Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill

This is a bill that the National Party has a tremendous amount of interest in because it is actually entirely within our own policy for the last election, with one exception and that is the exception around Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 3, which Amy Adams put in, that was allowing parents to have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they shared their parental leave time together, or they had it both together, so that they could, in fact, have two parents at home. That is something that the Government could choose to support but it has not. So we think that the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill is actually quite—we could say it is a selective Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill, because what it doesn’t do is it doesn’t actually empower parents.

We have seen a lot of opportunities in the House over this week for the Government and its allies to front up to the fact that it takes two people to be parents. It takes two parents to have a child and, in some cases, parenthood is not, what I’d say—or another generation would say; obviously not mine—all beer and skittles. It is really hard work and particularly as a new parent, a new mother at home, dealing with breastfeeding, mastitis, abscesses, all those sorts of things, post-natal depression—not particularly unusual, not at all unusual; that just goes with the territory—and to say to those mothers, “Well, you can’t have your partner at home with you on paid parental leave, even though we believe you’re adult enough to decide to have babies all by yourselves, we think you’re adult enough to bring up your children all by yourselves, but we don’t think you’re adult enough to make some decisions about whether or not you can do something with your paid parental leave because it might suit you and not suit some sort of Government directive around motherhood.”

I would have thought that the Government parties—Government parties in coalition and whatever else they have; some other form of support—would actually want to empower parents, they would want to empower mothers, and they would want to empower fathers. Why wouldn’t we want to do that? So we think that the name of the bill is really a bit amiss. I personally think it should be something around “Selective Parental Leave if it Suits the Labour Government Protection Amendment Bill”. But I think it’s the sort of issue where a Government that actually wanted to listen to people would not worry that the idea came from this side of the House. A Government that wanted to listen to people would actually think, “Gosh, that’s a really good idea from my colleague whose SOP it was.”, and a Government that was thinking would think, “Well, this is an opportunity for us to take an excellent National Party policy, call it our own, and tell everybody it only got passed because of us.” And they’d be very clever if they did that, but they’re obviously not clever enough.

The bill, as it is, is set to commence only in July next year, so there’s no particular rush for it. There’s no particular need for this to be thrown through in urgency to make sure it all happens. There won’t be many couples out there deciding that they’re suddenly going to have a baby because of this bill. There certainly will be some couples who will think, “Oh, I wish when Parliament was changing this Act that they would have actually made some provision for adults to make some decisions around how they use their paid parental leave.”

I saw on the television tonight a woman from UNICEF, who are obviously, clearly, experts in parenting, telling us that mothers should not be allowed to make these decisions all by themselves. I actually thought that was the sort of idea that was really prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s, where there were still a lot of people who didn’t think women should be allowed to work once they were mothers. I would have thought that we had moved on and I would have thought that a Labour-led Government with the Greens and New Zealand First—or maybe not with that last party; anyway, the Labour-led Government along with the Greens and their friends—would have put some belief in parents, given them some choices, and understood that parenthood, the first time in particular, is really tough, and particularly if you’ve got twins or any child with special needs, it’s really tough. Why can’t they put some faith in parents, because this side does?

Madam Chair, I’m delighted to take a call on clauses 1 to 4 on this bill and to really challenge members of the Government to give the Opposition a single reason as to why they oppose a broader title and a broader approach to this bill that equally recognises the role of fathers and men in the role of raising children, because our frustration is that a perfectly reasonable proposition has been put forward. I was even surprised to have Sue Moroney, the previous advocate and Labour member of Parliament, saying, “Yes, that’s what we should do.”

So my proposition is, firstly, with respect to the title. If the Government insists on such a narrow approach to paid parental leave, call it what it is: a Victorian view of families where mums raise the children and dads are nowhere to be see, because that is, effectively, what the Government is proposing with its approach to paid parental leave. There just isn’t the recognition by members opposite. Despite having babies in the Chamber, and in light of all the maiden speeches about family, we’re still taking this incredibly narrow, old-fashioned view of families, not recognising that dads today are, properly, far more involved in the raising of young infants. I’m incredibly proud that the leader of the National Party actually noted that in support of his very talented wife he spent a full year as a father caring for a child, being the primary caregiver. I would have thought that the members opposite, who so much champion and want to be able to say how PC and modern they are, when it comes to the very issue of recognising the role that dads play in children’s lives have ignored that plea in the debate on this bill.

