Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill

I move, That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This is a great day for families. It’s a great day for mums, it’s a great day for dads, and it’s a great day for babies because finally, after years of campaigning, after years of the public demanding that the Parliament do this, and after the Parliament twice saying that it would do this, this Government is finally delivering for families 26 weeks of paid parental leave. I must say that I am incredibly proud that this Government has decided to make this bill the first bill of the new Government, where we make good on a commitment that we have made to the public—a commitment that we made not only through the campaign but a commitment that we have made by supporting the campaign of 26 weeks for babies for many, many years.

This is a bill that will make working parents better off, and that is what is at the core of this: making working parents better off and supporting young families to get ahead. We’re doing this because we follow the evidence in this Government, and the evidence is absolutely clear that the more paid parental leave that we provide for families, the more flexibility families have in real terms, because it gives parents the opportunity not to have to worry about work, not to have to worry about where next week’s pay cheque is coming from, and not to have to worry about how they’re going to pay the rent or pay the power bill or put food on the table, but, instead, to spend time with their baby.

The evidence also tells us that that period of time is just so important for babies’ development. The opportunity to bond with their parents, the opportunity to breastfeed exclusively if the mother chooses to breastfeed—the World Health Organization is absolutely clear that breastfeeding exclusively for six months, or 26 weeks, is one of the best things that parents can do to give a baby the best-possible start in life. That is what the evidence says, and that is why, today, this Government is delivering on its promise to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks.

We are going to do this in two tranches. The first tranche will be to extend from the current 18 weeks to 22 weeks on 1 July next year. The second tranche will be to increase from 22 weeks to 26 weeks in 2020. The Government is doing that to ensure that we not only make good on our promises but we do it in a fiscally responsible way. We have to ensure that as we govern this country, unlike the previous Government, we make sure that our promises are backed with funding. The way we can do that with paid parental leave is to do it in those two tranches. It allows us to fit within the Budget responsibility rules that this Government set for itself. Not only are we making good on a promise that we made, we’re also making sure that we do it in a fiscally responsible way.

I think what’s most important about this legislation is that this will make a real and tangible difference, especially for families who are on moderate and low incomes. This is part of the Government’s Families Package—a package that is unashamedly designed to put more money in the pockets of families on moderate and low incomes. We are unashamed, again, about doing that using the funding that we are going to save by not going ahead with reckless tax cuts that were legislated for by the previous Government and would have put money in the pockets of the people who already have the most. Rather than putting money into the pockets of every member of this House, instead, we are going to put money in the pockets of hard-working families so that they have the opportunity to do the best by their families.

I want to thank the National Party member Sarah Dowie. During the first and second readings of this bill, Sarah Dowie raised a really important point that if we are extending the overall amount of paid parental leave to 26 weeks, then we should also extend the keeping-in-touch hours. It was a very good point raised by a very sensible member who then worked constructively with the Government to ensure that her amendment was well drafted and was able to be accepted by the Government. That is the approach that this Government wants to take. When a good idea comes up, we don’t care where it comes from. We want to work constructively, even with members opposite. So I want to thank Sarah Dowie for her effort. I want to thank her for raising the issue, and I want to thank her for working constructively with this Government.

Speakers’ rulings preclude me from dwelling too much on matters that were not accepted by the committee of the whole House, but I do want to say that there was one matter that was not accepted by the committee of the whole House, but, again, this Government is interested in pursuing that and working constructively with the Opposition. We think we have an opportunity in the very near future to pursue that issue further. I’m sure that we’ll be able to get that one resolved by working constructively together as well.

After 15 years of paid parental leave being an issue that divided this House—15 years going all the way back to 2002 where the National Party fought against the Labour Party and its allies every time we looked to extend paid parental leave—we now have a consensus. That is a good thing, and I welcome that consensus, and I hope that it means that we’ll be able to move forward constructively with all members of the House making suggestions and offering up opportunities not only to extend paid parental leave in the future but to make it work better for families across New Zealand. It always takes a little while for the National Party to catch up, but usually they eventually do.

All I want to say to the House at this point is: let’s get this job done. Let’s pass this bill today, and let’s give parents, babies, and families the 26 weeks of paid parental leave that they have been demanding for so long. Let’s do this.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’m happy to be taking a call in this third reading on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. As we’ve just heard from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, this bill will, of course, see paid parental leave further extended, after the two extensions it’s had under the National Government, so that by 1 July next year families will be entitled to 22 weeks and then, as the Minister commented in his speech, it is rising to 26 weeks by 2020.

