Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill

The Hon Judith Collins.

Oh, what an opportunity!

💬 David Seymour: I’m sure she’ll take it with both hands.

I always think this place is a land full of opportunity, and I think I will take it too. Thank you so much, MP for Epsom. This is a bill that the National Party fully supports. We certainly campaigned on the same provisions during the last election. But there are a couple of amendments that we would like to have made. The first is in the name of my colleague the Hon Amy Adams, which is that a person and their spouse or partner may both be primary carers simultaneously, and that they will be able to decide between themselves how they take that parental leave—concurrently or in overlapping periods. I think that this is a very, very good suggested amendment, and I have no understanding at all as to why the Labour Government is so set against it.

We’ve had the Hon Kelvin Davis say that the Labour Government does not support the ability for parents of a child to be able to decide how they take that leave and whether or not both of them take it together for a shorter period of time or one takes it for the full period. Well, I can’t understand why, in this day and age, we can’t acknowledge that the parent who is not actually the person who has given birth can contribute towards the care of that child. I would have thought that in a Government that should be for the 21st century—not the 19th—there should be an acknowledgment of the role of fathers, or other parents, should it not be a heterosexual relationship. I think it is very important that each parent be able to contribute towards the upbringing of a child. As a mother, I think that one of those things in life where there’s great joy is when both parents are intimately involved in bringing up their child.

In this particular case, what it doesn’t take into account—which is what this side of the Chamber wants to take into account—is that the circumstances of parents may be quite different. For instance, we could well have a parent who is, for instance, overseas for a period of time and they come back and the mother of the child, for instance, may want them to take up more of a primary role with that child. Why can’t they be able to do that? For a Government that says that it’s for children—well, actually, isn’t the right of every child to have their parents intimately involved in their upbringing, and isn’t that what paid parental leave is all about? So I don’t understand why it is that Labour, in particular, has been so against this.

I would expect that the Green Party would want to support this provision, because it’s actually about giving people choice. I don’t know about the New Zealand First Party—if they believe that fathers should be involved in the upbringing of their children. I would have thought that they did, but, look, I’ve been surprised by quite a lot of what they’ve done over the years—particularly lately, I have to say. But I would have thought that they would want to do this.

When we’re looking at people who want to be able to use this, why can’t they do it? We’ve got this very good amendment ready to go, easily slotted in. It won’t cost anybody anything, by the way. It will, however, give choice to parents to make conscious decisions for the betterment of their child or children, and it also accepts that not everybody works in exactly the same circumstances—in a 9 to 5 job, working in various offices, or anything like that. People work shift work. All sorts of different things are going on. And why can’t they do this?

It might well be that someone who has given birth—a mother—may well have had twins and wants her partner to be able to stay home with her. She may have had a caesarean and not be able to drive to the doctor or anything else, or go and get groceries, or do anything that people who are mothers do. The fact is: why can’t they have someone home with them? If they’re willing to have that person home and they want to do it, why can’t we do this? This is a very simple but very good amendment, and I would really urge the Government to understand that not every good idea has to come from that side of the House. Some of them come from this side of the House.

💬 Clayton Mitchell: Well, we’ve had nine years of it coming from that side of the House.

Actually, we’ve had this opportunity—and I see that Clayton Mitchell doesn’t believe in fathers having an active role in the upbringing of their children, but I do. I’m one of those mothers who congratulate and champion fathers who look after, and are involved in, the rights of their child. This is a good Supplementary Order Paper. We should support it.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. I appreciate the contribution by the Hon Judith Collins. It’s always a joy to listen to the Hon Judith Collins, because very often she makes sense. Sometimes she’s outrageous, but very often she makes sense. But you do have to be wary of the National Party using the word “choice”. It actually makes one prick up one’s ears.

Can I say there absolutely is some validity to the Supplementary Order Paper that the Hon Amy Adams has put forward. Unfortunately, New Zealand First will not be supporting it at this time. We would like to revisit this in the future, because we understand that there are some complexities that should actually go through select committee. I would have welcomed the opportunity for this to go through select committee when the National Party actually put through their paid parental leave legislation in 2016. I’m not quite sure where this epiphany from the Hon Amy Adams suddenly came from—that she can put the Supplementary Order Paper forward only now. But we would like to revisit this sometime in the future, because, from a New Zealand First perspective, we would like to traverse the opportunity, in the future, of fathers having a tagged set of funding and a tagged set of time in the future so that they can be part of and have a higher pick-up—say, 25 percent of pick-up—going forward. So we can appreciate Amy Adams’ idea. Also, having had a sister with twins, I certainly can appreciate that the Hon Judith Collins has traversed some of the other ways that families might need to support each other going forward—but, as we say, not at this time, because there are complexities that need to be worked through.

However, I have good news for Ms Dowie. With regard to Ms Dowie’s Supplementary Order Paper—again, it’s a shame it hasn’t been here since 2016, when that party had an opportunity to just put it straight into their legislation, without it having to be a Supplementary Order Paper—New Zealand First will actually be supporting Ms Dowie’s Supplementary Order Paper. We recognise that keeping-in-touch provisions—that’s proportionality, as we actually extend paid parental leave—is a very sensible, practical solution, and we all know that New Zealand First is a very sensible and practical party. So we will be supporting that particular Supplementary Order Paper.

Overall, we will be supporting the bill. We will be making sure that this bill passes through as quickly as possible, so that our parents and our families can go forward with some certainty, as of 1 July 2018. We think it’s wonderful that we’ve finally got to this place after some years of listening to the National Party say that it was unaffordable, and so on and so forth. It’s really lovely to have the National Party finally recognise that this is not only affordable; it’s of great value to the nation with regard to the opportunity for us to extend the amount of time that parents can be at home with their newborns, and I do think that allowing women—predominantly—to be able to stay in touch with their workplaces is a very good idea.

So overall, apart from Ms Adams Supplementary Order Paper, which we hope we’ll be able to revisit at some time in the future—and we would look forward to the National Party’s support for any opportunity to revisit this in the future based on their arguments that I’m sure we’re about to hear again and again and again tonight—that would be New Zealand First’s contribution. We will support the bill, we will support Ms Dowie’s Supplementary Order Paper, but, unfortunately, not Ms Adams’ at this time.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, it’s a great pleasure to speak in the committee of the whole House on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill, a bill that we will be supporting. Before I go into the substantive parts of Part 1, I want to address a couple of the things that the Hon Tracey Martin has raised—in particular, this belief that once they finally get their head around the very sensible Supplementary Order Paper that the Hon Amy Adams has put up to this bill, they can kind of just bring it back to the House, bring another bill, and have it done.

