to go back to work.

The Green Party is incredibly proud to support this bill. We think that Sue Moroney has shown—in all the parts, but particularly in Part 2, because that is what we are talking about—incredible tenacity in holding on to every opportunity, and in keeping the community of parents with her. Every step of the way, parents are with Sue Moroney, and they are with all of us who support the bill, because, putting aside all the financial, fiscal, discipline, and weirdo arguments that I have heard tonight—which are really just about meanness and refusing to prioritise children—this is a positive step. As Jan Logie so rightly said, we live in a country that can do this. The only reason we cannot do it is that the Government is too mean to do it. Other than that, the arguments have been made, the evidence has been presented, the support has been demonstrated in the community, the logic has been shown, and the need is there.

When our children are babies—whether they are breastfed or bottle-fed—they need us. I think that 13 months, which is the Green Party policy, is a fantastic idea and that Sue Moroney has done amazingly well to get from 22 to 26 weeks, as a step towards what I know she really believes in. What she really believes in is that people should have as much time as they want—not just people who are wealthy, but everybody who has a job and a child should have these options. The Government, whose mantra of “choice”—it is constantly using the mantra of “choice” until, honestly, I feel like if I hear the word “choice” again, then I am going to strangle myself with my own “choices”. Honestly, if I hear that once again, because if there is one thing I know—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Back to the bill.

—it is that in Part 2 this bill acknowledges that parents should have the choice. That is what I am standing up here tonight to say. If we are serious about anyone having any choice about anything, and that actually matters, then put babies and children first for once. Stop being so mean and mean-spirited and put babies and children first and allow parents to stay at home for 6 miserable months—well, hopefully glorious, celebratory, participatory, amazing months, but they are quite often quite intense months. Allow parents that choice. If this bill is not to succeed, never fear. The women of New Zealand will never give up. Kia ora.

Kia ora. I was not going to take a call this evening, but this will be the only opportunity I have to speak on this bill, because it no longer falls inside my portfolio area; my colleague Clayton Mitchell will actually be taking the call in the third reading.

I must speak in this Chamber, because it will be a historic moment when this bill gets through this stage—which we hope is prior to 10 o’clock this evening—and when it finally goes through its third reading and when the Government fulfils its promise to veto what the majority of the elected members of New Zealand have voted for. That will be an amazing moment in the history of New Zealand because it will send such a striking message. I must stand as a woman, as a mother, as a New Zealander, and as an elected member of this Parliament to speak to Part 2 of this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): And the 26 weeks.

Exactly, and how important 26 weeks are. I am going to speak personally about why I—not New Zealand First, but why I—believe it is important that this goes to 26 weeks. It is because I believe that by extending it to 26 weeks, we may just see, for the first time in our history, in some sort of mass movement, men pick up the opportunity to take at least the last month—the last 4 weeks—of those 26 weeks and stay at home with their babies, to be able to participate and to bond in the way I believe that the mass majority of young, current New Zealand fathers wish to participate. They will value that time with those children, and, finally, we will have a larger number of men who truly understand the unpaid work that is done by women over the period of time when they stay home and raise the next generation.

When a young person gets in trouble in this country, women and parents are the first people whom the media look for and ask: “Where are their parents? Where are those who raised them?”—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Not in the first 26 weeks they do not—come on.

“Where are those who bonded with them?”. If those parents are there for the 26 weeks at the beginning of that life, how that story might be different. If men have some opportunity in those 26 weeks, which are in Part 2, then how different might our society be. If men are able to truly feel valued inside the home as much as they feel valued inside the workforce, because of the 26 weeks that is here in Part 2, how different might our society be.

So I take this opportunity to support the bill that is being put forward. “Tenacity” is a word that should be tattooed somewhere on Sue Moroney because of the way she has stuck with this issue. Do not give it up; we will not.

I call on the Government to think hard before it declines 26 weeks in Part 2. The majority of New Zealand’s representatives support this bill. There is only a one seat difference between that side and this side. Think hard before you decide to cast your veto.

Thank you for the opportunity to take a further call on this. There has been quite a lot of wide-ranging debate since I made my last contribution, but I actually intend to pick up where I finished off, on the question of 26 weeks. Actually, I think that in this Committee we are not debating whether paid parental leave is a good thing. We are not debating the benefits. We are debating the duration, when it comes to this particular part of the bill—26 weeks. The member who is sponsoring this bill, Sue Moroney, told us when she made her introductory comments to this part of the Committee of the whole House debate that these are not arbitrary figures, that they are not random figures, and that it is not her 26 weeks that she came up with. This was the World Health Organization’s mandated, recommended research figure. Well, is it not a bit suspicious that 26 weeks is also half a year? It seems like a very rounded-off amount of time to come to. Is the member quite sure that it was not 24 weeks or that it was not 25.7 weeks? It does seem to me a little bit suspicious.