I want to actually, and somewhat surprisingly, commend the Minister for his new-found commitment to fiscal responsibility, and his reflection in the speech that he’s just given that it was important—and I’m not quite quoting him, but I’m getting as close as I can from memory—that the advances in paid parental leave happen in tranches as fiscal conditions improve. Actually, I think that could’ve been taken straight out of a Bill English or a Steven Joyce quote on the matter, because that is exactly what this side of the debating Chamber, or the National Party, has always maintained.

That is why when we had the privilege of being in Government, we extended paid parental leave twice, during some of the most fiscally challenging times in recent memory in this country. That is why we also, in our election manifesto, made it very clear that if re-elected, we too wanted to extend paid parental leave to 22 weeks. But, most importantly—and I want to raise this, because members of the Government have had lots of pot-shots in this debate about the fact that a National Government did veto an earlier attempt to go to 26 weeks. I simply pose the question to the Minister this way: if he is now quite happy in this House to acknowledge that it wouldn’t be fiscally prudent at this stage, at the end of 2017, to go to 26 weeks, why have they given the National Party such a hard time for making exactly that call last year when we acknowledged that it wasn’t fiscally prudent at that stage to go to 26 weeks?

What would have been quite gracious of the Minister, when he followed on from saying that it wouldn’t be fiscally prudent to go to 26 weeks straight away, would have been to acknowledge that, actually, the National Government was absolutely right to fiscally veto that change at that time. While staged increases, as financial conditions permit, is a good idea and we’ve always supported it, going that far that fast at that time wasn’t right. I thank the Minister for recognising that, for acknowledging that you do have to move carefully in stages as conditions allow, but, as I say, it is a shame that he couldn’t bring himself to acknowledge that, despite all of the pot-shots that they have had at the Opposition over that financial veto, they have now, effectively, agreed that it was absolutely the right thing to do.

Paid parental leave is a very important aspect, as we’ve heard, of allowing families to bond with their babies, to care for their babies, to be with their babies—just to adjust to that incredible upheaval in your life that is having a child. Those of us who have had the privilege of being parents know that it is the most utter change, in everything you know about life, that you can go through. And the time to adjust to that is critical. I’ve done some exciting and challenging and difficult things in my life, but I can tell this House that nothing was as hard as learning to be a parent and going through that phase.

I want to just, in my contribution, reflect on the incredible importance of both parents in that role. Both parents have a critical role in supporting, bonding with the child, supporting each other, and building that family unit. That is something that the National Party feels very strongly about.

I just want to take a moment to reflect on an email that just came through to me late yesterday from a 32-year-old mother who has shared with me, very generously, her story—and I don’t intend to share her name because that wouldn’t be appropriate. But she has epilepsy, and her epilepsy, while it’s normally well-controlled, she has noted that it’s well known that that leads to stress and sleep deprivation that can lead to an increase in seizures. So when she is stressed and sleep deprived, she can have an increase in seizures.

Unfortunately, when her baby was three months old, exactly that happened, and, as a consequence, she crashed her car while driving with her baby when it was three months old, when she had a seizure. Luckily—other than her—there were no injuries and she wasn’t seriously injured but, as a result, she lost her driver licence for a year. So, of course, from that time on, she was at home with her baby and unable to drive.

That is just one story—the multitude of variations that happen in family lives are so extensive, and any one of us could name any number of situations that highlight the incredible challenges that a parent at home with a baby can face in those early months, and how careful we have to be to support them. It’s certainly very encouraging to know that in the UK in 2015 they went to full flexibility in the way they provide paid parental leave. And, as the Minister did—and noting that brief reference is permitted—I am going to put on record that we continue to want to see full flexibility with paid parental leave.

One other matter that I did want to touch on in this bill and in this third reading wrap-up debate is the fact that I do feel that there has been a lost opportunity for this bill to have gone through a select committee process, when time certainly permitted that within the time frame the Government wanted to bring it in—so without creating any additional delay—to look at some of the matters that could otherwise have been addressed.

One matter that is certainly not included in this bill but does come into issue when you’re extending the period of paid parental leave—and so, therefore, it’s absolutely relevant—is the rate at which paid parental leave is paid.