We then come to the issues of commencement. The part that fascinates me in the commencement provisions of this bill is I’ve just listened to over a dozen speeches from members of the Government saying money doesn’t come into it. “If you want to care about families—that’s it. The problem with the old Government is that they kept talking and thinking about balancing the budget and doing boring things like that. Well, we’re new. Money doesn’t count. You’ve just got to do what’s right for mums and dads.” If they truly believe that, why are they staggering the commencement? I have yet to hear a logical reason from members opposite as to why they’d want to stagger that.

Perhaps, actually, all that rhetoric was just another one of the multiple double standards that we are seeing from this Government in its first weeks. We shouldn’t believe what they said prior to the election. We shouldn’t believe what they said with such passion in their maiden speeches. Maybe they have come to the realisation, with such a huge blowout in the difference between the financial numbers that they promised during the election campaign and their wild promises, that there is a canyon between those, and, as a consequence, actually, the commencement dates do need to be different, because otherwise it would just make their numbers. Well, why don’t they just come clean and say that? Why don’t they simply say exactly what the previous Government said, and that is, “We want to extend paid parental leave. We think it’s an important part of a modern New Zealand that better supports families, but we need to stagger the introduction of that extended paid parental leave at a pace that is affordable, so that we can also ensure that New Zealand continues to prosper and that we don’t end up raking in a whole lot of debt.”—because we do nothing for the children of this country if, in providing them with the very best of paid parental leave, we leave a legacy of billions of dollars of extra debt, as this now Government is accepting it is doing.

So I am frustrated—frustrated that with all the time that there is before these provisions come into effect we can’t refer this bill to a select committee, tidy up this issue around fathers, and do what every New Zealander would want us to do, and that is to provide for flexible, modern paid parental leave where mums and dads can both access what’s provided for in this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair Tolley, for the opportunity to take part in this debate in the committee of the whole House. From what I see in clauses 1 to 4, I would like to first comment on the commencement. We support that this policy is going to come in two steps—that is, from next year it will be increased to 22 weeks and then in 2020 it will be increased to 26 weeks. But what we see is that the commencement of this policy is from 1 July 2018, and there are several months until 1 July 2018. I believe, just like my other colleagues on this side of the Chamber, that we have enough time for this legislation to go through the proper select committee process.

When we were debating Part 1 and Part 2 of this legislation in the committee of the whole House, we saw that some really good ideas came from our colleagues from this side of the Chamber, the Hon Amy Adams and Sarah Dowie. That is the kind of contribution that people can give during the select committee process, which this legislation is not able to take advantage of. If the commencement was, for example, 1 January 2018, then I would understand that there was a need for this legislation to be put through urgency. But with a commencement date of 1 July 2018, I do not see why this legislation has to go through urgency or why this legislation can’t go through the select committee process.

About the title: yes, we had Supplementary Order Paper 3 from the Hon Amy Adams to allow both parents to take parental leave at the same time. When we look at the title, it says “Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill”. “Parental leave”—yes, we have evolved, and, as we know, our election policy had that, so we wanted to contribute to this legislation. What Labour wants to do is they want to allow only one parent to be on paid parental leave to look after their newborn, so I think, actually, the title should not be Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. It should be “One Parent Leave at a Time and Employment Protection Amendment Bill”, because this bill actually allows only one parent to be around their newborn. We understand that families have different circumstances, and families should be allowed to choose what their circumstances allow for them to do when it comes to paid parental leave.

I also want to comment on new clause 4, in schedule 1, to be inserted into schedule 1AA of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act—I would like Minister Lees-Galloway to clarify this for the committee—it says in subsection (2) that: “A person referred to in subclause (1) may, before 1 July 2018, (a) give notice of a request to take parental leave, in which case the person may begin the parental leave before 1 July 2018 as if those amendments were already in force;”. I understand this is for people who are expecting their baby from 1 July 2018, but what I want to know from the Minister in charge is: how far before can people take this parental leave? As far as I understand, the summary of this bill says that the funding for this bill will be allocated in Budget 2018. If someone decides to take leave before the Budget is announced, where will the funding come from for this advance period of parental leave that is taken by that family?

I really want the Minister to explain, because we really want to know that there is funding available for this legislation to go through. We do not want to do a legislation-stamping exercise here without getting full assurance about funding—or is this just another thing that has been overlooked in this legislation, as my colleague Sarah Dowie pointed out? Those are the kinds of things that we get the opportunity to iron out when we put legislation through the select committee process. I really want the Minister to take a call and explain for the benefit of the committee what will happen if someone goes on leave—even if the newborn is expected from 1 July 2018, if someone takes that leave before the Budget is announced, where will the funding come from?

