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

I move, That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. On any other occasion in this Parliament, speaking those words would mean that the bill gets passed into law and families would be able to look forward to 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. But not under this miserable National Government—that is not what is going to happen. For the first time in this Parliament’s history a bill is about to have a third reading debate and there will be no vote put at the end of it. Why is that? It is because that National Government does not prioritise children and their families enough to care, and it has taken this extreme measure that has never happened in our Parliament before.

I think it is a shameful day for democracy, and for the future of this country under this National Government, that this is taking place. It is an extreme measure that those members are taking, and what is it that they are taking an extreme measure against—the ability for parents to spend time with their children. Family time is what this Government is vetoing. It is vetoing family time and the ability for every child to get the best start in life. That makes it a shameful day for this National Government.

But I want New Zealanders to know this: that democracy has not failed them, that the Labour Party has not failed them, that the majority of this Parliament has not failed them; it is the National Party that has failed them. Democracy and MMP have actually worked in this instance, because we know that the majority of the public do support this measure. They understand the benefits of it, and that has been reflected in their Parliament. So MMP has not failed the public or New Zealand children. Democracy has not failed New Zealand children. The National Party has failed New Zealand children.

Those members are soon going to get up and try to convince those families that their needs are not a priority. They are going to stand up and say that this bill is unaffordable. It is demonstrably untrue, and it is demonstrably untrue because—how is this for irony—the same day that this bill was last debated in Parliament at its Committee stage, that same Government announced $20 billion worth of spending in defence. It plucked that figure out of thin air—no costings done on that; no scrutiny done on that figure whatsoever. Suddenly, the Government can magic $20 billion up for war toys, but it cannot afford a much smaller amount of money for children and their families.

I want to remind this Parliament and the public that this bill has faced the scrutiny of a select committee process and its full costing regime not once but twice, and yet the Government members refuse to acknowledge what is plainly in front of them, what all the research and evidence tell them, what the public wants to see, and what the majority of this Parliament wants to see as well. We also know it is demonstrably untrue because John Key keeps saying he wants $3 billion worth of tax cuts—that is where his priority lies: John Key wants his $3 billion worth of tax cuts. I do not know how many times more that is than the cost of this bill—I think we worked out that 0.3 percent of those tax cuts would actually fund this bill and this measure for New Zealand families.

Way back in 2012 I started my first reading speech with these words: “He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.” “What is most important of all? It is people, it is people, it is people.” As with most of those wise proverbs—all of them, actually—these words stand the test of time. They are as true now as they were in 2012, and still that Government is not listening. Instead, it has been focusing on playing politics with children’s lives. It has spent the last 4 years playing politics with children’s lives, and that is shameful.

It is not the only shameful record that this Government has when it comes to children, because it is just one of a range of measures where it has acted against the interests of families and children. One of the first things this Government did when it came into office was to cut funding to early childhood education—

💬 Todd Barclay: Not true.

—so that children did not get the best-qualified teachers in front of them in early childhood education—and those members know it is true.

We now have 305,000 children living in poverty under that Government because of its failed policies—well, I would say, actually, its deliberate policies that do not respect and prioritise children. So there are 95,000 more children living in poverty, living in cars and living in garages up and down this nation than there were before this Government took over Treasury—took over the books. Recently, it has also cut Parents as First Teachers Funding. That is undervaluing parenting yet again from that Government. It has labelled children as failures at school with its national standards regime. Under the Government’s watch, the notifications of child abuse have increased, and it has allowed bargaining pleas to reduce child murder to manslaughter. Last night those members were at it again. They were stripping family time away from families on Easter Sunday because they were bargaining away—trading away—Easter Sunday as an important day for families to spend together. The list of this Government’s shameful record when it comes to children goes on and on.

What is it that is so controversial about this bill? It actually responds to the research and evidence that tell us that if parents and babies get bonding and attachment right between them in those early months, the outcome of that child’s life is going to be substantially improved. For the rest of us, that means that we get to save a lot of money on the potential bad outcomes that that child would have otherwise. For the rest of us, it means we get to live alongside really well-balanced children, and is that not what we would all want? We want to have well-balanced, well-nurtured people in our community, whom we are living beside. Also, the research and evidence tell us that if we get this right, and if we can support exclusive breastfeeding to 26 weeks, then we know that hospital admissions will drop and that we will save money in that field as well.

The cost of this bill—and let us clarify this, because the Minister of Finance has been caught out telling porkies about the cost on a number of occasions; not just once, but on a number of occasions—is $100 million net a year at full implementation. But wait, there is more. The officials have costed $28 million in savings—some of the savings that I outlined before. These are immediate savings—and that is before we even get to the long-term savings, which are the ones that all the experts say are the ones that really matter.

At the select committee there were 6,821 submissions—that is a large number of submissions—and 99.94 percent of them were in favour. I want to thank the huge number of New Zealanders who came in and supported this. I want to particularly thank the 26 for Babies coalition. Organisations like Plunket, Barnardos, and a range of trade unions came together to express their views on this, and they have kept this issue alive for 4 years. I want to thank the thousands of New Zealanders who sent postcards, attended meetings, signed a petition, made submissions, and those who have made personal contact with me and told me their stories.

But none of this debate would have been able to happen if it was not for the political parties that supported this, and I want to acknowledge my Labour colleagues, who gave me the great honour of being the guardian of this Labour Party policy—this very important Labour Party policy—and I hope that I have carried out my guardianship appropriately. I also want to thank the Green Party, New Zealand First, the Māori Party, and United Future, which all held tough and held strong in favour of children around this issue. I know there was a lot of political pressure put on those parties to change their votes. We saw it all play out in the Chamber from time to time, but they never wavered and every single one of those votes has counted on this journey, so I thank you all. We must remember that for all of that support, there has been some progress made. We on this side of the House have forced the Government to increase paid parental leave to 18 weeks and, importantly, we have forced it to ensure that parents of babies who are born prematurely get even more leave than that.

