Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I move, That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker—and this is the first time I’ve had an opportunity to use that term in my nine years in the House—can I congratulate you and the other presiding offers on your election to your roles. I think your role as Deputy Speaker is a very strong signal that this Parliament has the ability to work constructively together around ideas and notions that are in the best interest of New Zealand, and I look forward to the togetherness, the constructive relationship, and the constructive approach that led to your election as Deputy Speaker when traversing other legislation, as, indeed, we have seen this evening.

As I set out in the first reading of the bill, this is fundamentally about giving working parents and caregivers sufficient time to care for and bond with their newborns and young children. There is ample evidence now that the attachment between baby and mum, or whoever the primary carer is, is one of the most important aspects of the development of a child. The opportunity to spend quality time together fostering that attachment and fostering that relationship is what we are supporting with this legislation this evening. The bill provides better assistance for working parents and caregivers, to ensure families with a newborn are supported, to give that child the best possible start in life. It is important for New Zealand society that parents and caregivers are allowed the time and space to develop close bonds with their children, reducing parental and family stress and thus supporting children’s health and development.

The fact that we are ready to progress this bill so early in the first hundred days of this Government is due in large part to the policy and legislative development undertaken by the Government Administration Committee, of which the Hon Ruth Dyson was the chair in the last term of Parliament, and its consideration of two separate members’ bills sponsored by Sue Moroney.

While this bill is being presented as a stand-alone piece of legislation today, I want to emphasise that for this Government extending paid parental leave is just one component of an overall families package, which includes boosting Working for Families for all those who currently receive it, and extending it to 30,000 more families; introducing a Best Start payment to help families with costs in a child’s early years; introducing a winter energy payment for people receiving superannuation or a main benefit; reinstating the independent earner tax credit; and implementing the accommodation supplement and accommodation benefit increases that were announced in Budget 2017. Through the introduction of the Best Start scheme and our increase in Working for Families payments, the Government will target money and support towards babies and toddlers and at low and middle income families, because we believe that every Kiwi child deserves the best start in life, regardless of their background.

I want to address some of the concerns that have been raised by members opposite. Some of them, I think, are serious questions. Some of them are a little bit more spurious. First, I want to address the fact that the National Party have now found themselves the “defenders of democracy” in New Zealand, expressing deep concern that this bill is not going to a select committee. Well, as we have traversed already, two previous bills that did exactly what this bill will do—extend paid parental leave incrementally to 26 weeks in total, over time—have already been to select committee. In fact, Sue Moroney’s member’s bill was in select committee for over 18 months, and received thousands of submissions and considerable scrutiny. In fact, the second time Ms Moroney’s bill was sent to select committee, many of the submitters simply resubmitted the same submission that they made for the first bill. Why on earth would we make them submit the same submission a third time?

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: We could just table the submissions.

Clearly—actually, the Hon Ruth Dyson makes a good point: we could just table all those submissions. If the National Party is so desperate to know what people said at the last select committees, we could table those submissions.

But I want to acknowledge that, actually, in the first 100 days of a Government, urgency, is often used. When I first arrived in this House, the new National Government had just come to power, and they also used urgency to progress their 100-day agenda. In fact, the first piece of legislation that I spoke on in this House was the bill to introduce national standards—an entirely new approach, vehemently opposed by the education sector, vehemently opposed by anybody who knew anything about education, and yet the National Government at the time pushed it through under urgency with no select committee and no opportunity for public consideration.

But, members, I can go one better. Does anybody remember the last time that we had an increase to paid parental leave? It was done, surprisingly, by the National Government. It was an increase from 14 to 18 weeks. This was after Sue Moroney’s first bill, when their pollsters told them that they were on the wrong side of the debate. They increased it from 14 to 18 weeks. Does anybody recall when? Budget 2014—under urgency in the days after Budget 2014. The last time paid parental leave was extended in New Zealand was by the National Government under urgency—no select committee. So the crocodile tears from the so-called defenders of democracy over there do not wash with us, because this is the first 100 days of a Government, and, in fact, the very people standing and raising so much concern about extending paid parental leave under urgency did it themselves just a few years ago.

💬 Hon Members: Don’t use the “h” word!

I can’t use the “h” word, and I shan’t.

