Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill

We come now to the debate on Part 2, which is clauses 15 to 24 and Part 2 of schedule 2.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call on Part 2, and I am going to continue the theme of the merits or otherwise, as articulated by the Minister, of Amy Adams’ Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 3, which is an amendment to both Part 1 and Part 2. But the defence by the Minister of why this was too complicated is that it somehow intersects with section 17 of the Act, which is a section in Part 2 of the Act. Now, section 17 talks about the entitlement of the spouse or partner of the primary carer to the partner’s leave, and indeed the SOP by the Hon Amy Adams sets out the scenario by which section 17 in Part 2 actually enables that to occur. In the example on page 2 of her SOP, she talks about Abby, who is “entitled to 22 weeks of primary carer leave. Abby transfers 6 weeks of her entitlement to a parental leave payment to her partner … under section 71E”—and indeed section 71E is relevant, but so too are sections 17 to 19.

Now, in that scenario—there are three. One is that those six weeks of parental leave could be taken by Abby’s partner after Abby takes her leave. That’s what the Act prescribes right now. But, equally, the amendment could enable—and section 17 does not inhibit in any way, under my reading of that section—the other two scenarios in the SOP. They are that there could be an overlapping period of time where the last two weeks of Abby’s 16 weeks are taken by the partner, and then the partner takes the next four weeks on his or her own, or—and I think this is the most likely scenario for a couple with a newborn, particularly if it’s their first child—it is to take those six weeks together, so that for the first six weeks of the child’s life, the child has both parents at home, directly investing in and nurturing their loved one, their new baby.

Now, as far as I can tell—and I’m very happy to hear from the Minister, because he himself mentioned section 17 in Part 2 as a barrier to this occurring. Indeed, if he can better articulate that, I’m very happy to pen the SOP that would remove that barrier forthwith in order for the Government, who have expressed an interest in the amendment but an opposition to it because somehow it’s all a bit complex and a bit hard to get one’s head around—I would be very happy to write a further SOP to clarify and correct any perceived impediments. But I have looked very hard at both section 17 and section 71E, and I can find no such impediment to this SOP not only being passed but being given sensible effect to, given that in the very scenario that the SOP describes, it’s already allowed under law for adjacent leave being taken by the primary carer and then the partner. But by an amendment that this makes—defining joint primary oversight care, with both being primary carers—it could enable overlapping and/or simultaneous care.

I think it would be a shame, given that this is probably the only time in this Parliament that we will get an opportunity to amend this leave—because, of course, we’re increasing it now in Part 2, from 22 weeks on 1 July 2019 to 26 weeks after that, that it’s almost inconceivable that this Act is going to be back before this House, despite what the Hon Tracey Martin said. We have a unique opportunity to make the bill better, despite the fact that it didn’t go to select committee.

I’m interested in the Minister’s views about elaborating on why he believes section 17 is actually an impediment to this sensible change being made. Despite the scramble by the officials in Part 1 of this bill, we didn’t get an answer to my question about the combined effects of this SOP on section 7 in Part 1. So we wait with bated breath, actually, for a positive outcome—any sort of feedback—on whether I’ve actually misunderstood the legislation or the amendment, because as far as I can tell, the only reason that we’ve heard tonight is that they didn’t think of it.

Thank you, Madam Chair Tolley, and it’s a pleasure to rise in support of Part 2 of this bill, but also in support of Amy Adams’ Supplementary Order Paper—in particular, her clause 17A, which talks about adding more flexibility to the taking of paid parental leave, in that the primary carer leave may be taken consecutively or concurrently with the primary carer leave taken by the partner.

I wanted to highlight the importance of this and the importance of making sure that—when we have opportunities like these, we need to make sure that the concept of paid parental leave is evolved, that it’s fit for purpose, and that it applies to the many situations that families find themselves in, and that the law is not wedded to a particular ideology that really has no meaning to everybody concerned. So I’m going to get quite personal, and the reason I’m going to do that is because the example highlights why the Hon Amy Adams’ Supplementary Order Paper is so vital and should be considered—or at least this bill referred back to select committee so that it can be investigated more fully.