Finally, I want to thank the many staff who have worked on this over the course of the last 4 years. I want to thank my family who are present in the Chamber today, particularly my two boys—this is how long this bill has been going for. My children were young boys when this started; they are now wonderful young men of whom I am so proud, and my husband, Shane, as well. There is a way forward on this still. The Government is never going to stop this debate from happening. The way forward is for a Labour-led Government to be elected to put this right next year. People have asked me how I feel about what is about to happen; I am more determined than ever to make that come about. Thank you.

First of all, I do want to acknowledge the member Sue Moroney, the sponsor of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, in this, the third reading. There are a couple of issues that she raised. I do not have time to address all of them, but I just want to say that, actually, it is true that this Government does feel that responsible fiscal management and balancing the books are important. Decisions should be driven—and that should be taken into consideration for any decisions that are made by a responsible Government. When we look around the world at the moment, we are watching more and more political and economic instability, and so it is even more important for us, as a small trading nation, to remain focused on some political stability, some economic stability, and some good decisions for us as a nation.

In relation to the comments that were made around the National Party and the National Government not doing anything for families, there is a whole raft of policies that have been implemented under this Government. It would take me an hour to go through them all, but one thing that I will say is that, for the first time since 1972—the first time since 1972, so even in 9 years of the previous Labour Government you did not make the decision to do this or implement a policy like this—we increased benefit rates by $25 a week for families—

💬 Jan Logie: No, you didn’t.

—so when we talk about what we are doing for children—yes, we did—that is going to have a tangible, positive impact on an estimated 108,000 families. They will benefit directly from that increase, and, again, I will highlight the fact that it is the first time that increase has been made since 1972—I will challenge any speaker to get up and try to rebut that. It is going to affect 194,000 children, and they are going to benefit from that increase. Two-thirds of children in material hardship live in a benefit-supported family, so that is a significant policy that this National Government has implemented in support of families.

The National Government believes in, and has increased, paid parental leave. We have increased it in two increments, from 14 weeks to 16 weeks and then to 18 weeks. We have been very clear about the fact that, when we are able to—when the money is available—then, of course, we would look at increasing paid parental leave again. But we are going to continue to be responsible around the way we manage the Government’s finances. It is not our money; it is the taxpayers’ money, so we have got a responsibility to use that prudently.

The other thing that I would highlight is that I could never buy into the argument that, just because a parent has got 18 weeks instead of 26 weeks, for whatever reason they are not able to bond with their child.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: We never said that. We never said that, and you know it.

Well, that is the argument that keeps getting put up. The argument is that because we are not supporting this bill, parents are somehow not able to bond with their children or they are somehow not going to be able to look after their children as well as they could if they had an extension of paid parental leave. That is your argument, not mine. I am just saying that I do not buy into that. I believe that probably most of us in this House bonded pretty well with our parents, and that they did a very good job of raising us. And, actually, they did not have paid parental leave available to them. I did not have that available to me with my daughter, but we seem to somehow have managed. But it is nice that we are in a position now where we are focused on being able to provide that type of support to parents.

It was interesting, in my time overseas. You know, I just think that we are very lucky in New Zealand, because I have observed, in my time overseas, mothers from Third World countries who had to leave their infant children to actually go away overseas and work, sometimes for 12 months, which was pretty tough to witness. [Interruption] You might laugh and think it is funny—this is the real world. This is the real world. They have to go overseas and work for 12 months away from their families, to send money back to support them—and often their parents, as well. I think we are lucky that we live in a country where we are actually able to have access to the types of support that we do have, so I would like to—like I said, there is a lot more that I would like to say. I have to take a reasonably short call, but, of course, we do not support this bill. Thank you.

There is not a lot in what Mark Mitchell just said that I could possibly agree with, but I am going to start with the tiny little bit that I do agree with, and that is that Governments must run the books responsibly. There were none more responsible than the Clark Government—9 years of surpluses. [Interruption] If you would be quiet for a little while, Brett Hudson, and listen. There were 9 years of surpluses. New Zealand’s net Government debt was down to zero—the first Government ever to do that. And, at the same time, that Government introduced paid parental leave, extended it once, extended it twice, introduced Working for Families, introduced interest-free student loans—all at the same time as running surpluses and paying down New Zealand’s Government debt. That is what a responsible Government looks like.

All Governments have to decide where their priorities sit, and Labour has always made a priority of working families. It was Labour that introduced paid parental leave; the National Party voted against it. It was Labour that extended paid parental leave; the National Party voted against it. It was Labour that extended paid parental leave again; the National Party voted against it. It was Labour that introduced Working for Families, and John Key called it communism by stealth. It was Labour that introduced KiwiSaver, and National voted against it. For people out there who—I can understand, on a night like this—are feeling disillusioned with politics as usual and think that all political parties are the same, they are not. There are clear differences between this side of the House, this side of politics, and that side of politics. We put families first, we put working people first, and we are prepared to make a priority of that. We do not go out and tell untruths about policies that we are uncomfortable about opposing.

The finance Minister—the numbers guy; the one who is supposed to understand how the numbers on the books work—has repeatedly gone and told blatant untruths about what this policy would cost. It costs less than half of what Bill English has been claiming it would cost. When he was found out, when he was caught out, he just said: “Oh, I made a mistake.” “I made a mistake.”, said Bill English, the numbers guy, the one who knows what the numbers are supposed to be about. We know that Bill English is actually on top of his job. He is not like the Prime Minister—he does not float from cloud to cloud. He does actually know what the numbers are, and he knew what the numbers were when he went out and gave New Zealand the wrong numbers. He knew he was on the wrong side of public opinion, he knew his priorities were in the wrong place, and so he had to go and tell untruths about what this policy would cost.

This does, ultimately, come down to priorities. Can New Zealand afford it? Of course we can afford it. The Prime Minister says that we have got $3 billion for tax cuts. The cost of this legislation is such an infinitesimally small proportion of that—I think we figured out that it is something like 0.03 percent of the $3 billion that the Prime Minister wants to spend annually on tax cuts. That the Prime Minister could actually, effectively, have his tax cuts unchanged and still implement this policy—it simply comes down to priorities, and for more than a decade the National Party has repeatedly proven that it does not believe in providing paid parental leave. OK, it increased it by 4 weeks once, and that was a direct consequence of the lobbying from not just Opposition parties but the organisations that Sue Moroney has already recognised, the organisations that backed 26 for Babies. That was true democracy in action.