Finally, it is quite disappointing to see that this legislation is being rushed through the House when there is no need because the commencement of this legislation is 1 July 2018. If they really wanted to justify this urgency, I think they should have decided an earlier date for the commencement. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair Tolley, for this call to speak to the title and commencement of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. You’ll have to forgive me, Madam Chair; I’m new, and I want to speak about commencement, and what I don’t understand, as a new MP, I suppose, is the fact that we have such a long time before this bill comes into force—in fact, 7½ months—but we don’t have a select committee process to consider a range of issues. A select committee process would no doubt have fully investigated the issue that makes up the substance of Amy Adams’ Supplementary Order Paper 3. Instead, we’ve been forced to sort of play out that role of select committee here in these proceedings. The commencement date of this bill, 7½ months away, gives a select committee plenty of time to consider the issues of both caregivers taking parental leave at the same time.

What we’ve heard from many people tonight, and indeed last night, is the role that both parents play and the importance of fathers when a mother has multiple births, a caesarean, post-natal depression, or other issues with her birth and needs that other partner to take time with her. What we haven’t heard about, and what I want to talk about tonight, is same-sex couples. Last night, we heard a lot about fathers and their rights, but, actually, what I want to talk about tonight is the fact that we have 7½ months before the commencement of this bill and nobody is talking about same-sex couples, and the fact that two mothers who are bringing life into this world are unable, under this bill, to take time off to bond with that new baby at the same time.

We have come so far with marriage equality, and I even heard Grant Robertson today stand up in the House and say, “Oh, look, it’s great that Australia voted the way they did today, and isn’t it amazing to see that they’re finally catching up with us.” Well, I put it to you and the members here today that, actually, it won’t take long before they do catch up with us, because this is a giant step backwards, to not allow two same-sex parents to take that time to bond with their baby at the same time. The commencement date allows us the time in a select committee to sit down and carefully consider these issues, because two mothers have the right to look after their baby at the same time and to spend those few months at the very early stages bonding with that baby.

I know that there are members across the floor that agree with me—I can see them nodding at me as I speak. Indeed, I heard Willow-Jean Prime last night saying that she—

💬 Hon Phil Twyford: That was nodding off.

Hilarious! Last night we saw Willow-Jean Prime agree—and, look, she is a thoroughly lovely person, and she’s just been through the experience of having a baby. She, in fact, said that that time with her partner in those very early stages was so very important, and I wholeheartedly agree with her. The commencement date is 7½ months away. We have plenty of time to consider this.

The other thing I’d like to also consider is who this has the greatest impact on. I put it to you that parents who have the means to be able to have one partner take time off—unpaid leave—to look after the baby and bond with the baby, with perhaps the mother or the other caregiver—that’s great for them, but what we haven’t considered, and we have time to consider before commencement, is the fact that the people who have the least ability to be able to afford to do this are affected the most. The people who are on average incomes—they are the ones who are most affected by this because they don’t have that ability to take time off, that unpaid leave.

Actually, I agree with an earlier speaker to say that perhaps this bill should be called something like the “Selective Parental Leave Bill as Dictated by the Labour Party”, because it doesn’t allow flexibility. What it does is dictate to families, to same-sex couples, and to people who don’t have the means to be able to take leave at the same time—it dictates to them what they should do. It says, “This Government knows best.” If you’re a same-sex couple and you want to spend time—reduce your leave so that both parents, both mothers or both fathers, can take time off at the same time to bond with their baby, well, this Government knows better than you do. This Government thinks that 26 weeks, and one after the other or one and then one—it’s ridiculous. Same-sex couples, if they want to bond with their babies at the same time, should have the right to do that.

I put it to you: people who don’t have the means and the ability to take time off because they don’t have the leave available, or they don’t have the savings to be able to take unpaid leave, have the same rights as people with more means. The Labour Party, in their approach to this—it’s heavy-handed, it’s inflexible, and it’s unfair. I would like to hear from the Minister his views on this. Thank you.

Just before I take the next call, the member’s a new member, so I didn’t pull her up, but these title clauses—I refer her and any other new members on either side that want to take a call to Speakers’ ruling 112/6, which talks about exactly how this discussion should happen. So it’s a time to summarise what’s been discussed before; it’s not a time to bring up new issues.

I move, That the question be now put.

Madam Chair, thank you. I ask the House: what’s in a name? Would a bill by any other name smell as sweet? The name of this bill is the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill, so let’s look at that.

Before I start analysing that in relation to the content of the bill, I ask: have we talked enough about what’s best for the child? We’ve heard a lot about what is best for the parents. We’ve heard a lot—as always—about what is best for adults, but the perspective of the child, the perspective of what is best for that young life, or those young lives, must surely be paramount.