I’ve talked in this House before about me being the mother of two premature babies, and my first-born, Christabel, was born at 35 weeks. In the first two weeks, being in neonatal, well, things were hunky-dory. She was a great baby. She did particularly well for a “premmie”, but things weren’t to transpire so well as soon as I got Christabel home. For those mums and dads that know what colic is, I wouldn’t wish colic on my worst enemy. Colic is where the baby cannot actively bring up wind, and it creates all sorts of pains in their stomachs, and it means that they are, quite frankly, a nightmare to deal with. They don’t sleep. These children do not sleep; they’re in agonising pain, and there is nothing you can do for that baby, apart from put that baby on your shoulder, make sure that their diaphragm is lifted up, and walk them around the house.

So, with respect to clause 17A of the Supplementary Order Paper which Amy Adams has brought to this House, what I found was that it was very, very important to have my husband at home for me to bond with baby. I was one of the lucky ones; I had a hands-on father of my daughter to come home and help. I can assure this House that after two days of looking after my baby I was in need, dire need, to hand the child over to my husband. And so, to have that flexibility in the paid parental leave system, to be able to take paid parental leave with your spouse or partner, and share that responsibility, would be a fantastic help to families that find themselves in that predicament.

I understand that research in the benefits of paid parental leave point to bonding over a longer period of time, but that’s with all things equal, and it’s not in real life. The Supplementary Order Paper that the Hon Amy Adams has suggested is a practical amendment to make sure that paid parental leave—in all of its nuances—is fit for purpose in modern New Zealand. We are dealing with these issues day in, day out, and it is our responsibility in this House to make sure that this legislation is nuanced, that it has sections within it that will fit to all sorts of family situations. And so, at the very least, I would love the Minister to stand up and talk about what he intends to do with respect to this Supplementary Order Paper to make it workable, because he stood up and said that it isn’t workable—to make it workable and make sure that New Zealanders are getting the very best out of their representatives with respect to paid parental leave.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair Tolley. I take another call, like with Part 1, in opposition to Part 2 but in support of the fabulous amendment put forward by Amy Adams. And the exclusion of this amendment, as the Government decided to vote against it in Part 1, is illiberal. The liberal thing to do—that I would have expected many members on the Government side of the House to believe in—is to continue their tradition and continue the process of breaking down the walls and barriers between the different roles that an individual can play in the world. And I’m sure that that great liberal, Iain Lees-Galloway, is sitting there thinking, “Bugger. If only I had thought of Amy Adams’ amendment that would allow two parents to share the paid parental leave and come to their own arrangement about how they look after children, under the provisions of this bill.” Now, I think this is a terrible and hopeless bill altogether, but if one thing could make it better, it would be a little touch of liberalism and allowing families and individuals to come to their own arrangements about how they look after their children.

I can see Michael Wood over there, and he’s looking and he’s nodding internally—in fact he’s trying not to nod physically—because he knows, and he agrees, that the Labour Party should be, in alignment with its long held traditions, supporting Amy Adams’ amendment. But the other argument that I was starting to develop in my previous contribution—that I hope that I’ll be able to develop this time—is that many people on this side of the House want pay equity amongst genders. If you go to the best scholars in the world, the best labour economists, like Claudia Goldin from Harvard University, who have crunched the data on a major scale to investigate why there remains a stubborn difference between pay for men and women—if you were to take Goldin’s paper, her final chapter, in a grand convergence between genders—then the answer is actually, ultimately, pretty simple: that with traditional gender roles in place, men find themselves doing more work because it’s harder for them to enter the home, and women find themselves struggling to advance their careers because those rigid traditional gender roles remain in place, and it’s harder for them to get men to take a wider role in the home. That is the academic forefront from the best labour economists in the world right now. And what this amendment from Amy Adams would do—allowing different people within a relationship to make up their own way of sharing the labour, of going out to earn market income in the workplace, and staying home to look after children is the most powerful thing that this committee could do tonight to close the gender pay gap.