However, I would like to point out that the one member who actually had something constructive to bring was Sarah Dowie. And I say to Sarah Dowie that we still have the committee of the whole House, and if that member brings a constructive amendment, we will consider it, because we do want to be a constructive Government that can work with all parties. So the offer is on the table to work with Sarah Dowie. If she brings an amendment that all parties of this Government can agree with, let’s have a look at it. Let’s see if we can strengthen this legislation using the processes that are available to us.

I also understand from the National Party that this has been their policy all along. Let’s just get it on the record, because none of their members have said it. Their policy at the last election—late in the campaign, at the last election—was to increase it to 22 weeks, not to 26. So let’s just have some honesty.

Members have raised the question of the fiscals. The total additional cost to the State over the next 4 years will be $325.2 million, according to the best estimates that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) are able to give me, and at the appropriate moment I intend to seek leave to table those documents so that members opposite can consider those.

In summary, this Government believes that this bill, extending the duration of parental leave payments, will benefit New Zealand working families with newborn children, and those assuming care of a child under six. It will provide the financial certainty and confidence needed to take time off work to care for and bond with their children. This is true of the bill seen in isolation. However, it is even more true when it is seen as part of the overall families package, which will deliver a range of other supports to families with young children. This crucial investment in our children and families will produce a range of positive social and economic benefits for New Zealand as a whole, and I commend this bill to the House.

I seek leave to table a document prepared by MBIE and Treasury titled “Estimated cost of existing PPL scheme for July to June financial years”.

Is there any objection to those papers being tabled? They may be tabled.

Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you. I will take a call in this second reading—not very long, of course, after the first reading speech, but I have found it useful to listen to some of the contributions in the House. The challenge that we lay down on this side of the House to the Government was not one of the intention behind the bill or wanting to extend paid parental leave, because, as we have said all the way through, and as the Minister has just acknowledged, it has been the policy of the National Party to continue to extend paid parental leave as we did from 14 to 16 weeks, as we did from 16 to 18 weeks, as we indicated after this election that we would do, if we had the pleasure of being in Government, to 22 weeks, and as we indicated we would continue to do if circumstances allowed. So we’ve never had an issue with the extending of paid parental leave, but we have raised concerns about the fact that this bill could have been improved through a select committee process, and, in fact, I find myself agreeing with the now Leader of the House when he commented that “There are very few bills I have seen progress through this House that cannot be improved by a select committee process.”

Now, he was making that comment in respect of a bill that had a 24-hour necessity to come into force because of the operation of certain events, which I won’t waste this House’s time on at the moment but I can certainly tell anyone who is interested. This is a bill that takes effect on 1 July next year, so we’re not saying that there aren’t good reasons from time to time to use urgency. We aren’t saying that there aren’t situations where it’s warranted. We aren’t saying that it would change the opinion of this House or many submitters on the need and the desirability of extending paid parental leave. What we are saying is that it is quite arrogant to assume that when there is time available there aren’t useful suggestions that may have come out. The Minister himself has, quite rightly, just acknowledged that Sarah Dowie has raised a very sensible suggestion, which was in our policy; it’s not new. The Minister, if he was so willing to work with other parties, could have seen it himself and included it.

I also, in my first reading speech, mentioned another of the policies in our document, which is ensuring that the paid parental leave is more flexible, which, again, I’m sure that members of the public submitting could well have been interested to have a look at whether we could include. There is a missed opportunity there, because, as I say, we’re not saying that people are going to suddenly not support 26 weeks who previously have, but we are saying this bill could have been improved and the public could well have had things that they wanted to say about it. I don’t think it’s enough to say, “We don’t have to worry about that because we’ve had conversations about paid parental leave before, so we can just consider that ticked.” This is a different bill. This is not the same bill, and there are opportunities to improve it that have been missed, and there’s no good reason. And it’s all very well for the Government to say, “Well, you used urgency too.” The point we’re making is that it’s amazing how quickly the principles that were espoused by Labour in Opposition have suddenly become mere hindrances.

I raised in the first contribution to this debate the point that there is very little information in front of this House. Now, I take the responsibility of being a lawmaker in this House seriously. We’re in new roles now as Opposition, and part of that role of Opposition, as those members well know, is for us to properly scrutinise legislation and ensure that the debate in this House is well informed and those watching on television or reading Hansard or looking back in time have seen the issues teased out and given consideration. When the critical information like the fiscal cost of a policy is not included, I’m sorry, but that doesn’t give the kind of respect to this House that it should be afforded.