Well, I have some news for the new Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. There might be tumbleweed blowing through the Parliamentary Counsel Office now and the Government may be scrambling to try and find some legislation that it can debate in the first 100 days while it gets its momentum going—and I look forward to that—but I have news for the Minister: it is going to be a once-only offer. It is almost certain that the Minister in the chair will not have the opportunity to bring back a further amendment to this bill in the 52nd Parliament, unless they intend to run the 52nd Parliament the way they began, and that is by ramming through legislation under urgency without select committee scrutiny.

I don’t intend to relitigate the very sound and cogent arguments that this side of the House made against this process, and the irony that this is not only a bill but a process that is being supported by the Green Party, whose members lined up for nine years to rail against the use of urgency, and the former member for Hutt South in his debate on the Standing Orders for the 51st Parliament made it very clear in his view that urgency should be taken only for emergencies and with, effectively, a supermajority in the House of 75 percent or more.

I think what we are seeing here is a degree of naivety by Ms Martin that somehow we can just magic up another bill and bring it back through the House, because there’s always so much time—well, the former Ministers on this side of the Chamber know how very, very difficult that can be—but also that somehow the select committee process isn’t important; it’s rubber-stamping. Well, I think we’ve got two very good examples of how a bill that we support could have been made better by the select committee scrutiny. It is true the argument was made—but not accepted—that this was a member’s bill that was considered a couple of years ago and that’s enough; that’s all it needs. Well, I can just imagine the hue and cry that would have emanated from the other side had the National-led Government previously done that.

But I will give the Minister a bouquet—and I hope that that is indicative of the engagement that he intends to take in fair, flexible, and safe industrial relations in this country—because of the careful consideration and, I understand, acceptance of the very good suggestion by Sarah Dowie in respect of keeping-in-touch extensions, which are the subject of both Part 1 and Part 2 of this bill. I encourage, nay, challenge, the Minister to continue in that spirit. It is a comment made more in hope than confidence, given my understanding of the Labour Party’s manifesto for industrial relations, but we’ll see how that goes.

With that, though, comes a brickbat, and that is that, effectively, what we’ve heard from both the Minister and the Hon Tracey Martin is that the Government would like to consider Amy Adams’ ideas, which, actually, the National Party campaigned on in the 2017 election campaign, as an extension of the very flexible arrangements that we put in place in the last Parliament to paid parental leave. No, it wasn’t 26 weeks, because that was unaffordable at the time, but we did go to 14 weeks, to 16 weeks, and then to 18 weeks. More than that, we broadened the nature of the paid parental leave to extend it to people who would not otherwise have got it: whāngai arrangements, casual employment, being entitled after just six months’ work in a 12-month period, all qualified people for paid parental leave who weren’t previously eligible for it.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It is with huge, huge pride that I stand on behalf of the Greens to show our massive support and gratitude for this bill.

I’m quickly going to address the ongoing accusations in this House, particularly pointed at the Green Party, about the use of urgency, and be very clear: this bill has been through the House and select committee twice already—twice already. It got thousands of submissions in the select committee stages, with overwhelming support, and so, yes, the Greens actually do hold strong to our principle of using urgency for special cases. It is very clear to the Green Party that this bill has been through due process, and so it is a pleasure to stand and support us finally actually getting it somewhere: increasing paid parental leave to 26 weeks.

This is a short call. I wanted to put on the record my personal support for this bill. I remember, going right back—I think it was a good seven years ago, perhaps, when my youngest daughter and I were part of the fantastic community campaign 26 for Babies. I remember us all hopping on a train in Auckland, mammas and babies, with our big yellow T-shirts and balloons—26 for Babies—and it’s quite surreal to be able to stand in this Chamber after all those years and finally arrive here, finally arrive to a Government that is showing exactly how much we value supporting parenting, and mothers and babies being able to stay home together. The Greens, of course, eventually want to aim for 13 months. This is a fantastic step in the right direction.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! Order! Can I just remind members that we’re actually on Part 1, which is quite specific. I’ve let the member go on, but can she bring the debate back to Part 1, which is quite a specific clause.

I appreciate that, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. You’re right: Part 1 is specifically where it extends the leave out to the 26 weeks and in the two phases—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): 22 weeks.

It is 22 weeks, and then 26 in Part 2—my apologies. So that’s the first phase of extending it out to 26: firstly, I think, taking it to 22 weeks in July next year.

I just will finally end with having our support put on the Hansard record that that 22 weeks is absolutely important. It was having three children within three years and being in full-time paid employment myself—and this wasn’t around then; those children are in primary school now—but remembering back to the incredible stress and what a massive help those extra weeks would have been.

Just to close, while I agree with the spirit, on the face of it, of the Part 1 Supplementary Order Papers, particularly from Amy Adams, which would make an amendment so that parents can take that leave together, it is a little strange, because where was that overwhelming support for extending paid parental leave in the very first place, before it was vetoed?

So thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak tonight and to show our support for increasing paid parental leave. Kia ora.

Look, I’m pleased to speak on this piece of legislation, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill, and on this part, Part 1. The first thing I’d like to just acknowledge is the fact that it is a good thing that this legislation is going to go through this committee, but some of the questions that the members on this side are asking are legitimate in terms of timing.

We have previously, when we were in Government, extended paid parental leave from 14 to 18 weeks, and this part, coming back to this part of the bill, is about a two-stage process to increase it to 22 weeks next year and then 26 weeks. The question that I have for Minister Lees-Galloway, is one that everybody on this side of the Chamber is asking. I don’t think I’ve actually ever, in my nine years as a member of Parliament, seen something quite as extraordinary as this. We’ve got members, including Willow-Jean Prime and even Tracey Martin, saying that the Hon Amy Adams’ amendment is a good thing, “But maybe we’ll look at it later.” They’re pushing it through in urgency, but it doesn’t actually kick in until 1 July.

So my question—a very simple question that New Zealanders are asking members of Parliament in this committee—is: why is the Government not supporting the Hon Amy Adams’ amendment tonight? It’s not too late. You could put this to the select committee. This bill does not need to go through tonight. Given that you’ve got members such as Willow-Jean, but also partners such as Tracey Martin, saying this is a very good amendment, why will the Government not support it?