It can be frustrating sitting on the Opposition benches. There are so many times when we put up the good arguments and we put up the good ideas but we get defeated, because that is democracy. We are in Opposition at the moment, but our democratic system actually gave us a Parliament that is quite finely balanced, and the people voted for a Parliament that is prepared to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. That is the will of Parliament, that is the will of the people of New Zealand. This Government, in its arrogance, is stopping the people of New Zealand getting what they voted for, and that does more damage to our reputation as politicians than almost anything else.

We are a democracy. We pride ourselves on being one of the most open, most transparent, and most democratic systems in the world, where one person, one vote really does count—that is what it really means—and we get a Parliament that genuinely reflects the will of the people. This Parliament wants to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks, and the National Government, which is in a minority on this, says no. That crushes the will of the New Zealand people and it crushes people’s faith in our democratic system. It is no wonder that people say politicians are out of touch, that we just do not get it, and that we are not listening.

But I want to say to people that it is not all of us who are not listening. It is that Government that is not listening, because even when it is in the minority in this Parliament, it is prepared to put down the democratic will of people and use its veto to stop something that costs such a small amount in Government terms. It is not that we cannot afford it; it is simply that this Government does not make a priority of paid parental leave, and it certainly does not make a priority of working families. Do we need more evidence of that? People are living in cars, for goodness’ sake. That is the New Zealand that the National Government has crafted over the last 8 years: people are living in cars. In my electorate on Friday there will be a crisis meeting to figure out where to house people, because for the people who have been forced into motels by this Government’s policy—whom the Ministry of Social Development and Housing New Zealand cannot find somewhere for and so they have put them into a motel—those motel rooms are going to become unavailable. There is nowhere left for those people. That is the consequence of this Government’s policy.

So there is a difference between the National Party and the Labour Party. There is a difference between the centre-right Government and the centre-left Opposition, which will be in Government soon. There is a difference, and the difference is that we put families first, we put people first, we put workers first, and we will build houses, not tear them down. We will support people to save for their superannuation, to save for their retirement. We will support people to raise their children. We will support people to have higher incomes so that they can have the choices that that Government talks about. We will not squeeze people harder and harder and harder so that those at the very top can get more from this Government, at the expense of everybody else. This Government is talking about giving more money to private schools, for goodness’ sake. I went to a private school. I can tell those members that those schools do not need more taxpayer funding. What we need is for the majority of people, who send their kids to public schools, to not have to pay the highest fees that they have ever had to in history, and for our public schools to be properly funded so that every child has the opportunity to get a proper education and get ahead.

But that is not the way of this Government. Tonight, with this legislation, it demonstrates where its priorities lie, and they are not with working New Zealanders, they are not with New Zealand families, and they are not with New Zealand babies. There could not be a more clear example of that than this Government’s application of the veto and its failure to actually act in a democratic fashion tonight. It is time for a change, and the only way we are going to change these things is by changing the Government.

I rise in opposition to this bill. This Government’s position on this bill has always been that the effects of it will have more than a small impact on the country’s finances. Some members opposite appear to take their facts from listening to the radio during the morning, but a select committee, instead, seeks advice from those who have the means to gather the facts. Ms Moroney sat on the select committee for this piece of business—the Government Administration Committee, which I sit on as a permanent member—and the advice we got from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment was very clear that when fully implemented, the Moroney bill would add an additional $120 million a year on top of what the Government has already done.

💬 Hon Member: Get your figures right.

That is the information from the advisers. It is tabled. I would love to table that information in this House for the benefit of members, but I cannot because it is publicly available. I would encourage them, and New Zealanders, to go to the Parliament website and read the advice that the committee members received from the ministry, because this has a significant impact on Government finances and the Government has said that in that case it would exercise a financial veto, and here it is, doing it. Mr Lees-Galloway and Ms Moroney have tried to say that exercising a financial veto was somehow undermining democracy. Ms Moroney said this Parliament has never done it before. Well, for their edification, if it is undermining democracy, their last Government with Michael Cullen did it 15 times—15 times it exercised the veto over parts of a bill. So it is clearly another case—

💬 Hon Members: Lies. They’re lying again.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! We will not use those phrases in this debate. There are other words to express your concerns. We will not use those words “lying” or “a liar”.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Yet another—

💬 Hon Members: Tell the truth.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! “Tell the truth.” is another phrase that is unparliamentary. We will not have it.

Yet another case from that side of the House of “Do as we say, not as we do”. This bill is unaffordable. The Government has already taken measures to extend support for families. I oppose it. I call on the House for everyone to oppose it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will appreciate that we are in somewhat uncharted territory this evening because the Government has issued its veto certificate for the first time for an entire bill. I wanted to seek your guidance on whether or not, under Standing Order 327(1), the issuer of the veto has any role or responsibility in coming to the House to speak to that veto and make clear the reasons why the Government does not concur with the bill, as outlined under Standing Order 327(1)—the signator of that veto being Bill English. I just wondered whether there is any guidance you could give us on whether or not the person responsible for a veto has to speak.

No, there is no requirement on the person issuing the veto. I have a copy here. It spells out the requirements under Standing Order 327. It has been tabled. It is on the Table for any member to look at, and that is the requirement. There is nothing specific that requires the Minister to come into the House and speak to it.

The next speaker—[Interruption] Order! I am calling Denise Roche.

I would like to put it on the record that the Greens are heartily—heartily—disappointed that the Minister of Finance is not turning up to speak on this bill and giving his reasons—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I thought I made it clear earlier, but I will make it very clear now: you cannot refer to the absence of a member. I understand the point that you are making, but do not refer to the absence of a member. All right?

OK. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I will rephrase that. I am disappointed that the Minister is not speaking on this bill and giving his reasons for the veto.

