Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 05 November 2014. Volume:701;Page:661. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 23 July.Clause 4 PurposeJACINDA ARDERN (Labour):It is my pleasure to give another contribution on Sue Moroney’s bill on paid parental leave and employment protection which would if it were able to take effect as was originally intended extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. Over the course of this debate we have had an opportunity to talk at great length about all of the rationale and evidence that sits behind a paid parental leave extension. I will just canvass those very briefly again before I go on to my substantive contribution around clause 4.As the member in the chair who has taken this bill through has continually highlighted all of the evidence from the World Health Organization and beyond points to the fact that in order to form a strong attachment between mother and baby and in order to encourage breastfeeding through the first 6 months of life 26 weeks of paid parental leave is essentially best practice. The kind of indication we have that that is indeed the case is really just the OECD. If you were to compare where New Zealand ranks Australia introduced its 18-week payment Britain has 39 weeks and Sweden—obviously always outdoing everyone else—has 16 months. That means that on average the paid parental leave entitlement in OECD countries is close to a year and New Zealand lags significantly behind. Of course when this bill first came forward we were looking at 14 weeks. The Government has since made some paltry changes in that regard but even then New Zealand ranks around 24 out of 25 OECD nations when it comes to—I do not want to use the word “generosity” because it is not about generosity; it is actually just about doing what is best for mother and baby and that is where we rank.That also points to the fact that New Zealand when you look at how much we spend as a nation on the first 5 years of a child’s life tends to spend about half of what other comparable OECD nations do. We start to pick up beyond those first 5 years. One of the significant reasons for that initial spend is our lack of universal child payments and also our relatively small amount of paid parental leave. That points to the way that other nations treat paid parental leave which is based on international evidence and we are lagging behind. That speaks directly to the purpose of this bill the clause that we are debating now which is the purpose clause. The purpose clause states: “The purpose of this Act is to extend the duration of parental leave payment to a maximum of 26 weeks.” All the way through this debate we have been very very clear that we had stuck with 26 weeks because firstly it was best practice and secondly we knew it was affordable.I really want to pay respect to my colleague Sue Moroney who has taken the step of putting in a substantive Supplementary Order Paper Supplementary Order Paper 15 which acknowledges that we have a Government that despite the best arguments in the world is going to veto this bill. So in light of that Sue Moroney has put forward amendments that basically try to salvage something for families whom we know—if we are not going to extend 26 weeks to everyone—are the ones who desperately need it the most. When you narrow that down Sue Moroney looks at families who have multiple births which we know is a very small percentage of families—I come from a multiple-birth family; my father is an identical twin—to families who have premature births or to families who have a child with a significant disability. Sue Moroney has put forward Supplementary Order Paper 15 which at least allows those families to have 26 weeks of paid parental leave. I want to acknowledge that it is hard to make such substantive changes to a bill when you believe in that bill so much but I absolutely believe that Sue Moroney is trying to do right by those families by making that substantive amendment.Sue Moroney has also set out in question time today the relative cost of those changes when compared with other costs that we have had for the substantive extension. We are looking with those revised changes in the first year at an estimate of around $6 million. It is $4 million in years 2016-17. Then we go on to $8 million $9 million and then as we project out we are looking at around $10 million in cost. When you compare that with some of the things we have spent money on under this Government it is a very small amount of money for the benefit that those families would gain. Obviously it is significantly less than what the Government was going to veto had we had the 26-week extension which again we have argued to the hilt that in the long term saves money. Having a decent attachment and having a child get the best start in life absolutely saves money. I believe that we have made that case substantively. We only need to look at the children who are getting a poor start in life who are estimated to cost this country $6 billion. So extending paid parental leave is an investment rather than a cost.But even then given that we are facing a financial veto putting forward an estimate that is only around $10 million which is half of a referendum to change a flag—half; less than half—we could extend paid parental leave to families with multiple births premature births or children with disabilities. Chris Bishop how could you argue against that? If you would like to have a go though you would be most welcome. I would like to hear the arguments against supporting families with premature babies multiple births or children with disabilities. I am sure there is some measly argument that you