So, first, returning to my theme of the title of the bill. “Parental”, it says—from the Latin “parere”, meaning “bringing forth”. This word is not gender-specific. “Maternal”, on the other hand, from the Latin for “mother”—as I’m sure the sponsoring Minister knows—would imply something completely different. So if there is a renaming of the bill—I might add to the thoughts of my learned colleagues, including the Hon Judith Collins, in relation to alternate titles—might I suggest that the “Paid Maternal Leave Bill” might be at least a little bit more intellectually honest.

Second, regarding the process, much has been said on this, but I would like to relate this to a broader theme of the new minority Government, and it’s about this desire to have conversations. It’s about the desire to have reviews. It’s about the desire—stated in no less than two coalition agreements that the public’s seen, and possibly more that we have not—for inquiries. So, specifically in relation to this particular bill, I say let’s have a discussion. Let’s have a “conversation”. Let’s have, heaven forbid, an inquiry. One might almost say that if the procedures of this House allowed for such a thing, we might call it a committee. We might even call it a select committee—we might even give that body a chance to have a look and have a discussion. Who knows, they might come up with some ideas to improve the bill—ideas such as allowing both parents to have the ability to have some time off to raise the child.

Much has been said in this House as well, including in relation to this bill—you’ll be pleased to hear, Madam Chair—in relation to diversity. Gender pay gap is something that’s also been raised. I put it to you, Madam Chair, that there can be no more significant diversity for a young life being brought into this country than to have the benefit of not one but two parents at home on paid leave. It’s a doubling, obviously, in simple mathematical terms, of the wisdom and care available to that child.

I might add, as a footnote—at the risk of straying from the ambit of the bill—that in relation to the discussion that’s frequently held in this House regarding a gender pay gap, gender gaps exist in other realms as well. In relation to parenthood, I put it to the committee that it’s been remarked before, in relation to the bill, at earlier stages—short though they have been—that it is highly important, indeed crucial, that the children have the opportunity not to have these gaps in their life. They will fall through gaps. They fall through cracks; we see it far too often.

Too often the word “leave” in relation to parents in New Zealand has been one or tother of them leaving. The child deserves, if the circumstances do allow—and I appreciate that there are complex and many different types of circumstances and family situations in this country, but as a male, I’m happy to say that, oftentimes, fathers are not present as they should be. While that is a matter of personal responsibility and family responsibility in many cases, it’s also the obligation of this House, in passing legislation such as this, to give what signals and what indications it can about the things that we think, as the House of Representatives of the New Zealand people, are most appropriate. To send a signal by refusing to allow this Supplementary Order Paper—effectively, amendment—to allow both parents to be able to have some off is sending a very poor signal indeed, it appears to me.

Finally, I note that with limited time to discuss this bill so far, it would be perhaps in the interests of all sides of the debate in the House, but more importantly New Zealand children, to have it canvassed more fully.

Thank you, Madam Chair Tolley, for this opportunity to speak in the committee stage on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill, on the title and commencement clauses. Look, I’m going to start in a positive vein. As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve long been a supporter of paid parental leave. It was a policy of the National Government to periodically and methodically extend it in a fiscally prudent way. We campaigned on it, and with the roll of the dice—or, should I say, the close of the door on the negotiations—the new Government has the opportunity to extend paid parental leave. And it’s a good thing—it is a good thing. It is wonderful that the Government will extend it in two tranches, notwithstanding that we would like to see the costings. It’s going to be extended in two tranches, firstly to 22 weeks and then to 26.

We’ve long debated the benefits of paid parental leave. It is well documented and well researched that it gives the ability of parents to bond with baby. In the case of mothers, biological mothers, it gives them a chance to become proficient with breastfeeding. As I’ve said in this House before, don’t underestimate those who bottle-feed, who can’t breastfeed, notwithstanding the World Health Organization’s recommendations. It’s still a vital time to bond with baby. But, in saying that, with respect to Amy Adams’ Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), which has not been accepted, it is also a vital time for the other parent and other family members to bond with baby.

Before I move on to discussing that in more detail, I do want to congratulate the Government for accepting my SOP in respect of extending the keeping-in-touch hours. It is an acknowledgment that keeping-in-touch hours and days are very important to nuance paid parental leave; to make it fit for purpose for modern-day New Zealand; to keep people connected with the workplace; to make sure that they have opportunities to train, to hand over caseloads, workloads; and just generally keep in touch with their colleagues so that they don’t miss out on that confidence, I guess. When you leave work and you’re away from work, it gives you that ability to go back to work, stay in touch with your peers, and remain confident about your career while you take a break to have a baby.