The other thing I want to acknowledge is the Hon Sarah Dowie’s amendment—[Interruption] Oh, sorry, I’ve just elevated her, and that is a sign of good things to come—very good things come. She’s a very, very good member of Parliament. It’s great that the Government is supporting Sarah’s amendment, but just coming back to this legislation, you’ve got a scenario whereby members of Parliament across the Chamber—and, again, we always said that when it was fiscally possible we would continue to extend paid parental leave. We’ve done it from 14 to 18 weeks. We campaigned on 22 weeks. We are here in this committee, we are with you, but for the core issue of a brilliant amendment by the Hon Amy Adams, which is supported by members across the committee.

Let’s talk about the personal situations of people that may actually want to use this scenario. Potentially you’ve got health issues of one partner. You may have premature babies. This is all really sensible stuff, and so the core question that we have for the Minister is: why? We would understand if there was some reason, such as this legislation was kicking in six weeks’ time, but it’s not. The first stage of paid parental leave doesn’t kick in till next year. Why will the Government not support this amendment? I ask the question to the Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank members for their contributions, and thank the Hon Nikki Kaye for her questions. I would just like to clear up a few misunderstandings, I think, that members of the Opposition may have about the way paid parental leave operates. The Hon Judith Collins asked why the person who did not give birth to the child should not be able to contribute, and then made the comment that fathers should be involved. Well, the way that the paid parental leave legislation works right now is that, actually, both parents can take leave from work at the same time; one on paid parental leave, one can be unpaid.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Oh, unpaid.

Yes, that’s correct. You heard me right—well done. Also, it is possible to transfer. The member asks, rightly, what about fathers. If the mother has the primary entitlement to paid parental leave, it is possible to transfer, and it’s actually the transfer that the Hon Amy Adams’ amendment relies on, and I’ll come back to that in a second. So it is actually incorrect to suggest that the second parent, the father or somebody other than the parent that gave birth to the child, is not entitled to paid parental leave and does not have the opportunity to contribute to the raising of the child through that system of paid parental leave. So let’s just get that cleared up right away.

Nikki Kaye asked, rightly, why are we not supporting Supplementary Order Paper 3 this evening. Well, the problem—and this is often the case with an Opposition Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) dealing with something that is reasonably complex—is that the Supplementary Order Paper is somewhat flawed. Now, we have had only a few hours to consider this. The Supplementary Order Paper was only tabled at 4.15 this afternoon, which did not give our caucus an opportunity to consider it, but it also means that we have had only a few hours to consider the Supplementary Order Paper.

However, in the little bit of time that we have had to consider it, this is what we have discovered. The clauses that are drafted all leverage off the transfer provisions in section 71E of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act in a way that is incompatible with the preconditions for transfer contained in that section. In particular, section 71E(2)(a) requires that the proposed transferee “has or intends to have primary responsibility for the day-to-day care of the child;”. However, it is incompatible with the concept of primary responsibility for there to be two people with primary responsibility for the same child at the same time. In legal terms, the primary responsibility qualification in section 71E(2) is the key point. It falls over there, because while the SOP’s new section 7(4) says there can be two primary carers at the same time by virtue of a transfer, that would only work if you actually transfer, and since you can’t have two people with primary responsibility at the same time, you can’t transfer.

So the SOP that has been brought to the committee tonight, at the last minute, is flawed. That doesn’t mean that the issue that it seeks to address is not one that is worth considering. This is why on the Government side we have said we do want to consider this, because—

💬 Brett Hudson: Put it in select committee right now.

I’ll get to that, Mr Hudson. I will get to why we’re not going to select committee in a moment. So we do want to consider this, and we welcome the opportunity to work with the National Party to come up with an amendment to the legislation that actually works, because this one doesn’t.

Some members—Brett Hudson, I heard—said why not take it to select committee. This bill that the Government introduced is a bill that extends paid parental leave. That is a matter that has been to select committee twice before, and that is why we are supporting the very good Supplementary Order Paper 2 in the name of Sarah Dowie, because it supports the purpose of this legislation, which is to extend paid parental leave. Sarah Dowie’s Supplementary Order Paper extends the keeping-in-touch hours. That supports the purpose of the bill that the Government introduced. Amy Adams’ Supplementary Order Paper addresses an entirely different policy matter that needs more consideration than we can give it at the committee of the whole House tonight. It is a different policy that is not addressed in the bill that was introduced by the Government. It would be inappropriate to decide to take this bill to select committee to address a policy matter that actually stands outside of the bill as it was introduced.

I want to acknowledge Sarah Dowie for finding a way to improve the bill and support the purpose of the bill. It’s a very good Supplementary Order Paper from Sarah Dowie, and I’m sad that the National Party haven’t talked about it more today, because that was a good amendment that we had an opportunity to work together on, and I’m looking forward to Sarah Dowie having the opportunity to present that Supplementary Order Paper to the committee. I thank members for their questions. That is why the Government has taken the position that we have.

That’s why, unfortunately, we cannot support Amy Adams’ Supplementary Order Paper this evening, but I want to extend once again the offer to the National Party. This is an interesting policy idea. We do think there are fish-hooks in it. We have raised concern about the fact that the impact would be to reduce the overall amount of paid leave that is available to spend time with baby, and, of course, spending time with baby is what this is all about. We recognise the fish-hooks, but we do want to have a conversation; this is not the bill to progress that policy.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Chair. It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill, talking about, in particular, Part 1, which extends paid parental leave from 18 to 22 weeks. It is a pleasure to rise because, of course, this was a policy that National campaigned on, and there seems to be, of course, agreement across the committee about the extension of paid parental leave and the benefits of it. So there’s no point talking about those benefits directly, but what I do want to talk about is, of course, my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), which the Government has decided to adopt. In talking about its application in Part 1—extending the keeping-in-touch days from 40 hours to 52—I do want to address some of the statements raised by the Government members, in that keeping-in-touch days were fully explored at select committee.

Now, it is true that it was the National Government who brought in keeping-in-touch days through its bill in 2016, and keeping-in-touch days were explored under that reference. But, in my mind, I think they need to be fully explored, and this is where the process at select committee is very valuable. I do think that we would have benefited from more discussion about keeping-in-touch days, looking at the balance of incrementally increasing keeping-in-touch days with the increase in paid parental leave—looking at the benefits of it and making sure that that balance is in touch with what we’re doing with achieving all of the goals that paid parental leave is setting out to achieve in our society.

So, look, keeping-in-touch days are really important. My SOP extends the keeping-in-touch hours available from 40 to 52—as I said in the first tranche under Part 1—and that is in a proportional manner as paid parental leave is moving forward and is being extended. Keeping-in-touch days, as I’ve said in my first and second reading speeches, are really important tools in the tool kit to make paid parental leave fit for purpose. We need to make sure that, when we’re increasing paid parental leave and dealing with this bill, paid parental leave is workable for a number of different situations that families find themselves in. Later, in a contribution, I’ll talk about the Hon Amy Adams’ Supplementary Order Paper, which I think is an extremely good idea and adds to the flexibility of paid parental leave.

