Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill

The question is that clause 1 stand part—oh, sorry. We are now on clauses 1 to 4—I’m learning quickly.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: And the question is that it stand part, Madam Chairperson?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The question is that clauses 1 to 4 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I will take a call on clauses 1 to 4 of the legislation, and in particular the commencement of the various improvements to parental leave and employment protection and, now, to keeping-in-touch days. I note that Part 1 will come into force on 1 July next year, in 7½ months’ time, which, without wanting to belabour the point, really does beg the question of why the public didn’t get the chance to have its say on that.

I will accept that the Green Party’s rather unusual reason for putting aside their noble commitment to open and fair democracy was that the bill had already been considered by a select committee a couple of years ago, and there were a number of submissions. However, I add to that that it was very clear from the Minister of Finance at the time that the bill would not pass—that the best estimates of the costs of the legislation, when it was a member’s bill in Sue Moroney’s name, were in the region of $240 million over 4 years. In fact, it was probably twice that—not, however, what the Minister of Finance at the time said; $250 million per annum. It was not quite that much, but certainly what we now know—and this is relevant to the commencement—is that it is, effectively, around $60 million per annum per increase.

So there were a number of submitters, and David Seymour mentioned this in his intervention in the first reading debate, who were absent from the bill submission process and who did not submit to select committee, simply because they knew the bill would not pass. So it is not appropriate to say that it doesn’t matter that we didn’t put it to a select committee, which we had time to do. We still have time to do that—we have another 7½ months before the straightforward increase from 18 to 22 weeks comes into effect on 1 July next year—but we simply did not take that opportunity.

The other purpose of the scrutiny of that legislation was actually the costs, and the timing of the implementation of the legislation no doubt influences the Crown costs. I accept—in fact, we haven’t made too much of this—that while the reason for vetoing this as a member’s bill was because the fiscal impacts were more than minor, it is entirely, now, the Government’s prerogative to decide, amongst the other priorities that it has within its gambit of policies and laws that it wants to pass, that it sees this as affordable. That’s understood. But I remain concerned that the amount of financial scrutiny that is influenced by the commencement dates of this legislation is still poor. It has a disclosure statement—that’s not a regulatory impact statement—which goes through, I think, a woefully inadequate assessment of the fiscal costs of this change.

Again, it’s entirely appropriate that the Government’s able to pass the legislation, but we are doing it without the normal scrutiny. It hasn’t even gone to a Cabinet committee, much less a select committee. I would advise the Ministers—who are relatively new, and they will know this soon enough—that the Cabinet committees are the dragon’s den of Government policy. Before they even get to the select committee they will be scrutinised, they will be worked over by officials, they will be challenged by Ministers of other parties, and that is an appropriate thing to do. None of this has happened, and yet the timing of the implementation of this bill would certainly enable that to have occurred.

It’s very disappointing that the first bill that the Government will pass—because it has the support of the overwhelming majority of the members of this House—is done so in a manner and in a time frame that really is the antithesis of good democracy. We had the time. The commencement dates are here. They do not come into force at first blush until 1 July 2018—the second stanza four years later.

Thank you, Madam Chair Williams. It’s my first opportunity, with you in the Chair, to congratulate you on your appointment as a presiding officer.

I just want to speak to the title and commencement clauses, and to build on some of the comments that my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse made around the start date. I would understand the requirement for the lack of scrutiny had this been coming in on 1 January 2018, for example. But, no, it states clearly that Part 1 is coming into force on 1 July 2018, and I know Sue Moroney will be very pleased in terms of that commencement date—extending it to 22 weeks.

But what does concern me is the fact that there is a substantial amount of time between now and then when some of this additional scrutiny could have taken place, and that opportunity then has been missed to really pull apart some of the fiscal impacts, as well as one of the issues that I think, really, a full Cabinet process and a full select committee process, rather than urgency, would have made a difference to. That is on the impact, for example—the unintended consequences stated here on women’s employability.

Part of that is relevant to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that was brought by Sarah Dowie around keeping in touch, because one of the challenges when you have an extended duration—by the time we get to Part 2 on 1 July 2020, it’ll be an extension to 26 weeks. That’s a long time for an employee to be away from a workforce, and I know in earlier times that women taking paid parental leave were quite scared about making contact with their employer. I had one case, for example, that someone brought to my electorate office, where they had thought that attending the retirement function of someone they’d worked for for 20 years would have had an impact on—basically, the cancelling of their paid parental leave.