Now, the Minister, Iain Lees-Galloway, in his second reading contribution, just sort of said—with a hint of pique that he was being asked to explain it—that the fiscal cost was over $300 million - odd. This is not a small project; it is a $300 million figure. Now, clearly he had that number, and yet in the bill, in the information, in the first reading, none of that has been provided. He mentioned it in passing because we had the audacity to say, “Where is the number?” He had it, he didn’t previously give it to the House, and now he has and now he’s tabled it. I can’t see any reason why that information couldn’t have been before the House, as it should have been, with the bill, with the bill information to move forward.

I just want to reflect on the fact there’s been a lot of discussion in the House tonight, and I think a lot of it absolutely correct, around the importance of supporting parents—not just young mothers, but parents—with the newborns in those early months of their life. And it is an incredibly hard time. I don’t think there was a period that was more stressful on my relationships with my husband and our family as there was when we were trying to understand what the heck you did with this beautiful, gorgeous, completely bewildering little package that you got sent home from the hospital with, which for some reason slept beautifully in hospital and as soon as you came home never wanted to sleep—but maybe that was just my children. So that time at home is incredibly critical, but actually the issue is not as simple as one of how many weeks. Now, this bill is about how many weeks. We are supporting that; that is fine. But the point we are making is that there are other critical elements to how we support families in that period of time.

Actually, I know that Labour love to try to take the moral ownership of this issue as if they’re the only ones who’ve ever cared about it and done anything about it, and somehow the fact that we used a financial veto means that they are completely exempt from having to worry about process on their side. Well, actually, a financial veto is good process, and the reason it was used was because the fiscals were so significant. At least we were up front about what they were, right from the outset.

But what this National Party has done when it has had the opportunity to be in power is not just increase—not once but twice—the time of paid parental leave that is available to New Zealand parents but also significantly change the workability of paid parental leave. That is the point that I’ve been making on this bill in terms of lost opportunities and that Ms Dowie has been making and that others have been making. The National Party, when we were in Government, for example, significantly extended the eligibility of paid parental leave, so that it wasn’t just mothers and fathers who were eligible but grandparents and Home for Life carers, whāngai parents, and a number of others who were equally eligible. Labour just likes to rewrite history and ignore all of that, because they like to pretend that only they care. It was also National, by the way, who made paid parental leave available to seasonal workers, contract workers, and employees who have more than one employer. So there is a huge amount that this side has done to support New Zealand families and New Zealand women, and, as well, it is not, of course, just paid parental leave: we’ve extended and increased the amount of the parental tax credit—again, to help families in those early months to have more options about what they do.

While I am happy to stand here and support the bill, and we’ve made that clear and I made that clear in the first reading of this bill, I’m not going to be told that therefore we have no ability to comment on the fact that there are other things we can do. This is a party that has been equally active and supportive of New Zealand women all the way through, and I don’t accept the argument that somehow, because quite rightly, quite legitimately, and using absolutely correct process a financial veto was used when the conditions meant that that was required, Labour gets a pass from having to follow any sort of process at any time. All I am saying is live by your own words that many of you, including your own Leader of the House and, of course, the Green Party as well, used over the last nine years on many, many occasions.

This is the first piece of legislation that this new Government has brought to the House, and it is, on one hand, encouraging that it is a piece of legislation that finds such widespread, although not quite universal, support in the House. But it is very worrying, I think, that on this first piece of legislation they have simply—and dismissively, I think—not bothered to include the full information that was available to them. We know they referred to it in their Cabinet paper, but they have indicated it to the House, in passing form, only now. They have not bothered to see if there are ways to improve the bill—as they repeatedly told us was always the case with any legislation—when there is no particular reason to rush. If that is the way that this new Government is going to approach this House—with callous disregard for process when it suits them and incredible flexibility of their own principles when the situation supports that or suits them—then I think that’s worrying.

On the merits of the bill, it is one that we support, as we have always supported finding more ways to help Kiwi families be strong.

But let me just end on this one point. The reason that any Government, National- or Labour-led, is able to do things like this is that we have a strong and growing economy and we have healthy surpluses, and that has been a hard-fought work product of nine years of the last Government. We have left the new Government with the ability and the space to make these sorts of changes, and I just hope that they appreciate and understand that the spending part is easy; the earning part comes harder.

I just want to thank the National Party for finally coming around and supporting us on this very important issue. The Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill shows the level of commitment this Government has to families and children. This is one of our Government’s top priorities, which is why it is the first bill to be read in this 52nd Parliament. This Government wants to ensure that families and their children are well supported and given more opportunities, and we know that this is widely supported by working New Zealanders. We know this because it has gone through the select committee process twice.