But extending the keeping-in-touch days is also important because it combats that isolation factor that some women can experience while on paid parental leave. Yes, of course, it’s wonderful to have a baby, and you would never be without them once you have them, but it’s often not always a box of fluffies. There are things that go wrong, and sometimes having that time to go back to work, with the agreement of your employer, to keep in touch—as the terminology says—to undertake a little bit of project work, to upskill, or to stay in touch with your employment is really good. It makes the primary caregiver feel worthwhile; it keeps them in touch with their career; it makes things flow more easily with regards to them coming back to work; and, of course, there’s the camaraderie factor of going back to work. Plus, of course, paid parental leave gives that financial security to people to go out into the community and get involved in community initiatives that also contribute to their well-being and keep them connected.

So this SOP, with regards to Part 1, obviously extends the keeping-in-touch days to 52 hours, which I think is extremely worthwhile. It’s going to give people more time to use those hours throughout their paid parental leave, stay in touch with their employment, keep their skills evolving, and I think that this will be really well received out in the community in New Zealand.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It is a great pleasure to rise and speak on Part 1 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. Of course, I have to start by saying, on behalf of the Green Party, I am very proud to be supporting a Government that has so clearly signalled their priorities by making the first piece of legislation to pass in this House—when it does—an extension to paid parental leave that families have been waiting for for such a long time.

In Part 1, which extends it to 22 weeks, I want to address the issues raised both around the urgency and around the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that was proposed by Amy Adams—so Supplementary Order Paper 3. But let’s just state right up front that it’s clear what this Government’s priorities are: it’s looking after families in Aotearoa; it’s ensuring that we’re investing in enabling families. Moreover, the policy objective, which is very relevant, is extending the amount of time that a parent, any parent, is able to spend with the baby to maximise the amount of time that babies, during their development, will eventually have—first 22 weeks, and then 26 weeks—with one of their primary parents, whoever that is. That’s a policy objective.

I know that the Opposition struggles with this, because it was never clear that they thought that Governments should be trying to achieve things for people in New Zealand. They certainly questioned the ability of Government to deliver. But there’s a clear policy objective here, which is maximising the amount of time that babies have with their primary caregivers, any of them.

So what is addressed in the Supplementary Order Paper 2, proposed by Sarah Dowie, I think is excellent. It was a great contribution, and I think the Government has shown clearly that when there’s a good suggestion and it can be incorporated, we will support that.

When it comes to the Supplementary Order Paper raised by Amy Adams, I think it’s an interesting proposal. I think that, as Minister for Women and with a primary goal of closing the gender pay gap, it is incredibly important that we find ways to incentivise fathers and other parents taking more of the parental leave. But we don’t want to do that at the expense of the time that babies have with the caregiver, and of course if two people are taking paid parental leave at the same time, then it reduces the amount of time that babies have with one of their primary caregivers at home.

I think that the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway explained very clearly why this is out of scope, this particular Supplementary Order Paper, and I do think that it’s a bit disingenuous for Opposition members to suddenly claim to be so passionate about this when they had nine years to do it, and obviously they didn’t. So this Government is getting on with it. We’re not going to allow our ambitious agenda for Aotearoa to be hampered by slowing down something that’s already been through select committee twice. We can go ahead and pass the bill because we know that most New Zealanders support it. It’s a good bill. It extends parental leave, and that’s what we care about.

I think Opposition members should not worry, because this is just the beginning—it’s just the beginning. We’ve got heaps of time to introduce more and better policies, and I, for one, as Minister for Women, welcome the National Party coming out in a strong campaign for extending parental leave to 13 months, including incentives for fathers and other parents. I’m really looking forward to hearing that from the National Party during this term of Government. You could join the Green Party in campaigning for extensions to paid parental leave to 13 months, because, clearly, they’re very supportive of such a thing.

So thank you Madam Chair—very happy to be supporting this bill tonight, and one of the SOPs proposed by the National Party members. We look forward to further contributions from the National Party Opposition to policy making throughout this term of Government and beyond.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m very pleased to stand in the debate on Part 1 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. One of the things that I just want to start with is the record of the previous Government around incremental increases to extending paid parental leave. But not only that; it was taking the opportunity to improve it, to make it more flexible, and to be more workable for Kiwi families in their variety of shapes and sizes. So this is a massive lost opportunity.

I’m very bothered by the fact that we have a Minister who purports to be wanting to introduce legislation that supports families, and won’t even take a month, two months, to stop to consider what he’s already admitted is a good suggestion. I think it’s a simple demonstration of just a dogmatic position. I want to correct the record actually, because I know for a fact that the Hon Amy Adams initiated discussions around the content of this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), not just at 4.15 today but yesterday. The fact that the Acting Prime Minister made a view on it this morning that was a completely contradictory view to the Minister in the chair says that they know about it. They knew about it this morning. They made a decision about it. They couldn’t agree on it. I guess you can kind of see why. One thought it was a good idea; the other one just probably didn’t know the bill itself.

But the reality is that this is an extension—like we extended, from 14 weeks to 18 weeks. This is the logical extension in Part 1, from 18 weeks to 22 weeks, but it is absolutely a lost opportunity to ensure we have legislation that is fit for purpose for Kiwi families, and the opportunity for both parents—as I said, whatever size, shape, or formation—to have really important time together and to make those choices. Why should a Kiwi family be penalised because the current Government is too narrow-minded and not willing to pause for a month or two months or whatever? We absolutely want it, on this side of the Chamber, to come in on 1 July. We are supporting the bill, but we do think there is an opportunity for the Government to make a decision to say, “Right, well, actually there might be some issues that the Minister in the chair spoke to.” Take a breather. Take some time. We want to support the legislation.

As I said in my earlier reading, the select committee process is absolutely the opportunity to get Kiwis to provide input that adds value and creates the opportunity and makes sure we have legislation that works for the citizens that we represent. So, in terms of the Hon Amy Adams’ amendments in SOP No. 3, I do think the Minister in the chair should be able to consider the fact that this is not just about extending; it is about improving. It’s about making it easier for Kiwi families. Whether it’s the first child, whether it’s the second, whatever the parental arrangements are, whoever the primary caregiver is should have absolutely no say by the Government. It shouldn’t be the Government’s decision about what works best for Kiwi families. Those are decisions that each and every Kiwi family should be making. The legislation before us, given that it is the very first one of this Government—I would have thought you had the commitment, that the Government had the commitment, to make sure it worked for Kiwi families up and down this country and recognise that they have different circumstances, different needs, and different requirements.