will stretch out in there somewhere. Though just to give some clarity around where those figures for the estimates we have come from they are a guideline only. They are based on the fact that around 7 percent of births are estimated to be premature. We know that a percentage of those are due to poor oral health in pregnant women and a lack of access to decent health care. While we are at it I would not mind having a debate about whether or not the Government would like to adopt Labour’s policy of free dental health care for pregnant women because that would reduce the number of premature births thus reducing the cost of this bill and the cost that we experience as a nation generally. It is just an extra idea that we are happy to gift to the Government if it were reasonable enough to adopt it—sorry 7 percent is both premature and/or multiple births.I believe it is Multiple Birth Awareness Week this week. I believe it is this week. I am sure one of my colleagues would like to speak to Multiple Birth Awareness Week. I am sure there is at least 5 minutes in Multiple Birth Awareness Week. Part of the purpose of this bill now is to extend it to 26 weeks for those multiple births so it is definitely relevant. It is roughly I think from memory more like only a couple of percent of births in any year that are multiple births. If we then look at the number of births with disabilities we are looking at around 4 percent. That is a total of 11 percent of total births. We have roughly 60000 births in New Zealand each year so that is where we have taken that from. If anything we have probably overestimated the cost but we wanted to make sure we were generous in our costings for the Government. It cannot claim that we have pulled the wool over anyone’s eyes. As we have said we have spent $9.2 million—and that is probably close actually to what we are proposing to spend on this legislation here—on the failed Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade change process. There was $9.2 million spent on that and in the first year we are proposing a spend of $6 million.I think Sue Moroney’s changes are not only pragmatic but generous to the Government. They are giving an opportunity for the Government to actually support something that is really positive. However we will forever maintain the principle that an extension to 26 weeks is absolutely critical. As I have already outlined in my speech the reason it is in this purpose clause the reason for that original extension to 26 weeks is that every OECD nation that we like to compare ourselves with has already taken that step if not gone beyond that. We often compare ourselves with the likes of Sweden in terms of the good social outcomes that it is able to maintain. Why is it that we will not look to the foundation policies that help it to generate those positive outcomes? That is why we will maintain that principle. In fact Labour generally has an aspiration for a year’s paid parental leave. We can at least make these gains in this round.SUE MORONEY (Labour):It is a good time to be talking about this bill because—indeed my colleague Jacinda Ardern is correct—it is Multiple Birth Awareness week this week. They say that timing is everything and I hope that that will certainly be something that the Government will take into account when it considers this bill because the member Jacinda Ardern is absolutely right. Clause 4 is the purpose clause of this bill so this is the really meaty part of the bill I guess. I know that there has been an adjournment in this debate and people might not recall it but I think that last time round there was a lot happening in the discussion around this clause. There was a lot of talking from the Government benches about what they thought about paid parental leave and I hope that will continue tonight—Chris Bishop: Very important issue.SUE MORONEY: —because it is a very important issue Mr Bishop and I am looking forward to the many contributions from the Government benches again tonight on this issue. Yes it is the Labour Party’s firm view and my firm view as the promoter of this bill that 26 weeks for all families that are eligible for paid parental leave is absolutely what we should have in this country. And we know that because other OECD countries have at least that and as we stand at the moment we are languishing at the bottom of the OECD when it comes to duration of paid parental leave. If you combine that also with the level of payment that is afforded in other countries the weekly payment for paid parental leave then we are looking even worse on that front. This clause in this bill does not attempt to address the payment part of it but it does attempt to address the duration part.The purpose—and I outlined a little bit of this at question time today—is simply this: the research and evidence is overwhelming about what we would gain as a society if we were to invest in those early months of a child’s life not see it as a cost. That is where the smart money is. That is what internationally we now know: that if we invest a little bit in ways such as extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks we can make a huge difference in the outcome of those children’s lives. That is because the research and evidence tell us that getting the bonding and attachment right between parent and child in those early months is critical to that child’s brain development and critical to the course of the rest of its life. So there is evidence that supports that and tells us that if we get it right at the beginning that child is less likely to need taxpayer money spent on remedial education for example. They are much less likely to have anything to do with our