But, also, the World Health Organization’s members are not the only people with an opinion on this matter. I back the United Nations system, but we do have to acknowledge that the World Health Organization is an inherently political organisation. It is a committee of the UN, with representatives elected from a range of countries who get themselves on to the various committees. So I think the member needs to look closely at that source for her suggestion of 26 weeks. It is not the be-all and end-all. As I have said, there are other organisations in this country, including the Child Poverty Action Group, which made a very cogent, coherent, and, I think, persuasive submission that as good as parental leave is, there are other priorities that any other Government has to consider.

💬 Tracey Martin: Oh, my goodness. They’re going to really dislike you.

It is a little bit rich, actually, from Mrs Martin, I have to say—it is a little bit rich to be lectured from across the aisles by Mrs Martin, because Mrs Martin does not have to consider the other priorities that Governments do have to consider. This is the very reason that a financial veto exists, Mrs Martin. You make some interesting allegations, but, of course, the previous Labour Government exercised its financial veto 31 times during—

💬 David Seymour: No!

Yeah, actually—31 times. So I think we on this side of the House should not be lectured. But we are not even at that stage yet; that is pre-empting business that is yet to come. We are yet—

💬 Tracey Martin: It’s because your finance Minister said it in the paper. I do apologise! I won’t take his word for it.

—to see how the cards fall in this part and in this Committee, at the end of this Committee stage, and at the third reading, when that is even a consideration, Mrs Martin. I think the member is getting a little bit ahead of herself at this stage.

But, look, there was so much. Actually, I am going to agree with some of the things that the member Catherine Delahunty said about this part of the bill—the 26 weeks not being one of them, but many of the benefits of paid parental leave are. I actually do want to commend Sue Moroney. There will be some people who say that this is a highly political bill and that she is playing politics with quite an emotive issue, and who will accuse her of cynicism, but I actually want to commend her for what I think is a well-intentioned attempt to raise this issue twice in 2 years. Well done, Ms Moroney, on the luck of having it drawn, I suppose.

But I do agree with some of the things Catherine Delahunty was saying. The bonding between a parent and child that happens in the first few weeks, months, and even years of life is very important. I think it is a little bit arbitrary, though, that we have settled on 26 weeks in spite of inconclusive evidence from the breastfeeding experts, particularly in the New Zealand context, as to the ideal time to be given for leave to encourage breastfeeding. A point that I think has been made earlier, but which I want to emphasise, is that suggesting and allowing this idea to get out there that the only way a mother can exclusively breastfeed—or, in fact, breastfeed in part, or breastfeed her child in any way—is if she is on leave from the workforce completely is sending the wrong message to employers. Employers in this country should be aware that they do have a responsibility to make facilities available for mothers so that they are able to appropriately breastfeed their children.

I also back up the comments made by my colleague Mark Mitchell, who, I think, very sensibly pointed out the important role of fathers here. It is not entirely about the role of mothers—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No, it is about the 26 weeks.

I think we have to think of both parents in the arrangement, and, actually, 26 weeks, in my view—

💬 Kris Faafoi: Well done.

—is not the right balance. It is wonderful to see Mr Faafoi is going to make a contribution—

It gives me great pleasure to rise on behalf of the Speaker—sorry, on behalf of the ACT Party. I would never purport to rise on behalf of the Speaker, but, you know, a little bit of ambition can go a long way.

I am struck by the fact that many of the arguments I made in Part 1 in respect of the extension of paid parental leave entitlement from 18 weeks to 22 are also quite relevant to this particular part, too, on the extension of paid parental leave to 26 weeks.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Does this mean we are going to have four calls repeating them?

How many would you like?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): One good one.

If I cannot do that, would you take four bad ones?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Go for it.

OK, thank you, Mr Chair. There are actually a number of topics, but, thankfully, Tracey Martin has given me fresh material in her contribution, which was around gender equity. Her claim was that the extension of paid parental leave by 4 weeks, from 22 to 26, will be mainly occupied by fathers. Her claim can be further extended in that it will actually lead to a cultural change in gender relations in New Zealand.

In other words, she believes that men, hitherto somewhat unfamiliar with domestic chores and duties, will find themselves taking that extra 4 weeks off and discovering a whole lot of things about parenthood they would not otherwise understand. Give me a break! Never has there been somebody so out-of-touch with the modern reality of New Zealand. That might be the 1950s world view that we hear from New Zealand First, but the reality is that my friends who are parents, fathers, are deeply involved in every aspect of childcare, and they do not need an extra 4 weeks of paid parental leave to achieve that. As usual, Tracey Martin is an inspiration. I wish I was as clever as she thinks she is, but few of us can ever be.

The reality is, if you go a little bit deeper into her argument, it is not entirely obvious that an extension of paid parental leave really would lead to men—or fathers—taking a larger role in the household. It might well be—and I would be interested to hear from the member in charge, Sue Moroney, whether she has considered the implications of this bill for gender equity—that an extension from 22 weeks to 26 weeks would actually lead to women taking more time off work and men being even further shut out of parenthood. It is really not obvious what the real effect would be on the roles of different parents, even if we buy into Tracey Martin’s rather imaginative and out-of-touch version of gender relations in New Zealand in 2016.