I would like to say that it is very disappointing and a little bit embarrassing to watch the National Party members stand up and feign indignation over the fact that we’re putting this through in urgency, given I think most New Zealanders out there would think actually it has gone through the select committee twice; it doesn’t need to go again. It is widely supported. It has had hundreds, if not thousands, of submissions put in on it. The public have seen the National Government put other much less important pieces of legislation through via urgency when they didn’t need to, so it’s embarrassing that they’re standing up and feigning the level of indignation that they are. We’ve had members on the other side of the House accuse us of being lazy for putting this through through an urgency process. That’s not lazy; that’s wanting to get decent legislation through that’s going to benefit New Zealand families and their children as quickly as we possibly can so we can get on to the next quality piece of legislation that will, again, benefit New Zealand families and children.

We had David Seymour saying earlier that we are only doing this to be popular. That was a very silly statement. This does happen to be widely supported by New Zealand families, but is not about popularity; it is about making sure that families in New Zealand are better off. This is not a random number that we picked out in terms of 26 weeks. Anyone that has been part of the process to date in the House, anyone that’s read on this issue, knows that the World Health Organization recommends that women breastfeed exclusively for that first six months, and anyone that has breastfed and tried to work—and I know there are people in this House that are in this position—knows how difficult it is to express and try and get the level of milk required to be able to continue breastfeeding while you’re absent from that child. So actually providing women—even though it doesn’t just have to be the mother—with the opportunity to be able to have that six months to exclusively breastfeed, and supporting them financially to be able to do that, has to be seen as a good thing, surely. So it is good that everyone—apart from David Seymour and the ACT Party—is supporting this in the House.

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: David Seymour is the whole of the ACT Party. Let’s get fair.

Yes, David Seymour is the ACT Party; that’s right. It would be nice if there was some genuine positivity from the Opposition when they stood up in support of this bill. I actually think there are a few members that are probably genuinely happy about this. I think there were members in the last Government who really struggled with having to vote against it and who really struggled with the fact that their Prime Minister made the decision to veto the bill. I think that was the first time that was ever used. So I think there are probably some relieved members in the Opposition, but for those that are standing up to speak on the Bill, just a reminder to the Opposition: you are supporting it. It is a good bill, it’s going to do good things, and New Zealanders support it, so please stand up and speak positively about this legislation. And it would be nice if the Opposition could stop feigning indignation over it. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your new role. I know you will be a wonderful Deputy Speaker. Congratulations also to the new Government of the day and to other officers of Parliament. I will make a positive contribution, and if I might indulge in a few memories of my own time with young children, I remember very well my sister and I sitting together on a couch on about a Wednesday afternoon, a babe in arms each, a toddler on the floor each, with a mountain of cloth nappies surrounding us in various stages of disarray. I will never forget those happy memories. Sometimes I feel it was almost a relief to go back to work.

But we do support paid parental leave; we do support this bill. I do have concerns, however, about the process that this new Government has embarked upon. The issues have been well traversed. I just want to say what a missed opportunity we have had in not having a select committee process. I’m mindful of the contribution and press release put out by Kirk Hope within the last couple of days on behalf of Retail NZ, where he expresses his reservations around the impacts of this bill, of this piece of law to be, on small business.

Now, small business comprises 29 percent of the workforce of New Zealand, so there are a significant number of New Zealanders who will be impacted—positively, yes; we all agree on that—but there will be an impact for those businesses that I don’t believe has been well enough traversed in this Parliament, and I simply don’t know whether Kirk Hope or small-business interests were represented at the select committee occasions previously. But the very fact that Kirk Hope has chosen to put out a release voicing his concerns shows that New Zealand has not gone along with this legislation completely, and there should have been an opportunity for them to say so. That is how legislation is crafted well in New Zealand.

So I just want to make a brief, final point on this. The Minister, the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway, made an offer to Sarah Dowie to bring an amendment to the committee of the whole House; he indicated that it would be considered. Well, why couldn’t it have gone to a select committee hearing? I know select committees very well. There could have been a targeted consultation, and I would venture to say that Sarah Dowie’s excellent amendment she is going to bring forward around keeping in touch would have meant we would have had an even better outcome—not for the Government but for the people of New Zealand, and that is what good legislation, good government process, is all about.

Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just rise to take a short contribution on this bill on behalf of New Zealand First.

Can I acknowledge the last speaker, Jacqui Dean, and her contribution with regard to Business New Zealand, I believe, and Kirk Hope and a press release that was put out today. I would suggest—I know that the National Party is new to Opposition, but there is actually a portal that you can go through where you can have a look at all the submissions that were placed on the record the last two times that this bill went to select committee. So I encourage the members, and I particularly encourage the new members—because, obviously, some of the Ministers perhaps need to go back and have a look there. Now that they don’t have staff to go and find things for them, perhaps they would like to, and have a look at some of the thousands upon thousands of submissions that were actually put through, as they bemoan the fact that this Government will take action and that this Government refuses to waste taxpayers’ money by, for a third time, going back through to a select committee process on a bill that had 99.6 percent support from the submitters that had the time and had made the effort to actually submit on it. But if the members would like to go and find those submissions, I’m sure they’ll be able to find whether Business New Zealand—I don’t think it was under the leadership of Mr Hope—put in a submission.

The other thing too that I would make a comment on is that it’s lovely that the Opposition has offered to help the Government improve legislation by providing information for a possible Supplementary Order Paper at the committee of the whole House. Can I ask—it would be very interesting if the Opposition would like the next member that stands to explain, if Ms Dowie’s contribution is going to be so brilliant and improve this legislation so much—why did they not include it in June 2016 when they put through their parental leave legislation? Was Ms Dowie not able to contribute at that time? Was there some sort of barrier to Ms Dowie actually putting through those opportunities, because that is the last time those Opposition members stood up—[Interruption] Whoa, whoa! That got a nerve—that got a nerve. There we go.

And if that upset them, let’s start with this—but I was told to be quick, so I’ll go for just one more. We’ve heard a lot from the Opposition members that they have no idea what this costs, that there is no concept of finances, etc., etc. It has been through select committee twice and had other people—had finances laid out in front of them. Perhaps they weren’t looking, perhaps they weren’t reading, perhaps they weren’t listening—it wouldn’t be the first time. But Mr Hudson, Mr Brett Hudson—I went and did my homework. This is everything the National Party ever said on this, the last two times it came through the House—right? So Mr Hudson said, “I would encourage them, and New Zealanders, to go to the Parliament website and read the advice that committee members received from the ministry,” with regard to the finances. So please, please, can we put some sort of sense into this debate? If one’s going to be a strong Opposition, then you really need to do the research before you stand up, and not have to get the Government to explain how this works.

I commend the bill to the House. New Zealand First will support the bill.

Well, that speaker, Tracey Martin, needs to go and do some more research, because if she had read the material that she has in her hot little hand, then she would understand that every time that I’ve stood up I have been supportive of paid parental leave, and that I was a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which heard the National Government’s amendment on paid parental leave, and of the Government Administration Committee, which heard Sue Moroney’s bills.

I am supportive of this bill, but I do have concerns with the process. I accept the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway’s invitation to work with him, because I am genuinely concerned about keeping-in-touch hours. It is a genuine concern that if we are going to extend paid parental leave, the men and women who take that up should not feel isolated. They shouldn’t just be sitting at home. They should be able to re-engage with their workplace to keep in touch with their employment, with their workmates, and enjoy that camaraderie while they have their children.

There are other aspects of having children that are not so pleasurable—obviously, things like post-natal depression. Obviously, things can go wrong in the household when you’re under stress, so that connection with community is extremely important, and that is the nuance that this Government brought in under paid parental leave, referred to as keeping-in-touch hours. That needs to be explored, and it would have been explored—I am sorry to say—if this had gone to a select committee process, but we do not have that opportunity. We have been denied that opportunity, so we will need to change tack and look at a Supplementary Order Paper.

We accept that challenge because we, as the new Opposition on this side of the House, will take our duties seriously, and we will make sure that legislation that is passed is the best that it can possibly be for the people of New Zealand. Paid parental leave is an extremely important part of our democracy and entitlements here in New Zealand because we want our children to have the best start in life and we want our parents to be supported. Keeping-in-touch hours combat isolation. Keeping-in-touch hours are a really important, nuanced part of paid parental leave, and so we will take up that challenge. We support the spirit of the bill, but we need to nuance it further.

Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your election. It is wonderful to be able to say “Madam Deputy Speaker” for the first time during my time in Parliament.