It is with deep regret that I rise to speak for the first time for the Greens on the third and final reading of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, and it is with deep regret that I will not be able to exercise my right to vote in the House. I want to note for the record that the Government’s decision to veto this bill is a huge insult to the thousands of people who submitted on it and the thousands and thousands of people who signed petitions calling on the Government not to veto this bill. It is an insult to all of those people who prepared and gave clear, compelling submissions on this bill—and, actually, on the others before it. The veto that this Government is issuing, that the Minister of Finance is issuing, is a slap in the face. It is a slap in the face for democracy, and all New Zealanders need to be worried about that.

The decision, apparently, was made—and should be made—for sound financial reasons, but, frankly, this Government and the Ministers are not financial managers. They have mismanaged this entire country and our economy so badly that there can be no definitive proof that the introduction of 26 weeks’ paid parental leave, an increase of only 8 weeks more than what it is now, is financially unsustainable. We have heard constant fudging of the numbers from the Government Ministers on this issue. Although we have seen them fudging the numbers around it, saying that it is going to cost millions more than what it is estimated to cost, we have also seen the spending of $26 million on a vanity project that was a referendum for the flag.

We are seeing a huge increase in inequality, and the data yesterday from the survey on household wealth, from Statistics New Zealand, actually showed that 3 percent of the wealth is owned by the lowest 40 percent of households. What that means is that at the top there are 10 percent of the households that have over 50 percent of the wealth in the country. Where you have got those disparities, you cannot be pointing to sound economic management from this Government.

The Green Party has always said that we would support and we would envisage 13 months’ paid parental leave as the standard that we should be aspiring to for families in this country—13 months’ paid parental leave. We have supported this bill by Sue Moroney because 26 weeks is a huge step towards that and an 8-week jump from where we are now.

We would say that this Government has not done the proper cost-benefit analysis. We have heard from speakers on this side of the House talk about the savings further down the track if you invest now in the future of our children, and one way to invest is by extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks. One of the things that we heard from the ministry officials was that although it would cost about $100 million for the full implementation of 26 weeks’ paid parental leave, on the same day there would be a $30 million saving. Further down the track there are the savings, the education outcomes, the health outcomes, and the family bonding and health that come with having a substantial amount of time in the beginning weeks of a child’s life, in the beginning weeks of a family unit finding its way. So this Government has traded a very short-term view. It would rather spend $3 billion promising tax cuts than invest in our kids, and we really do need to.

We need to have an economy that works for everyone, not just the 10 percent. We need it to work for our kids. We need to be thinking in a much longer term. From the Greens’ point of view, we would not just extend that investment to the kids of people who are working but also extend the Working for Families tax credit to those families that are most poor—those who are not in the paid workforce—because our kids are vulnerable. We have heard during the debate and we have heard from other speakers on this side of the House as well about how our kids are suffering—how there are 150,000 of them who do not have the basic necessities to get to school. We have heard how there are 40,000 visits to hospitals every year from kids in our country because their living conditions are so poor—damp, cold housing—and we are not seeing a Government on track to fixing that. And why not? I suggest it is because kids do not vote.

This Government is out of touch. It is really out of touch with what families want and what employers want, which is better provisions. We heard from employers that it would be easier for them to have 26 weeks’ paid parental leave because it is an easier amount of time to actually get in a temp replacement. We have heard from them, but this Government is not listening to them either. So this Government is out of touch and out of step with employers, with families, and with the economy as well, because paid parental leave has always been good for the economy and this Government has never recognised that. What you get is a more productive workforce and reduced costs in training, because women, particularly, who are taking parental leave are able to come back to work and be productive workers.

This paid parental leave is also good for babies, and it is good for families, and this Government is ignoring that. We have to change the short-sighted, short-term thinking. It is not good for the country. This Government is mismanaging the economy. It is totally mismanaging the economy, and we need to change it. We will do that at the next election.

Although I rise in opposition to this bill, I think it is no secret, given my contributions in the first and second readings of this bill, that I am definitely in support of the concept of paid parental leave, as is this Government. We are the Government that has already extended paid parental leave from 14 weeks to 18 weeks. We have extended the eligibility of those receiving paid parental leave, and extended the entitlements of those people who have pre-term babies, which, of course, is a very good help to those families. Where we sit as a Government is we remain prudent managers of the economy.

We maintain that paid parental leave has its benefits, and I have spoken about those at length, with regard to bonding with baby and encouraging breastfeeding, but also for those women who cannot breastfeed—the bonding in respect of bottle-feeding should not be underestimated; that time with baby should not be underestimated—and also overcoming the isolation of new parents in a new community or an existing community to bond with other families who have babies and to share in those milestones.

Although we support paid parental leave, on this side of the House, it is about providing a suite of measures for the best start for baby in life, the best start for families, and supporting our families in life to achieve their hopes and dreams. I am very proud of this Government’s record. To name a few things, there are free doctors visits and prescriptions for under-13-year-olds; a doubling investment in early childhood education, with almost 98 percent engagement rates; and, of course, our HomeStart packages to get more people into their own home. So we have a suite of measures that are helping families, and the extension of paid parental leave is one of those. I am very proud of this Government’s record, but in this instance, because of our prudent management of the economy, we cannot support this bill.

I would like to start New Zealand First’s contribution today by just saying how disappointed New Zealand First is at the stance that this Government is taking, particularly over this financial veto. This speech that I will be giving this evening is on three things: it is about democracy; the so-called unaffordability of the bill; and, of course, it is all about families, which is what Sue Moroney has put forward with the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill.

I started off in the second reading by saying that this was divine intervention, because, of course, there have been three cracks at getting this across the line and I thought, by the will of the gods, that this was clearly going to be the time that we were going to see some sense come through. We have got democracy in the House when the majority of this House are in support of looking after their families, our families, others’ families, and New Zealand families by extending that paid parental leave, which actually puts us—well, still behind the eight ball when we compare ourselves with other OECD countries around the world. The Minister, when he speaks about it, says you cannot just cherry-pick information from the OECD. But whenever he gets asked a question—in fact today in the House he was asked a question about employment—he goes back to using those OECD figures that he likes, to put his hat on and say that we are doing very well. The reality is, the stark reality is, we are doing abysmally: we are right at the bottom of the OECD figures when it comes to the amount of money that is paid to families, and the amount of time that we give our families. In fact, we are in the four bottom countries in the OECD when it comes to looking after families.