The other part I want to move to is Sarah Dowie’s amendment on SOP No. 2—the keeping-in-touch days. I think this is an example of a Government that was in haste and missed a really obvious piece of the legislation that is a fundamental part of women and their return to work, which, surely, is also an equal part of this. The Minister for Women today was talking about New Zealand’s record in the number of women participating in the workforce, which I agree is a great thing. But if the Government hadn’t included it—Sarah Dowie, my able colleague, was the one that spotted the gap—because you were in haste, that would have affected the ability for New Zealand women to ease their process to return to work. I would hate to think what the consequences are. The Minister for Women might have a view on whether or not actually that was ripping women off and their chances to stay connected to their workforce. Again, when we extended paid parental leave, not once but twice, this was an important part of adding flexibility and adding the opportunity to ensure that women were connected to work. It made it easier for them to return. So this has got to be an opportunity that the Government shouldn’t be wasting. Take a breath. Minister in the chair, I really—[Time expired]

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to take a call on this. I just want to take this opportunity as we are looking at Part 1, at what is going to happen, what is proposed. It is important that we also think, within that, about what it means is not proposed.

I’ve heard members from the other side, and the Minister for Women, comment that this is about a policy of leave. I actually think they’re confusing mechanisms with policy. The policy might be expressed as giving a child a better start in their life. It might be expressed as improving bonding between the infant and the primary caregiver. The fact of doing it by extending a number of weeks of leave is a mechanism that gives effect to the policy. It’s not actually the policy itself.

We all support that, and support that intent, and are voting for that, but by taking the approach that that mechanism was the policy, the Government has chosen to introduce and progress this in a way that means that other parts, very valid parts, to what is truly the policy have been overlooked. Members of this Parliament but also the public have been denied the opportunity to make submissions in those areas.

By its agreement with Ms Dowie’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), the Government is admitting that there is at least one flaw in the bill as they have introduced it under urgency. It is a flaw that, had it been progressed through a select committee, would have been able to have been investigated, and instead of talking in Part 1 simply about the increase of a number of weeks of paid parental leave, we could be talking at the same time about other improvements to that fundamental policy of the early weeks and months of a child’s life and their bonding with their caregiver, particular the primary caregiver.

So Ms Dowie spotted that piece, and I’d just like to acknowledge, if I may, that that idea was introduced by a National Government. But I’d just like to acknowledge the former National list MP based in Ōhāriu, Katrina Shanks. It was a policy idea that she brought to the National caucus. It is wonderful to see not only that it was passed by a National Government but that, through another National member, it looks like a very good possibility that that will be extended, along with the extension to the paid parental leave.

I think also that Amy Adams’ SOP shows another flaw in the way that that policy can be delivered, by denying parents the choice to take leave together and to parent together not only the newborn but obviously the entire family circumstances. There’s actually more, because there are other elements that could, and should, have been traversed in a select committee.

Now, in its last term in Government, the National Government, amongst other things as extending parental leave, also made changes to the parental tax credit. The parental tax credit is used by those families in circumstances where they feel that work is a part of what they need to do in that early part after the birth. So the Government provides support, through that parental tax credit, for families in that situation. The National Government increased the value of it by $70 a week, to $220, but also—and I think this is where it’s absolutely relevant to Part 1—the National Government extended the duration of that tax credit. When it extended paid parental leave to 18 weeks, it extended the duration, from 8 weeks’ to 10 weeks’ eligibility, for the parental tax credit. So here we have a bill in the House, introduced under urgency, all about a fundamental policy about a child’s early life and bonding and a good start to life, and we’ve overlooked certain elements because we skipped an important part of our parliamentary process.

We should be debating, we should be discussing—because different families have different circumstances—the idea that the parental tax credit should also be extended in its duration by an amount. That amount may not be the same as the amount of paid parental leave extension in either part, but there’s absolutely an argument to suggest it for families in those circumstances where the use of the parental tax credit is preferable or better for them than paid parental leave, and this bill, under urgency, without a select committee, has denied members of Parliament and the public the opportunity to explore these and actually put through Parliament and enact a better piece of legislation that will more fully deliver the actual policy intent.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Why do you want to close down debate on such an important issue?

I thought we would let that be heard—important. Look, I’m very pleased to take a call on this Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. As my colleagues on this side have already indicated, we are pleased to support it, particularly in the elements around Part 1, which has seen the extension of paid parental leave beginning, importantly, on 1 July next year. I think it’s important to note that, because an element of the debate is why this has been done under urgency and why this has not been done in select committee. I think that remains an important element.

First and foremost, there is no rush. There is no need to rush, particularly when there really is a concord or a consensus across the House, and we do need to ask that. I think we also need to take a little bit of a query that we don’t need to go to select committee. In fact, I think when you look at the two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that are in front of us—one from Amy Adams, one from Sarah Dowie—they’re actually indicating, arguably, flaws in what’s being proposed, but perhaps if you wish to be more charitable, these are opportunities. And while my colleagues are incredibly smart, I think they’d also acknowledge that the general public has the smarts as well, and I’m disappointed the Government hasn’t taken the opportunity to engage with the public, and that’s a question I’d like the Minister in the chair to answer.

I think, too, we’ve already had the argument that somehow it’s already been to select committee. Well, I might just point out to the Greens that when I was chair of the Health Committee we dealt with the marijuana question several times in the committee, so that’s bloody stupid. So I suspect they’re going to withdraw their bill, are they? Of course they’re not. So let’s be consistent around this. No consistency. It’s what I call convenient democracy.

So the next part, though, when we look at Part 1, it was raised by the coalition partner, Tracey Martin—talking about complexities. There are complexities, particularly with the suggestion that’s been put forward by the Hon Amy Adams to allow parents to, effectively, share the entitlement. So they have 22 weeks. In theory, each could take 11. I suppose in many ways we’ve actually traversed some of the arguments for that, going right to the core of what the Hon Amy Adams is suggesting. The entitlement, quite rightly, as this House is supporting, is 22 weeks. What is wrong with parents choosing to divvy that up and do it jointly, to do that together? There are no reasons that we have heard from the Government side, and again I’d like the Minister to answer this: what are the complexities that his coalition partner pointed to? Because I can’t really think of the complexities. I suppose the Minister in the chair could suggest that’s a lack on my part, and I’m willing to accept that to a point, but I don’t see what the legal complexities are.