I don’t know that many New Zealanders understand that paid parental leave is paid at less than the minimum wage. Now, when you’re off work for a shorter period of time, a considerable drop in income can often be managed and worked through but, as we are now providing for and enabling partners to be off work, or parents to be off work, for six months, to be paying them at under the minimum wage, I think, really does take some thought. Now, National, again, when we were in Government, put that rate up. Of course, the new Government has indicated their intention is to raise the minimum wage to $16.50 very shortly—I think in the same time period that this entitlement extension would take effect. That would mean that for paid parental leave to even reflect the minimum wage, there would need to be a 23 percent increase in the rate of paid parental leave.

So I do think, if we are true to our word and if the Government is true to their word, that they want to enable parents to be at home with their babies and focus on forming that family connection, they really need to be considering whether a rate that is 23 percent below the minimum wage, when they increase it, is really defendable. As I said, when National increased the period of paid parental leave, we also put the rate up.

I just want to reflect on one other aspect that is very important when you’re considering the term of paid parental leave, and that is that there are a multitude of international studies that show that the longer—and it is particularly a woman, so I appreciate that paid parental leave is for either parent—women particularly are out of the workforce on paid parental leave, then the risk of them not returning to the workforce increases.

So I do think it would be interesting to see, and I would be interested in having a look at the Cabinet papers when they’re the released—because of course they will be under the most transparent Government the world has ever seen—and seeing whether those Cabinet papers, where they considered this legislation, go through and consider and assess whether there will be any impact on women returning to the workforce because, actually, it’s something that I feel very strongly about: ensuring that we do everything we can to make sure that women’s biological reproductive function in the human race doesn’t become a barrier to them progressing in their career the same way they would if they were men. I know that in my career, and in this day and age, there are certainly some real challenges for women in that regard.

So I’ll be very interested to see whether the Government, in their Cabinet papers, turn their mind to and address that international research that shows, although paid parental leave and having parents at home with the baby is a very, very worthwhile thing, whether the impact on women’s retention in the workforce has been assessed, considered, and thought about how that can be managed.

In the last minute that I have, I just wanted to note that on the National Party side, we will be continuing to support this legislation because, as I’ve said, it is entirely consistent with our approach. It is entirely consistent with part of our election manifesto—the other part being, of course, to provide full flexibility. And, for our part, we will continue to support the extension, but we will certainly want to see the Government continuing to address some of those issues that I’ve talked about in this contribution.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As this is my first contribution to the 52nd Parliament, Madam Deputy Speaker, can I acknowledge you and congratulate you on your role as one of the presiding officers of this House, and welcome returning members and new members to this Parliament. It’s good to see you in the seat, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Can I use this short contribution to acknowledge another strong woman, who is with us in the gallery this afternoon? That is our former colleague Sue Moroney, whose dogged determination through her years as a member of Parliament was, I think, basically, all the hard slog that got us here to this third reading. So, Sue, can I thank you and acknowledge you for all the trials and many of the tribulations of making sure that this House finally gets to the point where families in this great country can have 26 weeks of paid parental leave. It is going to make a huge difference to many families, and, as my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has pointed out, many leading world health organisations have pointed out that at least six months of paid parental leave makes a massive difference to the development of young children.

I think, when we look at some of the issues that are highlighted around the development of children and some of the issues that we have in families, that very early bonding between the parent and the child is extremely important, and despite the politics—that that should be washed away so easily—of the last 15 years around this debate, the fact that we are getting to this point where we have 26 weeks is a big achievement for this House. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, can I thank again our colleague Sue Moroney and a lot of the help that she’s had along the way: 26 for Babies, that group as well. What we are debating, what this third reading will achieve, has been a long time coming but will make a massive difference to families here in New Zealand.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise in support of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill, which the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, in his intervention, described as a great day for mums, dads, and babies. Now, I certainly would agree it’s a good day for those mums, dads, and babies, and it could have been a great day. It could have been a better day—so much better.

The Minister talks about flexibility, and, indeed, I certainly agree with those sentiments. It was why, as Minister last year, the Employment Standards Legislation Bill provided a great deal more flexibility in enabling a far wider range of parenting arrangements, and parents with different work arrangements to access paid parental leave. Casual employment was covered, self-employment to some degree, shorter forms of employment, whāngai arrangements, and extending the duration of paid parental leave to parents of premature babies all enabled a greater level of coverage and flexibility in paid parental leave.