On behalf of the fathers in New Zealand who are intimately and deeply involved in their children’s upbringing, I say to her that it is, frankly, a little bit offensive that the only way we will be kick-started into fatherhood is by an extra 4 weeks of paid parental leave, extended from 22 weeks up to 26 weeks.

💬 Tracey Martin: You have no concept of what you are talking about, you typical man.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Standing Orders require that a running commentary is not allowed when members are barracking. I have not had a moment’s respite from Tracey Martin’s screeching. I wonder whether you could call her into line.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I would like to sustain that point of order. In fact, the member may well have been reading my thoughts. The member interjecting constantly—a constant flow across the Chamber—is contrary to the Standing Orders, and just a little bit more than the rest of us can stand.

Thank you for sustaining that point of order. It might interest you to know that as one ages, one’s ability to hear higher frequencies diminishes, which is why the leader of New Zealand First has been able to tolerate that member for so long.

💬 Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Are you going to allow that sort of sexist comment to be made in this Chamber?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Firstly, I did hear a number of the interjections that the member made to the member who currently has the call, and I understand that we have been having quite a robust debate. I do not believe, as the Chair, that was a sexist remark, and so I am not going to take issue with it at the moment. I would like all members to be a little bit more sensitive as to what may cause offence within the Chamber.

Speaking to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No, I have ruled on the point of order. Get on with your speech.

That is exactly what I will do, but I will just point out that elderly hearing loss occurs in men and women. I was not being sexist towards the leader of New Zealand First.

There are a number of other matters in this part of the bill that I think deserve attention, other than gender equity and the role of fathers in New Zealand. One of them is the universality of the uptake. I think this is important. If it was important in Part 1, when we discussed the fact that not every parent takes up paid parental leave, then it is even more important when we extend it to 26 weeks. We understand that every year in New Zealand approximately 60,000 children are born—

It is my pleasure to take a call in this Committee stage of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. This Part 2 debate is about extending paid parental leave from 22 weeks to 26 weeks, and I would like to really focus on the rationale for 26 weeks. The proponent of this piece of legislation, Sue Moroney, has been very clear that it is linked to the World Health Organization (WHO) and evidence about the optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding. For the information of other members of the Committee, WHO has actually looked at 14 research publications, and that optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding has been determined for the first 6 months of life. It is considered a global public health goal that is linked to a reduction of infant morbidity and mortality, especially in the developing world. So there is actually a rationale around the 6 months and why 6 months is so vital, and a link between this specific piece of legislation and the breastfeeding of our children.

It is also relevant in the debate to look at article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. That particular convention states that children have the right to good quality health care—the best health care possible. What we know is that “Breast is best”, and for the first 6 months of life, children having an opportunity to be breastfed is incredibly important. So the rationale for the 26 weeks comes from that piece of research evidence, the World Health Organization, and an array of research and publications about how important and vital it is for the growth and development of our babies.

For people listening out there, the 26 weeks was also part of a recommendation of a November 2013 report by the Health Committee. That select committee was chaired by Paul Hutchison. That Inquiry into improving child health outcomes and preventing child abuse with a focus from preconception until three years of age (Volumes 1 and 2) actually had a section about paid parental leave. I am sure the National members of Parliament would be really interested in the inquiry and this piece of evidence that I am about to propose. Actually, Dr Hutchison was a huge champion, particularly, of the rights of the child, making sure that every child in New Zealand had the best possible start.

On page 39 of that report, under the heading “Social economic determinants of health and well-being”, there was a section about extending the duration of paid parental leave to between 6 and 12 months. The rationale for that really was, again, about breastfeeding, because it helps baby form positive attachments with their primary caregivers. To quote from that report, it also said this: “common sense suggests that a non-stressful, relaxed environment for as long as possible after birth fosters breastfeeding and helps babies form positive attachments with their primary caregivers.” In fact, the proposition for extending paid parental leave in that report was from 26 weeks at a minimum to 52 weeks.

It is interesting when we look around the world. When this bill passes—and I want to congratulate my colleague Sue Moroney—we will join Chile, Mongolia, and Hungary. Poland actually allows 26 weeks, the Czech Republic 28, Bulgaria 32, Slovenia 34, and Norway between 35 and 45. Ireland allows 42. It is 52 weeks in Albania, Montenegro, and the UK. Croatia allows 58, and Estonia 62. The champion around the world is Sweden, at 68 weeks. So what we are actually doing is creating a minimum level of paid parental leave, which so many international organisations around the world have said is incredibly important if we want to focus on the health and well-being of our children. I think what we have heard tonight, really, is procrastination on that side of the Chamber and a focus on what is important to them versus what is important to us. I think the compelling arguments from our side of the Chamber really have put children and families at the centre of a piece of public policy and legislative reform. Kia ora.