We’ve also heard that the support from the Government side for Sarah Dowie’s SOP is because it’s proportionate, and I think that’s quite right. It is a proportionate response. But the same support, for reasons of proportionality, also applies in this case to the Hon Amy Adams’ SOP. It is proportionate that parents who choose to divide up the entitlement is proportionate to their decisions. If they want some time as just the mother and/or the father separate, that’s fine. If they want to do it together at the same time, that is fine. It’s up to them to choose how the apportionment or the proportionate nature of those 22 and eventually 26 weeks—so I’m conscious that’s Part 2—is done.

In terms that might help particularly those to the far left in the Green Party, when you start trying to avoid terms of mother and father, when you start trying to talk about primary entitlements, when you’re saying that only one parent is allowed to be with the child—well, paid to be—it’s what they call discrimination. I know a lot of talk comes up about human rights at times, but as a human rights theorist I have to say it’s funny how we’re having a discussion today that is actually saying to one parent—it doesn’t matter if they’re the mother or the father—that they are not able to be at home and be paid in the same way as the primary caregiver. That makes very little sense in a whole array of avenues. One is choice, which is often put out strongly in this House, and the other is in terms of discrimination.

💬 Hon Nikki Kaye: And equality.

And equality. As you rightly point out, how did I forget equality? Because at the end of the day, if Part 1, and particularly the Supplementary Order Paper of the Hon Amy Adams is to stand—as it rightly should—the Government should allow parents to make the decision of how to use that 22 weeks, and if they choose to parent together then that is a positive. If they choose not to, that’s a positive as well.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and again I thank Simon O’Connor for his direct questions. Unfortunately, I feel I will be repeating myself a little, because the questions that he raised—I did address most of those in my previous contribution. However, Simon O’Connor asked: why do we not want to hear from the public? We’ve heard from the public time and time again about this. The member has been in the House for some time. He will recall exactly this bill being considered by two select committees already, thousands of submissions—over 97 percent of the public in favour of doing what this bill does. I think we’ve heard from the public.

In terms of complexity, I did outline in my previous contribution some of the complexities that we have identified. I can go further. We’ve not had time really yet to work through all the consequential issues with this proposal, as there are many of them, but here are some of our concerns in terms of consequential issues that arise from Amy Adams’ Supplementary Order Paper 3. Section 71EA of the Act, “Effect of transfer of entitlement to spouse or partner”, would need to be reconsidered in light of this Supplementary Order Paper. The Act uses the primary carer concept—I know it is one Mr O’Connor does not seem to very much like—to work out entitlements for the spouse or partner in relation to the partner’s leave. Having two primary carers means section 17 would need to be rewritten to take this into account. There would—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Sorry, could you just clarify?

Section 17. There would be consequences on who could, and how the two carers could, take their keeping-in-touch hours, and restrictions would need to be placed on this, and thought should be given to whether this could be divided up or if each carer had an entitlement in their own right. Thought would need to be given to how pre-term baby payments would work and whether these could also be shared, in which case amendments and consequential amendments would need to be made to the Act.

So I’m sure it seemed very straightforward to the National Party when they were doing the drafting, but the fact is this is complex and we cannot, in good conscience, pass Amy Adams’ Supplementary Order Paper this evening without dealing with those consequential amendments that would come from it.

The final point I want to make is that Mr O’Connor suggested that the Government is supporting Sarah Dowie’s Supplementary Order Paper 2 because it is proportionate. That’s not why we are supporting it. We’re supporting it because it fits with the purpose of the bill. It supports the purpose of the bill. It is proportionate. It is a proportionate change to make, but that’s not why the Government is supporting it. We’re supporting it because it supports the aims of the bill. It fits within the policy intent of the bill. The policy intent, as I said earlier, of Amy Adams’ Supplementary Order Paper is actually quite different from the policy intent of the bill. So I apologise to the committee for repeating myself, but I do want to answer members’ questions and I hope that has clarified the matter for Mr O’Connor.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the Minister’s intervention, which he claims was a repeat of what he’d said in his first speech. I just want to test that in respect of his reasons for not being able to accept as good improvement the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the name of the Hon Amy Adams.

Now, I would firstly point out that it is not an argument to say that they only received the SOP at 4.15 p.m. today and didn’t have time to analyse it, for two reasons. One is: we got the bill with only about two minutes’ notice, and we had to analyse it. So, frankly, what’s good for the goose. But, secondly, I find that a rather pyrrhic response when both the Acting Prime Minister and the Minister in the chair had ruled out the improvement without even seeing it. And I think that goes to an attitude that says we weren’t even going to have a look at it.

To be fair to the Minister, he did give Sarah Dowie’s Supplementary Order Paper 2 the green light before he’d seen it, I have to say. He didn’t need to see the SOP to approve that in principle, but it does seem rather inconsistent that he would rule Amy Adams’ SOP out before he had even seen it.

Now, the key to this, I think—and I’ve heard the Minister say two things. One is that because we have a framework under section 7 that introduces the concept of a primary carer and the Act does not provide for two primary carers, therefore this can’t be done. And there was some reference to section 17 and the need to amend section 17. I still can’t see it. I would point out to the Minister that Amy Adams has actually addressed that in her amendment by putting in, at subsection 4 of section 7, that a person and their spouse or partner may both be primary carers simultaneously. It’s as simple as that. It’s understood that if only one person could take the paid leave at a time, then it would be necessary to identify who that was and to name that person the primary carer. It’s necessary then, because the Act already allows the transfer of parental leave from one to the other, under section 71E, and I think section 17 is also engaged there. So there are already mechanisms and machineries for employers to already account for that transfer of those weeks. All we are doing is a simple change to say that that can happen at the same time.

💬 Hon Member: Simple.

Maybe I am a simpleton; I was a Minister for three years. I know some of these things can be pretty hard in machinery, but the obligation that is on the employers already to account for the weeks that have been taken between the primary carer and someone else already need to be in place, and so I fail to see how this is too complex or too technical.