In 1943 a very, very great leader gave a fantastic quote. Winston Churchill famously said: “There is no finer investment for any community than putting milk into babies.” The year 1943 was a very, very hard time and finances were very, very tight, because we were, of course, in the precipice of war and going through war times. That quote there is a very, very important one because it demonstrates cost versus value. When the priority of that Government was to make sure that it could fight a war and stand up for democracy, it was putting the priorities of its families first, making sure that those families and those communities were being looked after. It put the cost of a war aside for a moment for the values of families and children. It was not talking about fuelling aeroplanes—it was talking about putting milk into babies. This Government says that we cannot afford this bill. We say we cannot afford not to implement and support this bill.

At a time that this country is seeing more and more disenfranchised families—disenfranchised youth who turn into disenfranchised adults who become dependent, one way or another, on the State, or, even worse, can go on to commit horrible, violent crimes—we need to get to the grassroots of this problem. This is a step in the right direction for a Government to understand that families need to come first. They need to come first, before you put $10 billion into your war fund. They need to come first, when we talk about the money that is not being collected when we are talking about corporate taxation. The Minister of Finance made a one-line mention of it in his Budget this year, saying more needs to be done in this area. When you talk about affordability, what about the billion dollars that you gave to your South Canterbury Finance mates—that money was found. We found $10 billion to go into our war coffers to make sure that that could be afforded. We could find $26 million for a flag referendum. I can carry on—$16 million to a Saudi businessman to build an abattoir in the Middle East. What about the $540 million out of our Future Investment Fund that is going into infrastructure in China?

You can find the money when you want to, but you are not prioritising it for our families. What about the reserve? What about the $7.5 billion that is not currently being collected by corporate tax—the one area that would make it affordable—you are not even putting any resources or energies into it. The point has already been made that $110 million to $115 million—I am going to read out this financial veto in a moment, which will give you those numbers. [Interruption] The last time we had Mr Hudson in the House, he was banging off all sorts of crazy figures. This Government can afford to pledge to the people that next year you can expect to see $3 billion in tax cuts, which is 0.03 percent of the $110 million that we are proposing to put into this family bill—

💬 Brett Hudson: It’s per year, by the way.

It is 0.03 percent per year. Do the maths; I can tell you right now that there are a lot of years supported by the $3 billion that you are talking in a 1-year tax cut. I would like to just take a moment to read out—for the people back home who do not have the ability to get it easily—the impact of the veto from the certificate of financial veto under Standing Order 327: “The proposed Bill extends the duration of paid parental leave to a maximum of 22 weeks on 1 April 2017, and a maximum of 26 weeks on 1 April 2018. The proposed Bill would impact on the Crown’s fiscal aggregates by increasing the Crown’s total operating expenses by approximately $14 million in 2016/17, $72 million in 2017/18, $116 million in 2018/19 and $119 million in 2019/20”—

💬 Brett Hudson: You’re not going to stop it then.

This is just because you have not read it, Mr Hudson. “This amounts to $321 million over the forecast period. These figures are gross before tax, and therefore it is correct to note that the government will receive tax revenue back on a portion of this expenditure of approximately $43 million. This results in an overall net increase to the Crown’s total operating expenses of approximately $278 million over the forecast period.”

When the Minister was asked yesterday in the House by Sue Moroney about this very question—why he put the financial veto on this bill—he said that, actually, at first, he thought it was $280 million per year—that is what he said. He said his initial thought was it was unaffordable because it was $280 million per year. Well, we are four times better off from his first prediction. And that would be enough time, surely, to actually reconsider your position and support this bill, because it is more than affordable as we speak about the $278 million over that 4-year period. Now they go dumb and silent, they hang their heads in shame. I feel very, very sorry for those members of the National Party who actually, genuinely would like to support this bill, but cannot do it because they are held over the barrel and they have to toe the party line. I do feel sorry for you, and I know there are a number of you over there.

We heard and we saw and we read over 6,800 submissions leading into this bill through the select committee. Ninety-nine percent of those people were in full support of it because it makes sense, it is about putting our families first, and it is about ensuring families can bond together. We talk about mums because they are extremely important. In fact, the last time I spoke, I spoke about Mother’s Day and what a great day that was, and how important every single one of us make our mothers feel—because they are so precious to us. But dads play an equal role, and we are seeing more and more dads getting more and more involved with their families. I have to say that the people in this room, in this House, are the lucky ones because they are in a position to actually take some time out with your families. But what about those families that are in financial hardship, that do not get the same ability? This would enable that bond to be made tight with those family members, with those dads and those mums with their babies, to make sure that we can break down the cycle of neglect that starts at the root of the problem, which we are seeing like a festering sore in this country when it comes to family violence and domestic violence. We need to be doing more to help our families out.

Myself and, I think, actually, a good number of my constituents in Tāmaki oppose this bill. One of the reasons I would put forward—actually, if you were listening to the last contribution, particularly at the end, it was all about money and so forth. I said in my maiden speech that love is not an economic commodity, and it is fascinating that, listening to most of these speeches, paying money in this area or extending it is somehow going to solve all the problems. There is a great naivety there. I think, actually, there is a great lack of rigour as well, particularly when we start hearing talks about democracy and so forth. It is funny—the Opposition believes in democracy only when it suits its end, which is a contradiction to the very nature of what democracy is. The other side is that—you often hear it from me when I talk here about context and consistency—actually, this Government has extended paid parental leave, prudently, up to 18 weeks.

We do manage the books carefully. We also understand that money does not grow on trees, to be paid out on every next project and to be spent two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight times over, as the Opposition is wont to do. We are the party that has increased benefit rates. We are the party that has introduced free health care for under-13-year-olds. We are the party that introduced free pharmaceuticals—again, for young people. We are the ones who have the green card—again, in health spaces. There is an enormous amount of good work that is going on, and so I am happy that we are not supporting this bill. I will certainly be reporting that back strongly to my electorate, when I return in a few days.