But it is disappointing, given that the Government has acknowledged that this bill requires work, that they haven’t seen sense to accept the Hon Amy Adams’ SOP, which suggests that we need more flexibility in paid parental leave—the ability to take parental leave concurrently. We need to acknowledge that there’s more than one type of family in New Zealand and that there are situations that give rise that require two parents to be at home, to give baby the best start in life. I think that if this bill had been given more time—and we’ve already heard throughout the debate that the commencement is not for some seven-odd months, so there was time to take this to a select committee and debate the merits of this. We need to acknowledge that there are different situations that that families find themselves in, and there are valid reasons to have two parents at home. As we’ve discussed at length, there are some things that go wrong when you’re having a baby. They are not pleasant, and they need to be effectively dealt with.

So this is an opportunity, absolutely. We need to keep our eye on the ball, though. Paid parental leave is a fantastic opportunity for New Zealand families to give baby the best start in life, but this is not the end of it. It needs to continue to evolve, and, certainly, the issues that the Hon Amy Adams has raised are very important. They need to be discussed. They need to continue to be debated and moved forward as paid parental leave evolves generation by generation.

Again, I thank the Government for taking up my SOP—again, another fantastic tool in the toolbox to make paid parental leave relevant.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It really is a privilege to be able to stand for my second time in this House and speak. Let me just start by congratulating you on the position that you have as the Deputy Speaker of this House and as Madam Chair, taking us through this important committee stage of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill, which is a Government bill in the name of the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway. Congratulations to the Minister on his new appointment.

I have a few comments, and I’ve been thinking about some names that we could call this bill, because without the Government supporting Amy Adams’ very well thought through Supplementary Order Paper, which would allow both parents to be able to take parental leave at the same time, I thought of some new names that we could call this bill. The first one: we could just get rid of the “al” at the end of “Parental”. We could call it the “Parent Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill”. I’m not sure what members think about that, but I’d ask the Minister, while he’s writing his Christmas cards, to consider that one.

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Thank-you cards, actually—campaign thank-you cards.

Oh, thank you. The second one would be the “One Parent Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill”. That’s another idea, because, at the end of the day, it’s only one parent who’ll be allowed to take leave at any one time, being the mother. So why don’t we call it the “Mother Parent Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill.

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: Why do you assume it’s the mother? What’s that about? Unconscious bias.

I’m just giving alternative names for the bill. We could also call it the “Government Knows Best Which Parent Bill”. What about that name—the “Government Knows Best Which Parental Leave and Employment Amendment Bill”?

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Relevance—relevance!

This is relevant to the title of the bill, and these titles would actually give a far better reflection of what this Government has done to the bill in ensuring that only the mother is able to take parental leave. And, look, we’re in support of ensuring this legislation—this was the policy that the National Party went into this election with, in extending parental leave. But this bill, I guess, could also be called the “1960s Back to the Future Parental Leave Bill”. So there’s a whole range of different names.

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: What about the “2016 Didn’t Do It When We Could Parental Leave Bill”?

Well, I guess, we’re still not doing this. It’s still not being done, so I think the “1960s Back to the Future Parental Leave Bill” would be a good one.

Let me just get on to the second point, which is regarding the commencement. This point has been discussed a number of times, but this bill won’t be coming into force until 1 July next year. Now, I mean, that’s a long time—we know a week’s a long time in politics, but that’s 7½ months until this legislation is coming into place. I don’t know about you, but I’ve been getting a number of calls from constituents and emails coming through regarding this. Why can’t we let parents actually have their say and put forward their own thoughts, and actually let them say what—because when I was on the campaign trail, listening to people, talking to parents, there was a lot of discussion on this issue, and they thought that our policy, which would allow both parents to be able to take leave concurrently, or separately, was a good policy.

So I think these issues could have been dealt with far better if the bill had gone to select committee. I’m disappointed that this Government has voted down leave for that to have been done twice today. I’m disappointed to see that they have chosen to push this through rather than to allow the proper select committee process to go through on such important legislation so that it could be well thought through and so that we could get better outcomes for the parents, because, ultimately, it’s about parents and their children and making sure that this legislation is done in the best interests of them.

So, thank you very much, Madam Chair. It’s been a privilege to be able to speak on this bill, and I hope that the Minister will take into account my suggestions for the name. I’ve given him a number of options. They’re all very well thought through, and I really look forward to consideration by the Government benches. Thank you very much.

I move, That the question be now put.