Now, the Minister also said—and it’s difficult to know, because of the way of his intervention, whether or not this was both technical and out of scope, because he used both of those terms. And I understand, as a former Minister, when an SOP is out of the scope of the bill and indeed—well, we’ve had some precedent on this. It is still open for debate. We may not get to a vote. But there has been no suggestion tonight that this SOP is out of scope, nor should it be when we read the general policy statement and the goals of the bill to be more generous, to recognise that “… parental leave and monetary support—greatly assists a mother, father, or other primary carer to develop those close bonds with the child;”. And what Amy Adams’ SOP is saying is if we are serious about assisting parents, whatever their configuration, whatever their situation, to develop those close bonds, we have the opportunity now that we are increasing the number, the quantum, of the weeks of paid parental leave that is in the bill—this is the perfect time to say both parents can take paid leave simultaneously, to be at home with their new child or children, caring for them together. The SOP in Amy Adams’ name makes that provision absolutely clear: section 7(4) “A person and their spouse or partner may both be primary carers simultaneously”.

I call—the Hon David Seymour? No—David Seymour.

Oh, not quite, Madam Chair. No—far too much of a renegade to gain a title like that. But I look forward to you voting very soon on the member’s bill that I turned down becoming a Minister over in order to put it in the ballot. And I hope the people of Gisborne have been giving you their feedback on that particular issue.

I rise to take a call on Part 1, in particular on the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). But I think it’s worth revisiting a little bit of the procedure around the committee stage of a bill, because we’ve been all over the show tonight. It is possible to be completely opposed to a bill, as I clearly stated at the first reading that ACT is. It is possible to have taken a range of positions on a bill in previous readings, and even previous bills of a similar nature, and still come to the committee stage to debate the clauses and seek to improve the bill in the form of Supplementary Order Papers—amendments—to the bill. There is nothing illegitimate whatsoever about doing that. In fact, it is a welcome procedure and part of the parliamentary process.

So to all of those opposite who have been saying, “Why wasn’t this idea or amendment of Amy Adams in previous bills?”, what do they think the point of the committee stage is if not to improve upon where bills have been so far? Perfectly legitimate. And I’ve said, and put on record in this House, that this bill is an expansion of the entitlement culture that has destroyed just about every democracy since Roman times. And here we are again: constant expansions of entitlement, purely in order to buy votes—not for any legitimate public policy purpose, but purely to buy votes—thinking, “There’s a group of people here that we can take some money off, and if we give it to another group of people, we’ll get more votes.” And I think it’s a real pity for New Zealand that a party founded on the values of thrift, enterprise, property rights, some classical liberalism—being the National Party—has fallen into that trap tonight. If only the kinds of speeches we heard in the Address in Reply debate—from David Bennett, for instance—was how the National Party actually thought.

Nevertheless, I digress. We are here to discuss specific aspects of the bill, and, in particular, Supplementary Order Paper 3—and a most excellent one, I have to say—which has been put up by Amy Adams. It’s not often that I come here to this House representing the ACT Party to champion an idea that had its genesis in the National Party. I have to say, it’s normally the other way around. Nevertheless, here we are tonight, and I can’t tell you—and I hope you’ll give me another five minutes, because it’s going to take a while—how many ways, let me count them, that I agree with Amy Adams’ amendment. It is a superb amendment and a profound amendment, and I will try to put forward the case for it in ways that previous speakers have tried and come fairly close to succeeding at doing so far.

And another aspect of this amendment is that I can’t believe that the governing parties didn’t think of it and didn’t put it up. What is at the heart of this bill is something that we heard about at some length during question time today from the Minister for Women. It was about the idea that men and women should get paid the same amount for doing the same job, and that is something that the ACT Party wholeheartedly believes in. The question is: how do we as a society actually get there? This becomes very relevant to Amy Adams’ SOP when you consider the work of Claudia Goldin. Claudia Goldin is probably the top labour economist in the United States. She is a high-ranking professor of labour economics at Harvard University, and she recently published an excellent paper that all people interested in the topic of the gender pay gap should be studying, and it is called—Madam Chair, this is very relevant to the topic of Amy Adams’ amendment—[Time expired]

I call the Hon Judith Collins.

Thank you, Madam Chair; good choice, might I say. There’s a couple of issues that have been raised by the Government that I want to address. The first is that the Hon Tracey Martin—one of her major issues with the Hon Amy Adams’ Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 3 is that it has choice. It provides choice to parents, which, apparently, is a bad thing and needs to be looked at with a great deal of scepticism.

In addition to that, I’ve heard all of the speakers for the Government say that the National Party didn’t do it in their nine years of Government. Well, by the way, the Labour Party didn’t do it in its nine years of Government before either, and I’m sure it won’t in its next 18 months of Government either, again. So when I look at that particular argument, I think that’s just completely specious. It’s ridiculous to be able to say that we have to come together in Parliament to put forward bills that we’ve already progressed. What would be the point of this debate? What would be the point of any debate?

We’ve also had the answer from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway, that parents can have unpaid leave at home. Well, I just put this to the committee: it is not at all unusual for a mother to experience post-natal depression. This is not an unusual thing. It is a hormonal thing, and it is something that many mothers have gone through, and are going through. Is it right to say that, at a time of life where people are often the poorest that they have ever been, because the costs associated with babies, whether it’s prams, whether it’s bassinets, whether it’s clothes—everything—are immense for most families? When people are often young—because those, after all, are childbearing years—have mortgages, or are paying large rentals, it’s that time when they need their income. And why shouldn’t two parents who are able to decide to have a baby also be able to decide that they can take their paid parental leave together for a lesser amount of time because it works for both of them and for their child? Why can’t they? We trust people to have their children and we trust people to bring them up; why can’t they make decisions, like adults, about their own circumstances?

I almost couldn’t believe what the Minister for Women, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, was saying. I think her experience of this is clearly completely different from mine, which is that it is really tough at home with a baby by yourself when you’re used to being in the paid workforce, making decisions, and having discussions with adults—actually hearing something back that’s not a cry. It is really tough. And for some people, they are able, because of their situation, to be able to have a partner at home for a period of time. Well, why not other people? Why can’t they?

This is an opportunity that we’re putting forward tonight, and we’re doing it in good faith. We’ve had Mr Iain Lees-Galloway say, “Well, you know, we’ve looked at it. It’s too difficult. We can’t make it work. Sorry.” He ruled it out before he’d seen the Supplementary Order Paper, so how disingenuous is that? How can you say, for the moment, “Oh, well, it’s too hard; oh, but we haven’t read it.”? Then we’ve had the Hon Tracey Martin, who said she hadn’t had time to read it. It’s two and a half pages, with lots of great big gaps and big font. Well, frankly, she’s supposed to be a Minister of the Crown; I think she can probably read that within a few minutes. It takes about two minutes to read it.

💬 David Seymour: She’s living proof that anyone can do anything in this country.