The next call is a split call—Jan Logie, 5 minutes.

As the previous speaker, Simon O’Connor, said, love is not an economic commodity. I want to start by saying that we agree with that, and that, actually, we believe that parents should be able to be there when their children first laugh; that parents should be able to be there when their baby first crawls. That is ultimately what this piece of legislation is about. It is about ensuring that working parents are able to be there when their babies first laugh or when their babies first crawl, and that for those momentous times that will never ever be repeated, the parent is able to be there for those moments.

Love is definitely not an economic commodity, but we need to protect working people’s rights to be there with their families, and that requires legislation, as we have heard in the submissions to the multiple bills that have been in front of this Parliament. I do at this moment want to pay tribute to Sue Moroney for her tenacity. I think you are an amazing battler for our babies and women and workplaces, and you have just kept going in the belief that this is the right legislation for our families and our people. That is a view that was shared by 99.4 percent of the 6,755 submitters who submitted on this piece of legislation, as well as the many thousands who submitted in support of it in the last round of the legislation.

It is a huge disappointment to me today that the people whom I am representing, the people who submitted on this legislation and the people whom the majority of members in this House are representing will be unable to represent their intent in our votes in this House because the National Government has chosen to put a financial veto on this bill to prevent us from representing them. That, to me, is just a perversion of justice. It is a perversion of the democratic process and it is a real shame.

When the Government says that this is unaffordable, I just want to take it back to a family context of imagining my budget and thinking about what would be important to me. I have got to say that buying a new warship would not come before having time with my baby. I have got to say that I think most New Zealanders would choose spending time with their baby before they would some flash new warship.

💬 Grant Robertson: A warship is a luxury.

I do think that a warship is a luxury—a new flash warship that we are not exactly sure how much is going to cost. I think that is a luxury, and I do not believe that seeing your child crawl for the first time should be a luxury. That is what this Government is telling the people of New Zealand: that it is unaffordable and is a luxury. Well, I do not believe it. It is not a difficult thing. When we are being told by this Government that $69.5 million a year over 4 years is unaffordable when it is putting more money into private schools, when it is talking about warships, and when it is talking about $3 billion of tax cuts, over people being protected to be able to see their baby crawl for the first time, then we know that the priorities are off. I would normally say: “Well, people get a choice: you get to vote to be able to change that.”. Well, actually, the tragedy in this situation is that people did vote for that, and even then this Government is overruling the will of people, and it is a bloody sad day.

I call David Seymour—5 minutes.

I think we saw in that speech everything that is wrong with the Opposition parties’ argument on this bill. I oppose this bill on behalf of the ACT Party—because if Jan Logie had done an ounce of research, the first thing she would know is that babies generally crawl between 7 and 10 months, so 6 months of paid parental leave is not going to achieve what she thinks it is going to achieve. That is the fundamental problem between members on that side of the House, who live in a la-la land of ideology, and members on this side of the House, who live in the real world.

I listened to the speech of Iain Lees-Galloway, and he betrayed another flaw in the argument that the Opposition makes on this bill. For the Labour Party, paid parental leave has always been an exercise in political branding with taxpayer money. Let us have a look at the history. In 2002 paid parental leave for 12 weeks was introduced, with a $9 billion surplus in an election year. When was paid parental leave next extended again, with a $6 billion surplus? It was in 2004, when the polls dramatically changed and the National Party gained 20 points on Labour. That is when the Labour Government next extended it: when it was politically expedient. What do we hear from Sue Moroney, when she is asked? Well, Ms Moroney, if it is so important to have paid parental leave, why do you not make it, say, 1 year instead of 6 months? She says: “Because this is what is politically possible right now.” This has always been nothing but an exercise in political branding, paid for by the taxpayer on behalf of the Labour Party.

If it was really so critical and essential that people could not bring up their children without an extra 6 or 4 or 10 weeks of paid parental leave, then you just have to ask yourself what the Labour Party’s attitude is towards the majority of those who will have children in New Zealand this year, who will not take up paid parental leave. Let me say that again: for the majority of the 60,000 children born in each year, their parents do not take up paid parental leave, for a variety of reasons. Even if it was the case that in real life parents could not bring up children without paid parental leave, then what do we make of the many developmental stages that children go through over 20 years? Because on this side of the House, where we live in the real, practical world and where we know that babies crawl between 7 to 10 months and not between 4 months and 6 months, we know that bringing up children is a 20-year enterprise. The idea that the only block between children growing up healthy and well-adjusted in New Zealand is simply the problem that parents do not have funding for an extra 6 weeks while their children are very small is simply not true.

Those members can howl and howl and howl, but the reality is that the Opposition has been found out. This has been an exercise in collecting emails from petitions, of trying to brand the Labour Party as the party that cares more. Did that not come out in Iain Lees-Galloway’s speech? Iain Lees-Galloway’s speech—if people want to go back to watch it—was 90 percent about the Labour Party and 10 percent about the children whom he purports his speech to be about. You only have to look at the way that Iain Lees-Galloway spent his time during his speech to see that, really, it was not about the children or the policy whatsoever.

In conclusion, I am actually proud to oppose this bill, because I am in favour of sound public policy and using taxpayer money to the maximum value to make New Zealanders’ lives better—not the kind of political grandstanding and showboating that the Labour Party has used paid parental leave as, for 14 years and counting. Thank you.

The National Government’s position is that it is affordable to increase paid parental leave, but in a measured fashion, and it has done that by increasing paid parental leave from 14 weeks to 18 weeks. The National Government also took the view that it is important to balance the way in which it puts money towards families. Although it has not increased paid parental leave to the extent that Sue Moroney wants, it has been able to deliver a package of measures that has led to 200,000 children getting targeted support through the benefit system.

