Hague Kevin: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHague Kevin: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1096. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KEVIN HAGUE (Green):This is my first call in the Committee stage on this bill. I take the call actually largely because of the extreme narrowing of focus. It was interesting to hear in the previous speech Sarah Dowie speak about her experience as a parent of premature babies. I am sure I am not alone in this Committee in speaking as a parent of a child with disabilities. I want to pick up on some of the questions that I believe are unanswered about the scope of the provisions in this new clause 7 in Supplementary Order Paper 15 and in particular an issue that was raised by Jacinda Ardern in relation to babies with cardiac conditions.A cardiac condition in and of itself—I am not sure and I would be interested in the advice of the member in the chair Sue Moroney as to whether or not such a condition would qualify the parents of a child with such a condition for this extended parental leave in this new clause 7. Those children may well have other disabilities that are not yet apparent. At the point that a child is born the medical staff and all of those surrounding that child are focused on keeping the child alive and dealing with the cardiac condition that the child presents with. Many of the other disabilities that frequently accompany such a cardiac condition will not become apparent until later in life. So very clearly that is a child with disabilities but whether that child will qualify under the definition that is in new clause 7 I think is something that is very important for us to tease out.It is gone now but the paediatric cardiology ward at Green Lane Hospital was a very very sad place to be. It was filled with babies in incubators babies otherwise hooked up to monitors and other machines babies on very heavy medications and babies who in many cases had experienced or would experience in that first part of their lives open-heart surgery. It was a ward that was populated by parents who were living in a daze. They were completely disconnected from their ordinary lives from the world outside of that paediatric cardiology ward. Those were parents who were in desperate need—desperate need—of support of time out to be with their baby and of time out to adjust to those new circumstances. Those parents are usually sleep-deprived. I understand of course that that is a common experience for parents but for parents of babies who are at risk of dying from the impairment that they have sustained the particular shock is extraordinary.And it goes on. Even if those parents are lucky enough to have their baby come home with them I can assure the Committee that the anxiety continues—the anxiety of your child being asleep and not knowing whether they will wake; the anxiety of not knowing whether your child will survive the rigours of the heavy medication that they are taking. The particular need of this group of parents of babies who have sustained an impairment is extreme. That is why I think it is important the Committee hears from the member in the chair as to whether or not this group of parents who do have this particular need are going to receive some extra support that this new clause 7 would provide for. I will be looking forward to that answer.I have spoken so far about the needs that are associated with I guess the shock of diagnosis—the shock of having a baby with such a severe impairment. It does not stop there. I have spoken about the incubators about the machines and about the drugs. One of the consequences of that kind of intensive medical intervention that these babies sustain is that a parent’s time to bond with their child is very much obstructed. It is obstructed by the walls of the incubator by the machines that are keeping their child alive. One of the particular purposes that jurisdictions around the world have recognised for extending parental leave is the particular purpose of giving parents and their children the opportunity to bond. This particular group of parents and this particular group of babies and children whose opportunity to bond in those early days and weeks is so compromised by the intensity of medical intervention do have a particular need to be able to take advantage of that opportunity to bond that an extended period of parental leave would provide for. I come back to the question as to whether or not this group will be covered by that provision.I want to go on to mention some of those other disabilities that can accompany these cardiac conditions that I have been speaking of. They can include learning disabilities sensory disabilities and other disabilities that very clearly would be captured by the definition of impairment that applies to this new clause 7 that is proposed. But it is very likely that those conditions would not be diagnosed until such time as perhaps a child is engaging with the formal education system—perhaps in their before-school check. We have a situation where a child clearly does fit any definition of impairment that was adopted but the fact that they fit does not become clear until some later point. I would be very interested to hear the member in the chair’s account of what advice she has received about that kind of delayed diagnosis of impairment that clearly applies.I want to respond to a point made by Sarah Dowie earlier. She raised the point of cost in the Chamber and suggested that of course the extension that is proposed in this new clause 7 would be desirable and that everyone would support it. But unfortunately the Government could not afford to do that. I would be pleased to be corrected by the member in the chair if this is the case but my advice is that the cost of the particular extensions that are proposed in this new clause 7 is minimal in the scale of the total cost of paid parental leave. The figures I have in front of me and these are rounded estimates for the 2015-16 year are for an extra $6 million followed in subsequent years by $4 million $8 million and then $9 million in the next 3 years taking it through to 2021-22 at an extra cost of $10 million.