I think the Hon Amy Adams made a very good point—albeit that there’s no point being churlish, I think, about whether the previous Government was tardy in getting to extending the duration of paid parental leave, because, actually, Amy Adams quite rightly pointed out that if the Government, when it had its chance, delivered what it called for in Opposition, we would be debating a bill that was putting 26 weeks of paid parental leave in right now. We’re not, actually, because they are exercising some form of fiscal probity that they didn’t show in their calls for the previous Government to increase paid parental leave through Sue Moroney’s bill. I want to also acknowledge the passion, if not the mathematics, Sue Moroney showed for her member’s bill, and she should be rightly applauded and congratulated for her determined campaign on behalf of all parents, I’m sure.

But I do think that flexibility could’ve been greater. It could’ve been a better day for dads, because, let’s face it, it’s mostly women that take on the non-paid parental responsibilities in families. I, for one, was fortunate enough that my partner, my wife, was prepared to leave all work in order to concentrate full-time on our children, and that ability in those days, actually, to take unpaid leave was very helpful. We have an opportunity, I think, in the future, as the Minister has acknowledged, to do what we could’ve done in a select committee had we had the opportunity to make this bill better, to acknowledge that the best arrangements for childcare are ones that are a partnership of both parents, and that fathers, I know, really want to take a much more active role in the upbringing of their babies.

But that wasn’t really, I don’t think, what this was all about. It was about Labour’s repeated failure to acknowledge that parents and families are autonomous from the Government and should have a right to exercise their choice—their choice—in the manner in which the entitlements that are accorded to them through this legislation are taken. I am encouraged somewhat by the Minister’s commitment to continue to look at that, and I have no doubt that the Opposition spokesperson will keep his feet to the flames on that commitment.

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Or she could just work with me.

Well, Speakers’ rulings prevent me from opening that can of worms, Mr Lees-Galloway, but if you want to go there—[Interruption]

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, I decide who breaches the rules.

I’ll go back to another matter that the Minister raised in his intervention, because what we heard today, once again, was the fact that under Labour no one in this country will ever get a tax cut. No one will get a tax cut, and the reason is this: (a) he wants to pay for this by eliminating tax threshold changes that have already been legislated for, and he’ll do that because we would get more money in our pockets as MPs than lower-income people. But the most basic understanding of a progressive tax system is it is simply not possible to even adjust tax thresholds without making sure everybody who pays tax gets the benefit of that—and because we would, they won’t do it. There will never be another tax cut under a Labour Government, and I think that’s telling.

But it would be churlish to finish on that rather sour revelation. It is a good bill. It is a good day. It could have been a better day.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s fascinating to follow the last speaker, Michael Woodhouse, and the crocodile tears coming from the National Party benches. I mean, there is some dressing up, I agree, and some, sort of, platitudes, but they are somewhat spiked. If I go to the contribution by the Hon Amy Adams, there was a National Party member having a go at a Labour - New Zealand First Government for not spending enough money. I thought I must listen more closely, because there is a National Party member standing up, after nine years, talking about a paid parental leave bill, and the last speaker somewhat misled the House.

Ms Moroney’s bill was always to be implemented over a number of years. It went through the Government Administration Committee that way; the Government picked it up that way. So when the last speaker makes a statement that the Labour Party campaigned on and should be bringing in 26 weeks today, that is not quite correct. People should go back and check the Hansard, and they should go back and see that Ms Moroney did an enormous amount of work to make sure that this bill—her bill—was always fiscally responsible. That’s part of what this Government is continuing to do, so to actually hear a National Party member, a previous Minister of the Crown, stand up and bemoan the fact that a New Zealand First - Labour Government is not spending more money seems somewhat disingenuous, particularly as there are other previous Ministers who are standing up having a go at the current Government, which has been here for five weeks, which is attempting to improve the lives of all New Zealanders.

And with this particular bill we will be improving the lives of all New Zealanders. I take on board Mr Woodhouse’s comments around fathers. Only 1 percent of fathers, currently, in New Zealand take paid parental leave. There is nothing stopping them, of course. There is nothing stopping fathers working with their partners and their baby’s mothers. That was not Ms Moroney’s motivation behind this bill, but I point it out. Any man who is a father can step forward and come to an arrangement with the birth mother to actually take part of this paid parental leave.

I’m not going to take up much more time, because this bill has been traversed. It is time to put these measures in place for New Zealand families. It is fiscally responsible. It was mutated and dumbed down by the previous Government, but now there is an opportunity, and it’s with some pride that we stand up on this side of the House and in the first 100 days stand by children, stand by mothers and fathers, and say this is a Government now that will support you going forward.