So that’s my challenge to this side of the House: if you really believe in a more liberal, more equal society, where men and women, and people involved in every kind of relationship bringing up children, have the flexibility to chart their own course—to actually make us a more equal people—then swallow your pride, accept that Amy Adams thought of it first, and vote for her amendment, which would allow two people in a relationship to decide how they share out the paid parental leave that this bill provides for. And if you’re not prepared to do that, not only are you failing to advance gender equity when it comes to payment and employment—not only are you failing to make this a more liberal and equal society but the other side of the House are telling us something else about what sort of Government they are. They’re telling us that they are the kind of Government who are not prepared to put the better interests of New Zealanders ahead and who are not prepared to say, “We’re sorry we didn’t think of this, but we welcome good ideas from wherever they come.” They are saying, “We will be a group of partisan hacks, and if an idea doesn’t have our name on it, then it’s not good enough.” What a shame.

💬 Hon Phil Twyford: That hurt!

What a shame. Phil Twyford is saying it hurt, and he’s trying to jest but he knows it’s true. On the other hand, members on this side of the House could come forward and make a positive statement for the future of this country by supporting Amy Adams’ amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair Tolley. I am really keen to just explore further with the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety the offer that this side of the House—the Hon Michael Woodhouse—has given, in terms of, you know, working through any issues that his officials have not been able to resolve, or he hasn’t been able to resolve, in terms of accepting the Hon Amy Adams’ Supplementary Order Paper (SOP).

I want to raise a couple of points that haven’t been raised in this debate before by looking specifically at the explanatory note that the Hon Amy Adams has put forward, in terms of her SOP to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. The point that I think has been missed in this debate is that it is “an important … part”, she says, “of building strong families that where … one parent or other carer [is] involved in raising the child, both parents … should have [the] opportunity to bond with the child, and support each other,”. I think that is the fundamental part of this particular SOP that’s been put on the Table by the Hon Amy Adams and provided yesterday for the Minister to consider and to be able to work through any issues.

A lot of the discussion in this debate has kind of talked about the first baby and the first child, and everybody recognises that that comes with particular challenges. But what about when there’s already a child in the family? Can I tell you that is particularly challenging. When you come home with a newborn and there’s another one, or two, or three, or four littlies around, bonding with the family—i.e., both parents—I think is absolutely critical.

One of the things that we did in Budget 2017 as a Government was to commit to a $100 million investment into mental health. One of the biggest challenges facing new mothers, which paid parental leave absolutely is a significant step forward in, is supporting their mental health. For many of those new parents—mums or dads—some of the challenges are not just from the newborn but from the other children in the family. So I think it’s very sensible and very practical, and actually very logical, to accept this SOP. I accept that the Government didn’t vote for it in the first part, and I would really encourage them, particularly those who have had new babies—we’ve seen on that side of the House, Willow-Jean and Kiri, and two new babies on our side of the House in the maiden speeches today, and two of the National MPs with new babies in their households—just to think about the practicalities. I mean, I think one of the things that the new Government could do is actually make sure that the first piece of legislation they champion in this House actually does the real thing that it is intended to do, and that’s about supporting parents. It’s about supporting families. It’s about supporting bonding, and that’s not just one parent to one child. I mean, the reality for someone who, for a range of circumstances, had to return to work much earlier than anticipated after child number two, is it is incredibly challenging.

The opportunity for this SOP, and I implore members opposite—I implore you to consider it from the very practical experience of new parents, not just with child number one, but with child number two or three or four. The Green member who spoke before talked about three children in three years, and I think this particular amendment—this Supplementary Order Paper—actually would make the world of difference to families being able to make choices.