So I do think that in terms of the commencement, the Government had the choice of starting it on 1 January next year, which I guess would have made sense in terms of why this is being rammed through the Parliament. But because they have chosen commencement on 1 July 2018, I’m still somewhat confused in terms of why there hasn’t been the opportunity to work through the issues—both, perhaps, unintended, in terms of the SOP around return to work that we’ve fixed in this process, but also the opportunity to enable greater flexibility for families to design a leave that works for them and their family.

So the commencement, particularly of the extension to 22 weeks—clearly that’s what we campaigned on—to come into force on 1 July next year, 2018, is important. But it does provide a huge gap both in terms of the scrutiny that I think this Parliament deserves—the New Zealand public deserves—and also, I think, for the 52nd Parliament. As I look around the House, we’ve got a large number of new members from every party, and I think we’ve denied them the opportunity to actually see how a select committee process works, particularly on a bill that is actually unanimously supported. So in terms of the commencement being 1 July 2018, there was sufficient time to do that.

There’s definitely more than 26 weeks, actually—which is what you want to extend the paid parental leave to finally. So if you think about that 26 weeks, there’s more than enough time to have given it the scrutiny it required. Perhaps if the Government had taken it even to a Cabinet committee, the collective wisdom of your Cabinet colleagues could have meant some of these issues had been traversed. As I’ve said, the offer was on the table from the Hon Michael Woodhouse to make it workable, to increase the flexibility.

Thank you, Madam Chair Williams. First of all, Madam Chair, can I just acknowledge you, both as a parliamentary colleague but also as a fellow Cook Islander, on your appointment. I think it’s a great thing that many of us will be very proud of, and I just want to acknowledge the opportunity that you have, and also your role in the House as well.

Can I also too just acknowledge Sue Moroney, who’s in the gallery. The truth is that when Sue Moroney put the bill forward, we did not actually contest the intent. In fact, if anything, it was the process and it was the time framing of how that would happen. If you look through the debates, that was what the process was—so, the intent.

I do want to acknowledge Sue, and I just want to say that it’s her tenacity—in fact, the word that the Hon Tracey Martin used in the House actually was “tenacity”. Do you remember that? You actually said that in your speech. You talked about the fact of her tenacity, and I want to acknowledge Sue Moroney in that.

I suppose the point of my contribution to this is particularly in regard to the flexibility that we talk about. Also, as a father of four children, and two grandchildren, I know the importance of the flexibility that that could have. In fact, in that flexibility—I just want to quote, because I do remember that speech. I was in the House when Tracey Martin made the speech. It was in regard to paid parental leave. The Hon Tracey Martin, you do remember that when you talked about this, you talked about the importance of the role of fathers—

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Excuse me, I would remind the member not to bring me into the debate.

Apologies, Madam Chair. The point I want to make is that the Hon Tracey Martin talked about the role of fathers in her speech—

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: Very important.

—and it was really important. So that’s the point, I suppose, of this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that was put forward by the Hon Amy Adams. It was the ability to say “Let the people, let the families themselves, choose.” Let them have the flexibility to say “Look, maybe we can alter that.”

I know that the Minister has talked about the fact that it would remove the ability for the primary caregiver to have that full, allocated period of time. But in actual fact what the SOP was designed to do was to say “Let there be some flexibility.” There are some mothers that may choose that they would like to go back to work, and so forth.

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Could I ask the member to come back to the title and commencement.

Yes, so the intent of what I’m trying to say is this. This title is the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill but inside that title, what I would also add is: but where are the dads? Where are the fathers? Where is the flexibility that would allow dads to have their place? The honourable member over there said it in her speech. Tenacity is not just for one; it is for all. Flexibility does allow for that. If this title’s going to be true to its intent, parental means two, OK? It’s the two parents that are there—not singular, not one. It’s not just for the mother; actually, it’s for two parents. In fact, in these modern days we have many fathers—and I have been a stay-at-home dad to one of my children. I know the power that it has—the transformation.

So in this title can we truly say it’s parental leave? Or should we say it’s for one parent? One-parent leave, potentially, for mothers. I know that Tracey Martin would also be a bit aware of this title, and that it doesn’t truly reflect the true sense of parents. She said it in her speech. She knows the importance of that. We think that’s really important.

You know, there is something in a title and in a name. It says parents. It says the parental aspect of being able to have that choice. That’s what the SOP was about. If the title is to truly reflect its intent for all parents, then why wouldn’t we allow that through the flexibility of the SOP by the Hon Amy Adams—to allow for parents to choose?

I know that, for instance, I’ve received an email from Bob McCroskie, who’s been talking about the whole thing around fathers and the roles that fathers should play. As they’ve surveyed out and throughout our communities, mums and dads, which make parents, also want to have a choice. Fathers want to be acknowledged that they are just as much a part of their children’s lives as their mothers. So what they’re trying to say here, and what Bob McCroskie and others out there are trying to say—Kiwi dads that are out there, and all those organisations—is “Give us a voice. Give us a chance.”