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Not dads.

It is with some interest I note that the members of the Opposition benches, after nine years, now say “not standing up for dads”. I would ask them to point to in the Hansard one piece of legislation whereby they stood by dads.

Firstly, let me start with a hearty congratulations to New Zealand families. Every time I have risen and talked about paid parental leave, I’ve been in support of it. Obviously, when we were in control of the Treasury benches we talked about competing priorities. We needed to be fiscally prudent, hence our extensions of paid parental leave—yes, they were extensions—were done in tranched manner and were fiscally prudent.

So I do think it is unfair of the Government now to point at us and say that we have not been in support of families. We certainly have, not only in the realm of paid parental leave and extending that in a fiscally prudent manner but in other measures, with things such as free doctors visits for under-13-year-olds and our extended tax packages that would help the most vulnerable. So it is a little bit rich to hear the other side criticising the last Government when we talk about our measures in support of families.

But it is a good day, in my opinion, because paid parental leave has been put on the agenda again, not only by the current Government but by us during the campaign. It is a bill that we support. It is consistent with our policy that we campaigned on, and, as has been traversed in this House, the benefits of paid parental leave are wonderful. I mean, let’s face it: in a modern society where we can support mothers and fathers—and we wish that fathers were more supported, of course, through the Hon Amy Adams’ Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 3; we wish that that had been picked up. But paid parental leave is in support of mothers—and fathers to a degree—to help them when a new baby comes along to bond; to engage in breastfeeding, if you can; and, obviously, to relieve a bit of the financial stress of having a new baby.

And, of course, one of my pet things is allowing some time to engage in community activities, to gain from the camaraderie of your peers who have also had babies and are going through the same milestones, but also with respect to extending keeping-in-touch hours to make sure that women and fathers who take paid parental leave can stay in touch with their place of work; continue to train; hand over cases, if that is the issue; hand over pieces of work; and just generally stay connected with their workplace, rather than feeling isolated. In that vein, I do have to thank the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway and the Government for working with me to get my SOP 2 across the line with regard to extending keeping-in-touch hours. I’m very pleased to see that get across the line.

Again, I do say, though, that it would have been nice to see the Hon Amy Adams’ SOP get across the line as well with regard to making paid parental leave a little bit more—

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Well, not everyone’s as good an MP as you are, Sarah.

Ha, ha! Thank you, Mr Lees-Galloway. We didn’t see that SOP get across the line, but nevertheless it is wonderful to see that we will be supporting this bill and that we will see this amendment bill get across the line to extend paid parental leave in two tranches, the first 22 weeks in July 2018 and then 26 weeks on 1 July 2020.

Again, I say I think it would have been nice to go back to select committee and really explore the balance between paid parental leave and keeping-in-touch hours, to really flush that out. We’ve already heard from the Hon Amy Adams that there is research out there that suggests that the longer a mother is away from work on paid parental leave, the less connected she becomes with the workplace and the less likely she is to return. I think that we would have benefited from the select committee process to really explore that, and, of course, to really get down to the nuts and bolts of making paid parental leave more flexible for both partners to take paid parental leave together, to further alleviate stress when there are issues relating to the pregnancy or the birth or the baby, to make things easier for family. But, nevertheless, this is a great day for New Zealand families. I am in full support of this bill going through, given that it does extend paid parental leave.

Let me acknowledge everyone that I’ve worked with on both sides of the House, with regards to the processes and the extension bills of paid parental leave that there have been prior to this. There are numerous people around the House, and also I acknowledge the honourable Sue Moroney up there in the gallery. We worked together on the Government Administration Committee on her bill.

Look, it’s a wonderful cause, and, as I say, the new Government is now in a position that they will have to balance competing priorities through the different portfolios. But they have chosen this, and, like I say, it is something that the National Party campaigned on and we therefore support. So congratulations to New Zealand families.

Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. The Green Party knows that parenting is one of the hardest and most difficult and most important jobs that people do. As a country, we all benefit when parents are supported to spend more time and be able to give more attention to their babies, particularly in the first six months. So it’s a very proud day for New Zealand that this bill will pass—that we will extend paid parental leave to 22 weeks and then 26 weeks. I’m incredibly proud to be Minister for Women in this new Government—this multi-party Government—that is finally going to deliver what New Zealanders have been asking for for so long, and that, unfortunately, was vetoed twice by the previous Government.