youth justice system. They are much less likely to have the sorts of costs that our society bears when things go wrong and that is what this is really about. This is about building a society where we have children who are well supported from day one.We also know—and again the research and evidence is overwhelming on this issue—that if we can support exclusive breastfeeding through to 6 months of age that child is much less likely to end up with health problems. That is a good outcome—that they do not suffer the health problems. It is a good outcome for them and their family but it is actually a good outcome for the rest of us as well because we do not end up putting taxpayer funding into hospital and health services to support issues that we did not get right in those early months. That is what this is about. This is a forward-looking bill that is actually progressive in terms of saying that a little bit of investment at the beginning would save ourselves not only a lot of heartache but a lot of cost as a country further on down the track. And do we not all want to live beside well-nurtured well-rounded productive citizens? Because all the research and evidence says that if we can extend paid parental leave ideally to 12 months—but we in the Labour Party believe that right now it is affordable to in a staggered way get to 26 weeks and that is what should be afforded to all families. But it has become clear over the course of I would say 2 years—Hon Ruth Dyson: Two years 3 months.SUE MORONEY: For 2 years and 3 months—thank you—we have been debating this issue because this bill was drawn from the ballot in Easter 2012 and here we are in the Committee stage. This is where the rubber starts to hit the road. It has become absolutely apparent in those 2 years and 3 months that the Government just has no interest in supporting families in this way and that it has no interest in supporting and actually prioritising families in order to get 26 weeks’ paid parental leave.Yes this brave little bill has actually had some success because it has forced the Government to extend paid parental leave initially to 16 weeks—which we are yet to see but it should be happening next year—and then to 18 weeks but what the Government did was have a political solution to what is a human problem. It has found what it thinks is a political solution to it but that political solution does not address the research and evidence that I have already alluded to. It does not support exclusive breastfeeding to 6 months. It does not work to make sure that that bonding and attachment is well developed in that critical first 6 months. It does not do those things that we know make the critical difference. So I am acknowledging that. I am acknowledging that the Government now has the numbers to completely kill this bill and kill off the hopes and aspirations and dreams of those who are parents now those who are pregnant now and about to become parents and those who will become parents in the future. It is not only that group of people though. It is the grandparents who I actually find are often the most passionate about this issue because they want to see their grandchildren get this benefit and grow up in this way.I have acknowledged that and I have brought forward a new proposal because I said right from the outset that I would be determined to do the very best that we could for families. My idea is this. Families where there is a multiple birth families where there is a premature birth families where there is a child born with a disability—those are the families most in need. My proposal is that the 26 weeks’ paid parental leave be made available to those families in two staggered stages because it is those families I think who suffer the largest amount of financial pressure. They therefore suffer the most pressure to get back to work and earn money in order to support their families at a time when it may not be the best thing for them. That is the proposal that I have brought to the Committee for the Government to consider today.I want to thank all the support parties who have already indicated to me that they will support that course of action because for the parties who have supported this bill all the way through its passage this is not their ideal outcome and I think we all know that but we want to try to secure something that will make a difference for families—families who are in high levels of need. I became convinced of this upon hearing the many many submissions that we heard through the Government Administration Committee. I think we had just under 4000 submissions. Not all of them were oral but 99.6 percent of those submissions were in favour of 26 weeks’ paid parental leave for all not just for this narrower albeit very well deserving group that I am now proposing this bill cover.One of the submissions that really sticks in my mind—it stayed in my mind throughout this journey—has been the submission made in Auckland by a woman by the name of Danielle Ballinger Taylor who told us her story about having her twins. I am probably going to run out of time to tell her story so I am going to share that with you a little bit later on but let me say this because I think this probably says it all. When I looked around the room that day when she made her submission I am pretty sure there was not a dry eye in the room—and I believe that included the officials and that takes some doing. Her story is indicative of about 2800 families every year who face the same scenario. So that is what my amendment is aiming to do. I hope that the Government will think about this seriously because it is a genuine attempt to make better the lives of a group of people in our society who really do need that support. We will all benefit when they benefit and I hope the Government will take heed of that.