If this title is to say “Parental”, as in the plural, two, OK, and maybe even more, then why could the Minister not—and I’d like the Minister maybe to answer the question why he could not see it within himself. It’s not a big change. It’s not actually something that’s going to make some sort of catastrophic change. All it is—it will add flexibility. If it doesn’t, then I would beg to say that maybe we need to think about this title. Maybe it just shouldn’t say “Parental”.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: We need to do more than think about it; we need to change it.

It should change, and I think that’s really important, to reflect the duality of two parents, the mother and the father, or two mums that are together, or two dads. There is a multiplicity of ways, but parental means parental.

Thank you, Madam Chair Williams, and can I join with colleagues in congratulating you on your Assistant Speaker role and wish you well, as I take this call on clauses 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this bill.

Can I, firstly, come to the issue of the short title. The issue here is whether the title fairly reflects the content of the bill.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Well, it doesn’t.

My point, and I agree with my learned colleague Simon Bridges, is that, actually—having heard the committee debate—this bill takes a very Victorian view of the New Zealand family. We’ve just had a week in which—actually, I can remember as early as colleagues like Ruth Richardson and Katherine Rich; it’s actually been a long time that we’ve celebrated in this Parliament the greater diversity, the number of women, and even babies in the Chamber. Equally, I am supportive of the greater role that women play today in this Parliament and around board tables. That is a good thing, but, equally, we should celebrate the fact that an increasing number of fathers are taking an increased role with their children. So if we’re going to have a title that fairly reflects this bill, perhaps we should include the amendment of a “Victorian View of Families Amendment Bill”, because the content of this bill undervalues the role that fathers should in New Zealand, in 2017 and beyond, play in the lives of young children and babies. I’m saying that the title of this bill should reflect that.

Alternatively, I’d be happy to accept if we had the phrase the “Paid Parental Inflexible Bill” in amending the legislation. Or, if we wanted to be really blunt, we could just call it the “Paid Parental Leave (Labour Nanny State) Bill”, in the sense that what Labour members are, effectively, saying to New Zealand families is that you can only do it this way, that we’re not going to give you the flexibility for you to be able to choose how you can use the provisions of this bill that provide for paid parental leave in the way that best works for your family. And, given the complete vacuum of arguments either from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety or from the Labour, New Zealand First, or Green parties as to why they oppose the greater flexibility that would support the increasing role that fathers play in parenting, that would be a better title for the bill.

Then can I come to the issue of commencement. I’ve heard these impassioned arguments from new members of the Government saying, “Money shouldn’t come into it; it should just be about supporting parents.” So I’d love a member opposite to explain—if money’s nothing to do with it and you do believe in 26 weeks’ paid parental leave, why does Part 2 get delayed? There’s a contradiction there. Actually, members on this side of the House have consistently supported paid parental leave. We’ve consistently supported it being extended, but we’ve also said that you need to live within your means and it needs to be grown at the pace that the country can afford.

The problem I have is that with not going to a Cabinet committee, with no regulatory impact statement, and with no select committee process, how can this Parliament know that the timetable set down in clause 2 of this bill is affordable?

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Oh, well it’s a “Complete Lack of Democracy Bill”.

Well, as my colleague Simon Bridges said, we have not seen—it’s quite clear, absolutely clear, that the reason we are staggering the introduction of paid parental leave is fiscal. That’s reasonable, but where are the numbers? Where are the finances? During the Cabinet committee process, Mr Minister, did we have the numbers and the comparison and the trade-offs around the commencement dates? No. Did we hear it in the committee stages? No. So how can I take Government members at their word that when it comes to children—and I see the Minister for Children sitting opposite; we’ve heard the impassioned pleas—that children have got to come first and that money should have nothing to do with it. Well, if that is the case, why are you deferring the 26 weeks? If you want to be consistent and say money’s got nothing to do with it, then you wouldn’t have a staggered entry, and so what we see in this bill is just a reinforcement.

The Hon Simon Upton.

Simon Bridges.

The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Sorry.

Oh, I’m going to start taking this personally, Madam Chair! I don’t think there’s a Speaker in this House who’s got it right so far this term. Madam Chair, I was about to congratulate you, but I’m not sure I want to any more, but let me do it anyway. Let me say, Madam Chair, that it is deeply regrettable that the time when I first speak before you and I get to congratulate you is also the time when we are debating actually what is an appallingly inept, inapt, inelegant—

I’m sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for me to report.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported progress on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill and no progress on the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2).

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.