The Green Party’s policy is 13 months’ paid parental leave, and, of course, we’ll still be campaigning for and making the case for extensions. I think the ultimate paradigm shift is understanding that important work that is not part of a commercial transaction is still fundamental to our society. We don’t have a successful economy if we don’t have a successful, healthy society with babies who are able to grow up in good conditions. We know that investing in paid parental leave will benefit all of us in the long run.

I personally haven’t had the joy of needing to take parental leave for having a child, and I don’t know if I’ll ever be lucky to be able to take advantage of this law. But I absolutely support making that contribution, as a member of Aotearoa’s society, that all babies will have this opportunity. Although I should say that we do need to do better, because, in fact, a third of babies born each year don’t qualify for paid parental leave. So we need to find other ways of assisting those parents who are in precarious work to enable them to have the opportunity.

I think that’s what this Government is committed to, because we understand that people and the environment are the most fundamental thing, and you can’t measure economic success simply by commercial transactions. So let’s recognise all work, especially unpaid work, and especially the unpaid caring work that so many women in this country do. Very proud day—very happy to be supporting this bill. Kia ora koutou.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to be speaking in this final reading of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. I want to start with both a bouquet and a brickbat. The bouquet is that I do think it’s fitting that the first piece of legislation for a new Government to complete is one that supports families. The brickbat, however, is I think it’s a crying shame that this first piece of legislation is also one that’s been done under urgency without the ability for the public to engage. Once upon a time, the Greens were always very, very outspoken about legislation that was put in this House without scrutiny, without the ability of the select committee to consider it.

Sue Moroney introduced a couple of different member’s bills on this particular issue, but as we’ve seen with the work of two of my colleagues, the first being Sarah Dowie, you actually see the opportunity of the important work that the House in its entirety and all of the members of Parliament bring. That’s a process, particularly for the new members of Parliament, that they possibly haven’t had the opportunity to witness yet—the really valuable work that occurs in the select committee, both with the ability of individual select committee members to contribute to great law but also for them to consider the very wide-ranging views of members of the public and their ability to contribute to improving the law.

It’s somewhat puzzling, in this particular instance, where the Minister responsible for the bill was kind of open on one hand and closed on the other—open to Sarah Dowie’s suggestion for the amendment to increase the number of days available for keeping in touch, but then completely not open to the suggestion of also supporting the second parent. I do say “second parent”—in many cases it’s a dad; it’s not always. The reality is that in New Zealand we have families of all shapes and sizes, and I think it’s a really important period of time, and I think it’s a really sad day in terms of missing the opportunity for the ability for a family to bond.

I say a family—yes, it’s the newborn; yes, it’s the parent that gave birth to that child and may or may not be breastfeeding; but it’s also the second parent, and, in many cases, if it’s a subsequent child, it’s a really important time for the whole family. For those who think back to that important time in their lives, often it was the important period of supporting the other children in the family. For some, that’s a big adjustment when they have a baby brother or sister that joins their clan, so the ability for the second parent to provide that support I think is critical. So it’s somewhat puzzling that we have a Government that says they’re interested in supporting families and dads and second parents but, actually, then haven’t been willing to do the work, when this legislation doesn’t come into effect until 1 July next year. It seems, in this case, that the trade-off has been the quality of legislation that we could’ve otherwise had, and that is the fundamental ability for families to make choices based on their own circumstances. Those circumstances are wide and varied, and the House could’ve given greater flexibility for families.

If I reflect on the changes that have been made, actually over the last 20 years in this space, I think we’ve made extraordinary progress, both with the two increases in duration in our time as well as the extension of flexibility—that’s really critical—but I suspect we’re seeing a bit of a recurring theme here. I hope I’m wrong; I really hope I’m wrong—that we’re not seeing a recurring theme here of a Government that is disregarding dads. The Minister for Children, who spoke earlier in this debate, laid claim to New Zealand First’s big push on dads and their rights, and, actually, earlier today confirmed that the Government is committed to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which include the right to know their parents. So this is an absolutely missed opportunity for dads. It’s a missed opportunity for the Government. I’m hopeful, but I’m not optimistic, that the words that the Minister in charge of the bill has spoken about in terms of their enthusiasm for fixing this problem with pace—I’m hoping that those aren’t just empty words.