Well, she is living proof, frankly. Mr Iain Lees-Galloway has said his excuse is, “Well, National didn’t do it.” No, but National is trying to do it. We’re actually trying to help you.

This is a matter under urgency. Why is it under urgency? Because this Government has no other legislation ready, and they’ve had to pull up Sue Moroney’s old bill, stick Iain Lees-Galloway’s name on it, and shove it through under urgency. Why is that? Because they don’t want any other bill having to be debated, because they haven’t got any. Why does it need to be in urgency? It doesn’t come into effect until 1 July next year, which, actually, is—what’s that?—7½ months, and he can’t get it right. This is an opportunity for the Minister to show some leadership, to stand up and say, “Just because it’s a National SOP, just because it’s the Hon Amy Adams—it can still be a good amendment.”

I move, That the question be now put.

I am pleased to take another call in the committee stage. Again, I just want to acknowledge, actually, the comments that the Hon Judith Collins has just made. Let’s remind ourselves of the fact that we are supporting this bill. Overall, we think this is a good thing. We campaigned on going to 22 weeks and we are supporting this bill to take it to the two-stage process of 26 weeks.

But one of the core issues on this side of the Chamber—and we’ve heard many arguments as to why this is too hard—is: why can’t the Government support the Hon Amy Adams’ amendment? I asked the question of the Minister, and we heard that it was too complex. Well, the message that I have back to the Minister is, again, that he is putting this legislation through in urgency when it doesn’t kick in until July. Please—we will support taking this to select committee to work through that complexity.

On this side, we may be slightly simple, but we cannot understand why this is complex. He hasn’t explained to us the detail of that. I can say to the Minister, I’ve been looking up other jurisdictions as to whether this is too much of a complex issue. I can see that in Nordic countries—in Sweden—this has been around for a very long time. I don’t think this is going to be difficult for officials.

At the very premise of this amendment by the Hon Amy Adams is actually what members opposite claim that they care about so much, which is equality. You may have—and I say this as someone who’s been through a pretty tough health scenario—a parent that may have post-natal depression, or a situation such a caesarean, or premature babies. Why wouldn’t you let two parents take this leave together? We don’t feel, on this side, that we have heard compelling arguments against that. What we’ve heard is that it’s too complex, or that certain members support it, or that it was thought about previously.

Well, the reality is that members opposite are in Government. There is an opportunity now to not waste the House’s time in the future—if what the Minister is saying is that they may look at it later—and put this through a select committee. Support the Hon Amy Adams’ amendment; don’t cost the taxpayer a whole lot of money.

We all support, on this side, that valuable proposition that parents can take that leave together. I really ask the question of the Minister again, because we don’t feel that we’ve had the answers that we need. Why won’t he do the right thing rather than the rushed thing? He can put this through select committee if he thinks it’s too complex, or just support the Hon Amy Adams’ amendment. It’s been around—this whole concept—in many other nations for a long period of time. It’s not a complex thing; it’s the right thing to do.

I call the Hon Jan Logie.

💬 Jan Logie: I don’t think so.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No; just Jan Logie.

I’m liking the elevation; thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to be able to take a short call in this debate tonight and to acknowledge the previous Labour member Sue Moroney, who so valiantly spent hours and hours and hours trying to progress this legislation. I’ve been listening to the speeches from that side of the House tonight, and I’ve got to say it’s hurting a little bit because I sat through those hundreds of hours of submissions and debates within the select committee and it was a very, very protracted process—twice. Was I hearing the National Party arguing for that shared care through that process? I don’t remember it. So it’s not like they just didn’t do it. It’s like when they had the chance to have the discussion and see whether we could explore this, did they take up that chance? No, they did not.

I do want to say—they’re arguing the point around the technicalities of whether this is a technical change or not. Actually, so many of the submissions we heard were about the six months. It was about the value and the importance of the six months. So what is being proposed in terms of shared care—and the changes to this may sound like it’s a good thing, and I absolutely support provision and increased provision and, for me, almost a requirement of parental leave for the other parent. But does it fit with this legislation and the requirement for six months and the benefits of that? Would that deliver the benefits of the six months the way that it’s being proposed? No. It would undermine those benefits.

For that side of the House, which I typically hear being characterised as the champion for business, I would have thought, actually, they would want to go back to business and ask business whether what they are proposing would be helpful for business, because we heard very clearly in select committee that business felt that six months was easier to manage than the lower level of parental leave, as it was at the moment.

I’m speaking very much to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that has been brought up around the shared care. So, actually, what is being proposed through that SOP undermines what business was telling us they wanted. They felt that six months—the 26 weeks that this will bring in—was easier for business to manage. We also heard from multiple—around 3,000—submitters, not all on the point about the value of attachment to the baby that kicks in at six months, the 26 weeks that this legislation will bring in.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! I’m sorry; I know the member is trying, but, actually, we’re on Part 1, which is an extension from 18 to 22 weeks. It’s not about a previous select committee process. I have tried to signal that, so if the member could come back to Part 1 of the bill.

💬 David Seymour: Learn the rules, Jan.

I’ll try and play by the rules, Mr Seymour. I will do my best. The importance of this legislation; this is the realisation. We’ve heard the argument: why do this under urgency? To me, the obvious answer is that we’ve done it already, except that the previous Government vetoed it. We had the support of this House, and now we are just getting it finally across that line, because it should’ve been—and, in fact, it did get—across the line earlier.

I have got to say that for me, in the first week of consideration of legislation—the symbolism of this House committing to supporting families and babies, and workplaces to support them, is a thing to be proud of. It is not something to be messing with and to be contesting. In the Green Party, we are stoked to be able to support this.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. If I may, I’d like to draw your attention to the appendices—Appendix A of the Standing Orders—which say that a member is entitled to multiple speeches but not more than two consecutive speeches. It seems that the Standing Orders Committee anticipated that sometimes running two of the four calls that a member is entitled to together might actually lead to better debate. Now, in the previous Parliament, I often found—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): What’s the point of order? Can you get to the point of order?

Yeah, we’re getting to that. In the previous Parliament—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Could you get to it quickly, please.

This is as quick as you’re going to get—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): This is not a speech. It’s a point of order.

It’s not a speech; it is a point of order. I say that in the previous Parliament—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I ask the member to give me the point of order.

—the Chair often allowed a member to run two five-minute calls in the committee stage together. As far as I can tell, you’re not doing that, and I just humbly put it to you that we’d actually get a better standard of debate if sometimes members who were developing an argument—as I was in my last call—were able to do so.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I understand the member’s point of order. However, the decisions are entirely in the hands of the Chair.

I move, That the question be now put.