I just want to say that we reject the argument that this is undemocratic. Sure, a majority of the House wants an increase in paid parental leave, but a majority of the House also supports the Budget that the Government has put forward. The Government has the confidence and supply of the House, and that includes the budgetary measures we put before the Parliament—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

I would like to say that it was my pleasure to speak on this third reading. Usually you have some sense of satisfaction that you might be at the point where your bill is about to pass but, sadly, this is a highly unusual situation that the Parliament finds itself in today. In fact, I was reflecting on this as I went to speak to a school group today—these were intermediate-aged children—where one of the questions from a student was: “What has been your most memorable moment in Parliament?”. I have to say that two things sprung to mind: one was a protest here in Parliament and another was standing next to my colleague Louisa Wall when marriage equality passed in this House. Moments like that stay in your mind as a member of Parliament. I have to say that when you are an Opposition member of Parliament, those memories are even more acute.

We should have been having one of those memories here today because we have, as a Parliament, as a collective, voted in favour of a bill that will now not pass through this House. That will seem extraordinary to people who are listening here this evening—that we could have a convention where a majority have shared their will and still not had a bill pass through their House. Now, I might wish that that would happen, for instance, for a Brexit vote or something like that in the UK, but that is not the way that democracy works—unless you are the National Party and you have got the power of veto. That is what we are seeing enacted in this House tonight, and that is a tragedy.

Before I go any further I do want to—as other speakers have done, and rightly so—acknowledge the work of Sue Moroney. Earlier today I was appalled to hear David Seymour question the motives of Sue Moroney in bringing this bill to Parliament. I have known Sue for years. Anyone who knows Sue well knows that her motivation not only through her entire time in this Parliament but also for this bill has been about the best interest of families and babies. She has been absolutely unwavering in that goal, and so to hear that questioned in that way I found really appalling. If nothing else, this third reading at least gives us the ability to show our support and thanks to Sue and to right the record in a couple of areas, because right up until last week we have seen complete misinformation shared in this debate—not that it mattered, because, actually, the majority of Parliament supported it anyway—but misinformation none the less. I want to cover off a few of those points.

The first point was actually from David Seymour. It was a new argument that I had not heard consistently through this debate, but an argument none the less, and it was, why focus on the first 6 months, what about 20 years of development? It was an extraordinary point to raise. I think we have probably been quite consistent in this House in talking about the importance of the first 6 months of a child’s life. In fact, as a party we often talk about the first 3 years, but, obviously, when it comes to the research and evidence around breastfeeding and how important those first early months are, we honed in on the first 6 months as the step that we wanted to see pass in this Parliament. So of course we want people to have time to parent, and that does go beyond 6 months. In fact, Mr Seymour, if he chooses to look at our children’s policy, will see that, actually, we have been targeting those first 3 years through things like Best Start. As for the first 20 years, I would have to point out that, actually, for the male brain, Mr Seymour, it is 24, but I doubt many parents would want to advocate a policy that enables them to be at home parenting a child right up until that point. There are different ages and stages and you only need to look at the likes of the Brainwave Trust to know about that.

The second question that has been raised in this House is: why not a year? Well, actually, we have asked that question ourselves. We know that in an ideal world a year would be fantastic, but we drew a line in the sand. We drew a line in the sand and said: “Look, we have got progression over time that we want to aim to. This is our trajectory; this is where we want to be, but, in the here and now, this is where we believe it is possible to go now.”. We made that call. We demonstrated to this House and to the country that we were able to weigh up what was in the best interests of families, what was fiscally possible, and what we hope to do in the future.

On the one hand, those Government members are saying “Why not a year?”, and on the other hand they are saying that 26 weeks is not affordable. Well, we have so many examples of alternative spending that the Government has decided is affordable, I almost do not know where to start. But what I think probably puts it into perspective is that when you compare the costings for the bill that we are debating here tonight with the next spend budgeted for 2016-17, it basically represents 0.7 percent of the additional net spending for that Budget—that is 0.7 percent. I would challenge members on that side of the House to show us their hierarchy of the most important things that we are able to spend on as a collective. Show me your hierarchy. Where is Defence Force spending in that hierarchy? Where are all the other things that the Government has decided are absolutely priorities, and how do they beat the needs of babies and their families?

We have seen other spending decisions that, I have to say, really lead me to question the priorities of the Government. A couple of weeks ago the Minister announced that she was cutting a programme called Parents as First Teachers. It has been running since 1992—that will tell you that it is curious that it has been cancelled by this Government. Plunket is one of the agencies that offer it, so do the kindergarten associations. It is also offered by educators, health providers, and social services. After a baby is born a programme provider goes into the home and the programme helps low-income families, sole parent families, young families, and families without support—the very people whom you think we would want to be focusing on as a Parliament. That is where it goes.

💬 Tim Macindoe: The money will now go to Family Start.

Correction—correction. That member just yelled out that it is going to Family Start. No, it is not. There has been $7.2 million cut and roughly $3 million is going to Family Start. Where is the rest going? I can tell you it is going into a bureaucracy. As much as I support establishing a Ministry for Children, I do not support doing it at the expense of on-the-ground support for family and whānau, and that is exactly what this Government is doing. So show me your hierarchy of needs and I and the Labour Party will show those Government members and this House that paid parental leave can be done.

We have also heard it said in this House that the support for this bill was not real. I was astounded when I heard one of the members of this House, Alfred Ngaro, stand up and say that because there were form submissions, the number of people who supported this bill was somehow not represented by those submissions. Well, I can tell you that a form submission still takes an individual to sit at their device, to read the petition, to enter in their name and their details, and to proactively support something: an idea, a movement. Now, what is wrong with emphasising your view using that tool? What is wrong? And how does that lessen it? On this side of the House we never questioned that every single one of those 6,817 submissions in support of this bill was real. In fact, they represented only the tip of the iceberg when it came to the strength of feeling behind this bill.

I have spoken before in this House about a friend of mine who was desperately hoping that this Government would change its mind. She is having a baby soon. She wanted to see the Government show support for the experience that she is about to have with her partner. She never filled in a form submission, but she was watching, and she got a clear message when this Government decided to veto a bill that Parliament ultimately wanted to support.