We’ve also heard members talk about, you know, issues around premature babies or other health issues, or the fact that the mother might have had a caesarean section. But sometimes some of the biggest challenges are actually at week 10 or week 12 or week 14. So why would members opposite want to deny the opportunity for a mother and for families to work through whatever challenges they face in a very practical, sensible way, and to be able to deal with whatever circumstances were thrown up? So I really do want to implore members opposite to consider this wonderful SOP that would make the world of difference for Kiwi families.

Just before I call the next speaker, can I just ask people to consider that Part 2 is quite specific. It is talking about extending the leave from 22 weeks to 26 weeks and, accordingly, the Supplementary Order Paper forms part of that. So I would expect, somewhere in the members’ five minutes, that they are not going to just continue to repeat the arguments for Part 1.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am delighted to take a call on Part 2 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill in the committee stage, with respect to the further extension of paid parental leave in 2020 out to the 26-week period. I really want to add my voice to the plea for the Government to take a modern view of families, which is so well illustrated in the amendments to Part 2 that have been tabled by my very capable colleague Amy Adams.

What disappoints me is that in this age, when we are seeing men taking a greater role in the parenting of children, when it comes to paid parental leave why would it be that the Government wants to take a 1960s view of families and not a 21st century view of families. Why is it that members of the Labour, Green, and New Zealand First parties want to lock fathers out of being able to flexibly access the new paid parental leave provisions? It’s just beyond me as to why.

The only explanation that I could reasonably take from Government members’ opposition is that it’s a National proposition. In fact, I was quite moved in my electorate in Nelson, during the election campaign, when former Prime Minister Bill English pointed out that he’d taken a full year for the care of their first child, reflecting a very modern perspective from the National Party of families, where fathers do take a lot more of an active role in the parenting of children and, particularly, of very young children.

My colleagues have outlined, you know, the special situations that go where children have disabilities, where they’re premature, and where there are instances of colic, and the sorts of pressures that there are on families at that time when, actually, we should give families the flexibility, as proposed in Amy Adams’ Supplementary Order Paper.

The only—the only—response that we’ve had against this provision from Government members is, “Oh, it makes it a bit complicated.” Well, I’m sorry—the amendments that have been provided by Amy Adams specifically to this part address those issues. But here it is: these provisions are not proposed to come into effect until 2020. None of these provisions have been to a select committee. If I had to list every lecture I’ve been given by members opposite about the importance of bills going to select committees, I’d be here all night. I could assign over 100 speeches from members now on the Government benches on their first week in the Parliament going back on what they have lectured us for the last nine years: that is, bills of this sort should go to select committee.

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: Concentrate on Part 2.

I hear Tracey Martin interjecting. What’s Tracey Martin got against dads? What has Tracey Martin, the new Minister for Children, got against dads? Why won’t she take a call and explain to this Parliament why we won’t have modern—modern—paid parental leave that allows dads to be able to flexibly access these new arrangements?

What this debate on Part 2 reinforces is why this bill needs to go to a select committee. There’s absolutely no reason why these detailed provisions—the first batch in Part 1; these in Part 2—don’t come into effect for three and a half years. So the right thing—the right thing—if we really are committed to the very best of parenting and arrangements for our children and support for families is for this bill to go back to a select committee and get the detail right. Why do we need to do that? It is because the Minister in the chair has not put up a coherent argument as to why we shouldn’t provide this flexibility—this flexibility that will principally help fathers—and so, on that basis, the right thing is to get it right.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I move that the bill be referred and be recommitted back to the select committee so that these details that the Minister has not been able to adequately answer can be corrected.

Unfortunately, I cannot accept that motion. You cannot do it in the committee stage.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I sought specific advice from the Clerk earlier today, and I was advised by the chief Clerk that, actually, there is a precedent that at any stage during the committee stage, a member is able to move a motion without debate for a bill to be referred back to the select committee.

The advice that I have—and my ruling is—that you cannot do it during the actual committee of the whole House. You could do it when progress has been reported back to the Speaker. That is in the Standing Orders.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Madam Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Are you seeking another point of order to challenge that ruling?