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green):I want to first congratulate Sue Moroney on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill—I do not think I have spoken on it yet during its passage through the House—and on her persistence over nearly 2½ years of ushering it through the House. I do strongly urge the National Party to support this bill because it goes to the fundamental premise of what is the purpose of this Parliament and what is the purpose of government. One of the core purposes is to take the best possible care of our most vulnerable citizens and there is nobody in this House who would disagree that children—particularly the youngest babies the newborn babies—are our most vulnerable citizens and that they deserve our full attention.Interestingly enough just today Alfred Ngaro from the National Party and I hosted the Big Picture Competition art exhibition which is currently open on level 1 of Bowen House I say for members who have not seen it yet. It is a series of artworks creative works by children talking about issues like poverty issues like housing and the income issues that they and their families face. You know we are talking tonight about how to support children and families better. Well these children have got some very clear views about what is needed to make sure that they and other children whom they know and their families including their little brothers and sisters have a better life. It is a great challenge for parliamentarians to go and have a look at that exhibition read the stories that the children have prepared as part of their artworks and come back to this House with a renewed sense of commitment to protecting our must vulnerable citizens especially our littlest babies. It is distressing that National is not committed to that—and I do invite those members to go and engage with that Big Picture exhibition.As much as the Government talks about prudent financial management and is looking to exercise its financial veto the fact is that it knows as we all do that investment in families when babies are very little—newborn babies—is a sound investment in our future. It is a sound social investment; it is a sound financial investment. That is what Sue Moroney’s bill is asking us to make—a sound financial and social investment in our most vulnerable citizens so that they have the best chance of having the best possible life—and surely that is what our job is here. It is about putting kids and in this case as I said the littlest babies first and it will cost a little bit of money. Some have said it would be half of the cost of the flag referendum. It is not that expensive in the context of a Government Budget but it will make a huge difference to the lives of the families of those littlest babies and frankly it will make returns to us in significant numbers. We know that child poverty for example costs this country around $8 billion a year in catch-up costs. Well just what is it a $6 million—I understand Sue Moroney or something like that—Sue Moroney: Yes.METIRIA TUREI: —investment in families now could save hundreds of millions of dollars in the future. So why would you not consider that to be prudent financial management?Clause 4 in Sue Moroney’s bill really does set out very clearly not just the purpose of the bill in a technical sense but the principle behind the bill which as I have been talking about is about how we best protect our most vulnerable citizens—our littlest babies—and frankly I do not think we can afford not to take this action. We need to make sure that families have the best possible chance when their babies are young and when the families themselves are most vulnerable. Those of you who have looked at the Children’s Commissioner’s report on solutions to child poverty will see its recommendation for a form of child payment. It changes the focus from what people generally consider is the high cost of older kids and the cheaper cost of little kids and we have a Working for Families kind of structure that gives more money as children get older. But its analysis based on significant research and very credible research is that young families face the highest costs when their babies are little and that is because they have the least capacity to be able to maximise their financial circumstances. This is when they most need access to decent paid parental leave so that they can take the best possible care of their children at a time when they are the most constrained. So even the Solutions to Child Poverty report from the Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty described in a very detailed and very analytical way why it is important that we invest more at the time when babies are littlest. It is suggesting a child payment of various kinds that is universal at first instance when babies are little and then becomes more targeted as the children grow. That was one model of providing financial assistance to these families. Sue Moroney’s bill is another excellent model that does the same thing. So it does leave us with a whole range of options on how we can best support families and their babies at the time of their highest vulnerability which is why the Green Party supports this legislation from Sue Moroney.I would say that National actually agrees with the principle. National clearly agrees with the principle that investing in families when babies are little is a good idea. It has demonstrated that by continuing with paid parental leave when it came into Government and of course with its intention to extend by just a few