I do not believe that all members of the National Party actually oppose this bill. I would like to advocate that we give them the ability to vote on whether or not this veto should go ahead, and whether this bill should in fact be enacted along with the will of Parliament. I think they should have their say. I have heard speeches in this House that have led me to believe that, actually, some of them would like the chance to vote—particularly those who are parents themselves. I genuinely believe that not all of them are on board with what is happening, so let us give them that democratic right and allow them to exercise it.

Ultimately, I would love to see history made here tonight. I would love this to be my next memorable parliamentary moment, and I know there are a lot of families who would want that too. You may roll your eyes at me, Mr Bennett, but for a lot of people this is important and it is a mark of what matters to this Government, and so why do you not put it to the vote? Let us make this a memorable day.

It is my pleasure to take the final call on this bill. Before I do carry on, I just want to correct the speaker before me, Jacinda Ardern. The Minister for Social Development recently announced that $7.3 million a year will be reallocated from low-intensity home visitation programmes and Parents as First Teachers, or PAFT, to support more vulnerable children and their families through the more intensive home-visiting programme of Family Start. I just wanted to correct that and make sure that that message got through.

I want to thank all the speakers tonight for their contributions on this bill. I want to thank you very much.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I waited until the conclusion of the Government members’ speeches on this bill to make this point of order, and I have two related points.

A financial veto certificate has been issued to the House. At no point in any of the Government members’ speeches did they speak to that financial veto certificate. That means that you, Mr Assistant Speaker, in your role as Speaker, do have to make some judgments here. McGee quite clearly states that the Speaker does have the ability to say whether or not a financial veto certificate complies with all of the procedures that need to be followed. I refer you to Standing Order 327(1). The financial veto certificate has to have two elements. It has to state with due particularity the impact on the fiscal aggregates, and the reason why the Government does not concur with the bill. On both of those counts the financial veto certificate must have due particularity.

It is fair to say that the financial veto certificate has due particularity on the impact on the aggregates. As an aside, I would say that it is very difficult to justify that they constitute more than minor aspects, but that is what the Government is trying to tell us. But what the financial veto certificate does not do with due particularity is state the reason why the Government does not concur. In fact, all the financial veto certificate does is state that the reason is the financial aggregates. There are two parts to this financial veto certificate. No member of the Government has come to the House tonight to explain this, and, as the House sits here now, we have never had the financial veto certificate explained to us. I believe, Mr Assistant Speaker, that there is a place for you to rule on whether or not this certificate is adequate.

I thank the member for his comments. Members, the Speaker has accepted the veto and it has been tabled. You bring up two points under Standing Order 327(1). You made the point about what the concern was, and what the Government’s reaction to it was, and that is in the certificate. It is mentioned quite clearly. You also mentioned that some members never mentioned the certificate. I have sat through the whole of this debate, and it has been mentioned in the course of the debate—

💬 Grant Robertson: Not by the Government.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): —I am on my feet—maybe not to the extent to which members would wish it to be, but it has been mentioned. That is the end of the matter, because it is a financial veto that has been put in place by the Government under the Standing Orders. My determination is that the Government has issued a financial veto certificate for this bill, so, in accordance with Standing Order 328(3), there will be no question put on the bill being read a third time.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I have actually ruled now, so there is no debate.

It is a new point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Grant Robertson—but there is no debate on this.

No, Mr Assistant Speaker. I seek leave of the House for there to be a personal vote held on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill.

No, we cannot. Because this debate has concluded, there is no opportunity—[Interruption] Order! This debate has concluded. There is no provision for a vote, so leave cannot be accepted. I have actually given the ruling; I will read it out again, so that it is very, very clear. The Government has issued a financial veto certificate for this bill, so, in accordance with Standing Order 328(3), there will be no question put on the bill being read a third time.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

I am not entering into any further debate, because there is no debate. There is no question to be put, so there are no points of order that can be considered.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Is it a new point of order?

It is a new point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): If you are going to trifle with my decision, that is a very serious matter.

My point of order is in reference to members’ ability to seek leave. The House has the right to determine whatever course of action it wishes to, by leave. My colleague Grant Robertson sought leave for a vote to be taken. Certainly it is not the way the Standing Orders are laid out, but—

All right, I hear the point the member is making. There is no opportunity for a vote to be taken, by leave or otherwise. This is very clear. This is the matter under the financial veto. That is it—there will be no vote put on the third reading, so that is the end of the matter. You cannot seek leave for something to have a vote put when there is no provision for a vote to be put on the third reading. So that is the end of the matter.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a new point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): A new point of order, I hope, Mr Robertson.

It is indeed. I seek leave for the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill to be recommitted to the House for the third reading.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): If you are trifling with the Chair, that is a very serious matter.

It is a new point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sue Moroney—a new point of order.

I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Labour whips’ office, dated today, with the number of votes that the Labour Party wished to cast on the third reading of this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill.

That is trifling with the Chair. I have already ruled, and that is the end of the matter. We will not have any more of that.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I have ruled on this matter. The member will sit. Is it a new point of order?

Yes.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): If it is trifling with the Chair, then the member will be leaving.

I seek leave to table a document that lists the names of the MPs from this party who would like to—

That is trifling with the Chair.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is within the rights of members of this House to seek leave to table documents. You can put the leave and members opposite can deny us leave if they wish, but it is well within our rights to seek leave to table documents.

The—[Interruption] Order! I do not need any assistance. I have made it very clear what the provisions of the Standing Orders are. I read them out twice. There is no opportunity to take this debate any further; nor is there to be a vote. So anything that goes beyond that, by seeking leave and just trifling with the Chair, is out of order, and I have ruled that way. That is the end of the matter, so we are moving on.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, that is a non sequitur. Members are not seeking leave for anything to do with a vote. Members are seeking leave to table documents, something that is well within our rights.

I am going to seek some advice. As I have already ruled, I have the discretion as to whether I accept the leave or not, and I have declined it. We are moving on.

The Government having issued a financial veto certificate for this bill, in accordance with Standing Order 328(3) no question was put on the bill being read a third time.

Motion lapsed.