As this is the second reading, I am just going to take a very short call. I’m not going to re-traverse the issues that have been well traversed throughout the first reading of the bill and, indeed, in the second reading around the use of urgency, but I will say that I’m very touched by the Opposition’s concerns about the Green Party’s principles. You know, it’s wonderful—it’s wonderful—and I invite the Opposition to embrace the principles and protection of democracy, not only when the National Party is in Opposition but when they are in Government. That would have been wonderful, given that urgency was used literally dozens and dozens of times, including the last time there was an extension to paid parental leave by the National Government. But the Green Party has explained why we’re not concerned about the use of urgency this time, because this bill has already been through select committee and has had thousands and thousands of submissions.

But what’s really important, and what I want to emphasise here, is that what this signals is the priorities of this progressive Labour - Green - New Zealand First Government. Most people in New Zealand share the values of compassion and generosity, and that is indeed what our society should be based on. When we invest in our people, that is how we become a successful and flourishing society, and we cannot have a successful and flourishing economy if we aren’t investing in our people, because that is all the economy is. It is people and natural resources—people using their time and effort.

So, although the ACT Party is not supporting this bill, I thought it might be worth mentioning that this should not be seen as a cost, and I think that’s where that side of the House gets it wrong. It’s not a cost to invest in the first months of a baby’s life. It is not a cost to support families to be able to participate in that, because those children grow up to become healthy, happy, constructive members of our society who are contributing in many ways. So the value to all of us is perceived many times over when we have policies that support families. I think we’re going to see many, many more great policies from this progressive Government that support families, and I look forward to hearing the constructive contribution from the new National Party Opposition.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a great opportunity for me to take a call. I’d like to congratulate you on your election and that of your fellow presiding officers.

This is the first time that I am actually getting up to speak on the bill, and I’d like to say what a fantastic thing it was for me to speak in my own mother tongue yesterday when I was being sworn in, and to notice that there were so many other languages that were actually present in this House. I think it goes to show what a diverse place this has become, and I’d like to welcome all of the new members who were elected in the 2017 election. Obviously, I’ve managed to learn all of my side’s new members’ names, and over the next couple of weeks I will get to learn all of your names as well.

I’d like to say as the mother of a teenager—as my learned colleague to my right, Jacqui Dean, has actually sort of reflected on her own experience as a mother—that it was rather different back then. You know, my son is now 19, and back 19 years ago when I gave birth I was running a television production company and I did not actually have a lot of paid parental leave. I remember going home from the hospital a couple of hours after giving birth and trying to figure out what to do with this bundle and not actually knowing how to deal with a baby, as a brand new mother. As one of my friends who had experience with a few more babies said, “If you manage to get up in the morning and do one thing in your day that is not baby-related, you’re doing really well.”

So to the mothers and the new fathers who are on our side—Tim van de Molen and Chris Penk; I have met their babies this week as well—and to the two mothers on the other side who have brought their babies in, congratulations. I know what a fantastic job it is, and what a great thing you are doing: being responsible and working, as well as being a mother and in this House, changing history, being able to bring the child into this House and able to be breastfeeding as well. I think it’s actually a great move.

I’d like to just point out a study that was done by the Asia New Zealand Foundation—this piece of paper—that talks about 18 percent of under-fives in New Zealand being of Asian heritage, and it affects New Zealanders. This bill actually affects New Zealanders of Asian heritage as well. National has increased paid parental leave from 14 weeks to 18 weeks, and to 22 weeks, which we actually supported, and for that we are now supporting 26 weeks in this House. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise and to move—[Member moves seat]—with some dynamism into this debate. I rise again, very happily, to speak for the second time this evening in favour of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. I think this is going to be a very happy night because by the end of this evening’s proceedings we’re going to substantially advance towards the biggest improvement in paid parental leave provisions for the working families of New Zealand since the introduction of paid parental leave by the fifth Labour Government back in 2002, with strong support in the House.

In my reasonably brief call I just want to touch on a couple of matters that have come up in the course of the debate. The first one relates to the information to hand around the fiscal cost of this policy. This is really important, actually, because, of course, we would have had paid parental leave of 26 weeks in place for working families in New Zealand, were it not for the financial veto that was issued last year. That financial veto was issued on the basis of a claim that Labour’s policy would cost $280 million per year to implement. That was a claim that has been repeated in debate by members of the Opposition tonight. That, of course, was an entirely incorrect claim—an entirely incorrect claim—that none other than the Rt Hon Bill English had to recant on several months ago.