I do think this is a great day for families, and I am very pleased to speak in support of the bill.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is absolutely an honour to take a call on this bill. As my colleagues have mentioned before, this is an excellent bill, and it is one that many of us on this side of the House—all of us on this side of the House—have fought extremely hard for.

I want to begin by thanking New Zealand First and the Greens for their support. I also want to express my gratitude and my thanks to former Labour MP Sue Moroney, who led the charge on this bill and fought extremely hard for so many years to achieve this. I also want to extend my thanks to everyone who fought for this. There were a number of groups across the country who have fought for paid parental leave to be extended. Thanks, also, to the Minister Iain Lees-Galloway for this bill being—for us getting to where we are today.

It is the collective efforts of so many that have actually dragged the previous Government to their commitment to 22 weeks, although they vetoed it so many times—multiple times. It’s a little bit rich that members on the other side of the House talk about this being a sad day and missed opportunities, when they had nine years to implement this, if not more, whereas we are actually getting this done in less than nine weeks of being in this House since the election.

💬 Chris Penk: You had nine years before that.

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Yeah, and we did heaps.

Yes—[Interruption] So this absolutely is an excellent bill. It’s a great day for babies, for parents, for families, and, indeed, for all New Zealanders, and this Government is committed—absolutely committed—to giving our families, our babies, the best start in life possible.

So, thank you. I’m going to leave it there, because we’ve talked quite a bit about the detail of this bill. My colleagues have talked about how this will benefit families and improve bonding. I once again want to end by thanking Sue Moroney for the work that she’s put into this bill. Thank you.

Chris Penk—five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of the bill, and I congratulate all those who have been involved in its passage and, indeed—nearly—implementation. I note that the affordability element is an important one, and, of course, in the context of the fiscal element, we need to ensure, of course, in passing legislation, that things are affordable, not only now but into the foreseeable future. No doubt this has been part of the calculation of the new Government, and it’s certainly to be hoped that we will have a robust financial situation in this country, such that we are able to afford social policy such as this. The dire predictions of a member of the new Government in choosing his coalition partners I hope will not prove a self-fulfilling prophecy in that regard.

Politics is of course the art of the possible. It’s pleasing that this is possible, and it’s pleasing that it’s now deemed to be possible, but it wasn’t in the “nine long years” that that party opposite and their same coalition partners had before that.

It’s interesting to note that the reflections on the side of the House by some of the speakers might well be regarded as self-reflections, and I’m pleased that they too have caught up with themselves, perhaps, as much as anything, in promoting these 26 weeks of paid parental leave.

I’m pleased with this legislation in that it promotes parental involvement. It is not one of those situations, I think, in which the Government will be interfering or substituting itself in the lives of families, because it’s specifically allowing families to bring up their own. So, to me, that seems a very positive thing indeed.

Much has been said already, so I won’t continue at length on the point of whether paid parental leave might more effectively be named “paid maternal leave”, notwithstanding that in some occasions, of course, it is not actually a father who is the second parent. I would just establish the frame for the debate, which I expect and hope will follow with, perhaps, new legislation or a member’s bill in relation to allowing the flexibility, which is simply to emphasise a point that I would hope would be self-evident, but, in any case, I will make, which is simply that it should be what is best for the child and not necessarily the adults in the situation. Of course, those things will generally be in alignment, but the paramount consideration must, of course, be the welfare of the child, and I would urge all those who will be involved in any future legislation being promoted and, possibly, passed in relation to the flexibility elements to bear that very much in mind. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity, and it’s been a pleasure to be involved in the debate.

It’s an absolute privilege to be speaking on the third reading of this bill and to be in this House with Sue Moroney, who’s taken it through twice, right through the select committee process, only to have it vetoed by the previous Government.

For me, I have a really personal commitment to this bill. I wasn’t eligible for paid parental leave with my first son. I had to go back to work at six weeks, and it was absolutely tough. I had paid parental leave for my second son. It went to three months, and the difference was transformational, but it was still way, way, way too soon to go back to work. So paid parental leave is absolutely vital.

Just very briefly, I want to talk about our breastfeeding stats as a country. As a country, we only have about 65 percent of our women breastfeeding at six weeks, and that goes right down to 58 percent by three months and 27 percent by six months. That’s despite World Health Organization recommendations that we should be fully breastfeeding all the way through to six months, so kids don’t get infections, they get optimal nutrition—a whole range of positive benefits.