No. I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. On this very specific point—and I am happy for you to take another call—but I would request that the Clerk take advice, because the very specific advice, when I raised this issue with the Clerk of the House, was that at any stage during the committee stage—and there was a precedent set during the course of the last Parliament, where members were able to move that a bill be referred back to select committee. I checked with the Clerk as to whether that could occur. The specific advice from the Clerk was that it could occur at any stage during the committee consideration.

So, under Speaker’s ruling 110/5, it states quite clearly that referring anything back to select committees is beyond the competence of the committee of the whole House. The advice that you received was that you would have to move that we report progress and then you could move that once the committee has reported back to the Speaker. But it is very clear: you cannot do that in committee. I’m sorry if you got the wrong advice. I’m sorry if you misunderstood the advice from the Clerk. However, I am ruling that you cannot do it.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I hope it is a new one.

I’m then taking from your ruling that the correct procedure would be for me to move that the House report progress. So then, if it’s possible, for the House to then consider my motion to refer the bill back to select committee.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That is correct.

I move, That progress be reported.

I want to turn my attention now to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 2 in the name of Invercargill MP Sarah Dowie. This has been mentioned before, but I don’t think it’s quite been given the attention that it deserves, nor, might I add, has the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety been given, I think, the credit that he deserves for taking what was a sensible idea to improve this bill and supporting the Supplementary Order Paper. It does affect both Part 1 and Part 2, and I think I should record, actually, that the improvements—the increases in the keeping-in-touch days—are very generous, and I just want to go through a little bit of the genesis of this and explain why this is so important and, as I say, pay the Minister a bit of kudos for his acceptance of this.

This was an idea that first had some profile when our former colleague Katrina Shanks raised it some years ago—probably nine or 10 years ago—and it didn’t really see the light of day until after Budget 2014 increased the amount, the quantum, of paid parental leave, and I brought to the House, I think two years ago, the Employment Standards Legislation Bill, which, among other things, actually set out an ability for parents to keep in touch with their workplaces. Up until that point, whether the leave was paid or unpaid, the return to work would result in the forfeiture of any outstanding paid parental leave—and the parental leave was to have been taken in a single block. I think it’s a very good example of the way in which the legislation has now had so much more flexibility added to it that we did a number of things, not the least of which was enabling parents to keep in touch with their workplaces. I should add also, though, that those precious first four weeks of the child’s life were exempted from that opportunity; that the parent should not—or is not able to by law—use the keeping-in-touch provisions until after the child has reached the age of four weeks.

So why is that important? Well, there are a number of reasons. But in a modern workplace, where systems and processes are changing at such a great speed, it is necessary and appropriate, for example, simply for workers to be able to keep up with staff training or changes in technology, new IT systems being brought in, or new markets emerging. We are now talking about a period of between 26 and 52 weeks of parental leave—26 of them, obviously, would be paid, but up to 52 weeks of parental leave overall. An enormous amount can happen in a year; in fact, an enormous amount can happen in a week. And I think it is an entirely appropriate example of the flexibility that’s being built into the legislation—thanks both to the previous National Government and to the willingness of the Minister in the chair to look at a good idea from Sarah Dowie and say yes to it—that we increase those opportunities. Twenty-six weeks of paid leave is a long time—that is great; 52 weeks of leave overall is also a very long time.

So in my second intervention on Part 2, I just want to thank the committee, and the Minister for his careful consideration of the SOP. I think it’s a credit to Sarah Dowie that she saw this—well, potentially a loophole. I don’t want to go back and labour the point about the fact that we did first and second readings together without the opportunity for select committee, but it is a risk that legislation not be as good as it could have been without that sort of scrutiny. Thank goodness that Sarah Dowie was alert to it, and thank you to the Minister.

I move, That the question be now put.

The amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 3 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to Part 2 are out of order, as they are inconsistent with the committee’s previous decision to reject the Hon Amy Adams’ amendments to Part 1.