He claimed it would cost $280 million. When inquiries were put in around this by Sue Moroney and by the media, he replied, and I quote from a Radio New Zealand press piece at the time, that he did so because he “confused the $280 million over four years, with $280 million a year.” So he issued that veto, which meant that we didn’t get paid parental leave of 26 weeks in place, on the basis of overestimating the cost by 400 percent. Now, it’s no particular surprise because, of course, he sits next to Mr Joyce, and we know that he’s had problems with the numbers this year, so possibly that’s the source of the confusion there. But I just want to correct that and put that on the record—that the policy does not cost $280 million a year, as was erroneously claimed by Bill English when he issued the veto.

The other thing I just wanted to touch on, in the course of my brief comments, was to refer back to some of the submissions that we received in the previous two submission processes. You know, this has become a bit of a theme over the course of the debate that we have had tonight. I do just want to reiterate that there has been a wide-ranging and high-quality submission process twice—twice—in respect of exactly the content of this bill and what it will seek to achieve. Submissions were received from thousands of ordinary New Zealanders, working mums and dads, and families who supported this policy. And 99.4 percent of them supported it, which, by my maths, will also have 99.4 percent of MPs in the House tonight voting in favour of this bill, so it’s perfectly proportional in that sense.

We received submissions from groups like the New Zealand Breastfeeding Alliance. They noted that, at the moment, there is a huge drop-off in breastfeeding rates after three months—coincidentally about the same level at which we currently have a paid parental leave provision. And it’s very clear to anyone who looks at this that if we provide those people, those families, those mothers with a bit more time, it is going to give them greater facility to be able to continue breastfeeding their babies.

I want to make a really important point in this regard. There is an inequity at the moment that this bill addresses. There is an inequity in which we do have some workplaces in which it is possible for mums to have their bubs with them to be able to breastfeed them and care for them. Many mothers have that in enlightened workplaces, and it’s wonderful to see that Parliament is opening up to that reality. This bill means it doesn’t matter which workplace you’re in. Any mum will have that ability to be able to bond, to be able to connect with their newborn baby.

There is strong support for this bill from across the House. I commend it to members and look forward to the vote. Thank you very much.

That was a split call between Labour and National, and National have indicated they don’t wish to take their call, so I call the Hon Clare Curran.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Very quickly, congratulations—huge congratulations—

💬 Barbara Kuriger: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The split call was the last one. That was Jo Hayes’. We actually do have call number 11.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are actually on call number nine at the moment.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Firstly, a huge congratulations to you as “Madam Deputy Speaker”—an enormous step forward in New Zealand—for that appointment. Sue Moroney, if you are listening, huge congratulations to you and also to Iain Lees-Galloway on the conclusion of this sorry saga in this House. Every argument that this Opposition, the former Government, has used against this bill tonight has been comprehensively shot down by this new Government. I am enormously proud to support this bill. Its time has come. Women, work, parents, and children are what this Government is supporting. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and, look, having had a decent old rant only an hour ago, I don’t intend to take the House’s time too long, except to thank the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety for his generous offer—I think he extended it to Sarah Dowie—on an amendment in the committee of the whole House, and I think the Minister and the Government can expect that the Opposition will take up that offer in the spirit in which it was offered, and I appreciate that.

It will also, I expect, offer some other suggestions that were based around the flexibility provisions that we campaigned on—in particular, that both parents could take paid parental leave at the same time, particularly now that we are going out to 26 weeks—and I look forward to that being carefully considered in the committee of the whole House.

This is actually a fantastic way to end the first proper sitting day of the House, by getting such widespread agreement and support on the extension of paid parental leave. So the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill is going to get as much support through this House as it did through the two submission processes that Sue Moroney led it through. I think that’s a really excellent thing for parents, it’s an excellent thing for babies, and it’s an excellent thing for this Parliament to be doing.

I want to repeat the congratulations I made earlier to the Minister Iain Lees-Galloway—great start to your ministerial career, and don’t slow down. There’s lots to do, and you should keep doing it.

And, also, I want to give a tribute to my former colleague Sue Moroney, who introduced this legislation twice before in the Parliament. On the first attempt, despite being overwhelmingly supported by submissions, the National Party voted against it and it was defeated. The second time, with the support of the majority of members of Parliament, the National Party issued a financial veto. I’m glad they’ve come to their senses and will support it tonight. I look forward to its third reading soon.

Bill read a second time.