One of the big things about early cessation of breastfeeding is having to go back to work early. So this Government is absolutely committed to extending paid parental leave for the primary caregiver, right out to 26 weeks, so that we can have the option of people breastfeeding through, with that ease.

So it’s an absolute privilege to be part of a Government that sees this as one of the first bills through the House in the first few weeks that we’ve been in power. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m very happy to take a call on this, the third reading of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill.

I would just like to start by saying what a great thing paid parental leave is. It has revolutionised the way that families operate since its introduction in 2002. I was lucky enough to have paid parental leave for 14 weeks for both of my babies. It was a wonderful time to bond with your baby, get to know them, and see those first milestones before you have to head back to work.

What I really like thinking about are the women who are testing positive right now for pregnancy. They’re probably around about nine weeks. They will be waking up tomorrow knowing that they will have this paid parental leave extended. I think that’s really awesome. People are just finding out, usually at about eight or nine weeks, that they’re pregnant and they’ll be waking up tomorrow going, “Wow! Isn’t that wonderful. I’m going to be entitled to that extra leave.” I think that’s a really awesome thing to think about, which is why we, and I, support this really, really good bill.

I say “really, really good” and not “great”, though, because I believe that the Government has missed a trick. Look, we’ve been over this many times, and I, in fact, have talked about it. I’m not going to talk about it at great length right now. But obviously that trick that they missed was the fact that they haven’t allowed flexibility for two parents—be they a mother and a father, or two mothers, or two fathers—to take that leave at the same time, whether or not your children are sick, whether or not your wife is sick. Indeed, I was sick when I had my first child, with pre-eclampsia and then HELLP syndrome. I was terribly sick, in fact. I spent a long time in hospital, and then had to have my husband look after me when I went home. We were fortunate to be in the position to be able to do that, but there are many families who aren’t.

I’m not sure why the Government missed this opportunity. We can only speculate. Perhaps it was because they were disorganised. Perhaps it was because it was under urgency. I don’t know. But it is a brutal combination, to be disorganised and have time pressure put on you. It forced this side of the House to put up a Supplementary Order Paper, which was voted down. All we heard at the time from Mr Lees-Galloway was that it was difficult, it was tough—we didn’t hear any particular details around that.

But I did read in the paper today some of those difficulties. I have to say that none of them were earth-shatteringly insurmountable problems. They were minor wording things that could have been fixed, if only there was the time available and the kind of vehicle to consider such issues. Wait a minute—there is. I may be new, but I do know that there is such a thing as a select committee—there is, actually. They can consider such issues. There was no reason for us to have this in urgency. There was no reason for us not to be able to give two parents the right to bond with their child at the same time.

Mr Lees-Galloway stood up today and talked about families and parents who now won’t have to worry about putting food on the table. They won’t have to worry about their finances. They won’t have to worry, because of this extended paid parental leave. But I do say that those parents who need to take leave at the same time will actually be worrying about putting food on the table. They will be worrying about their finances, because one of them will have to take unpaid leave to do that.

While we support this good bill, we do make the point that it’s not a great bill. It was a huge missed opportunity by Mr Lees-Galloway, and that’s a big shame. But congratulations to those mums who are nine weeks pregnant. I hope you enjoy your extended leave. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

As I stand here in our Whare today to speak to the third reading of this bill, I draw on a Māori whakataukī: “Te piko o te Mahuri, tērā te tupu o te rākau.”—the way in which the young sapling is nurtured determines how the tree will grow.

For how the children grow, so will be the shape of Aotearoa. So with that whakataukī in mind, it is a great honour to stand here today to speak in support of the bill which will increase paid parental leave to 26 weeks. The bill will be the first piece of legislation passed by our new Government; and how appropriate, putting people at the centre of what we are doing—people. And, not only that: our pēpē, our babies, our taonga tuku iho, our future.

This is about giving our children the very best start in life. The evidence is clear that this time is crucial for infant development, for developing close bonds with pēpē, supporting breastfeeding for the first six months, and reducing parental and family stress. Those are the aims of this bill. So I thank Sue Moroney, the 26 for Babies campaign coalition, and the many, many organisations who have worked tirelessly to achieve this change. It is also great that, finally, we have a consensus in the House for better support for our children and families. It is with great pride that I commend the bill to the House.

“Turuturu o whakawhiti whakamaua kia tina, haumi e-e, hui e-e, tāiki e-e!”

[“Make it tangible, make it practical, join, gather, and unite it, indeed!”]

Bill read a third time.