weeks paid parental leave over the next few years. So the principle we are talking about which is in the purpose clause of this legislation is supported across the House. Everybody agrees that paid parental leave is a good idea. Everybody agrees that these families need some kind of financial support when their babies are very little. But for some reason National simply will not invest what is needed to improve the lives of these families especially those ones who miss out.I want to take just a few minutes to talk about the ones who miss out. One of the issues that we have with paid parental leave both in terms of the extension of time and also in terms of the amount of money that families are able to access is that those families who are on the lowest incomes—working families on the lowest incomes—who would be eligible for paid parental leave find it very difficult to take because they cannot afford the reduction in income. If they can afford to take it all they certainly cannot take it for very long because the amounts are simply too low. There is a whole other group of families who are completely excluded from the alternative which is the parental tax credit—because that is the alternative for some of these working families—but there is a whole number of working families who are excluded from the parental tax credit because they are also in part dependent on a welfare benefit. So there is a significant group of families who are working who are in paid employment and who are also in receipt of a welfare payment for whatever reason and they are not able to afford to take paid parental leave and they are not entitled to the parental tax credit. Those families tend to be the ones who are on the very lowest incomes.There yet again is another group of families—that is beneficiary families who are not in paid work—who do not have access to either and who are completely bereft of support. It does beg the question why it is that these babies over here are entitled to some form of largesse that National supports. It is quite happy for them to have paid parental leave to some extent. These babies over here are entitled to a bit of additional support from the State when they are young and vulnerable and their families are most in need but these families over here are not. There is a gap—Hon Member: Good babies bad babies.METIRIA TUREI: Thank you! There is a principle and a logical gap in which a whole range of families who are at the very lowest incomes who have the most need of help whose babies are the most likely to suffer from the effects of poverty miss out in some form from the range of services like paid parental leave and the parental tax credit that we have available.There is some commitment from National to some parts of the principle that says our most vulnerable citizens deserve our greatest commitment but there are too many gaps that mean that too many of our children are falling through them. We know that one baby a week dies in this country from poverty-related conditions. One baby a week dies from poverty-related conditions in this country. So to the extent that this bill deals with one part of the principle around paid parental leave and its extension that is a good thing. That at least provides some additional assistance to the families who are vulnerable. But we need to make sure that when we are investing in the principle which is that vulnerable children deserve our greatest commitment we are committing to that principle without judgment—without judgment of the kind of work that a family is undertaking.Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development):I am pleased to stand tonight and talk to this bill and in particular the Supplementary Order Paper that affects the purpose of this bill and narrows the scope of this bill. I have to say as I start that I do not think there is any doubt that everyone in this Chamber wants every single New Zealand child to be able to live a full and successful life and have all the things that all of us want for our children but we do come to this Committee with different expectations and different understandings about what is going to make a difference to many of those children we are hearing about tonight. I have to say that I am delighted that in fact there has been some concession from the promoter of this bill that the Government’s Budget 2014 package a considerable package—$500 million focused on children—has been reasonably successful. That is a concession that the Opposition has made and we accept that. That was a very comprehensive package. I do not have to go into the details of it because we all know and we have talked about it through the campaign. It was a big piece of work that involved healthcare early childhood education and Children’s Teams focused on protecting our most vulnerable children from abuse and neglect. The parental tax credit increased substantially from $70 a week to $220 a week and was extended out from 2 weeks to 10 weeks and of course we extended paid parental leave. So that is a big comprehensive package and that really is what this is all about.If we are determined as we all seem to be to make such a difference to those young New Zealanders then it is not just one thing and focusing on paid parental leave might at the edges make a difference but actually most of those children are in really complex situations and it will take a very complex solution to address their problems. So the narrowing of the bill now to those children who are born with a disability or those families where the baby is premature or where there are multiple births as I say is a concession but actually you have got to look at what is already being done in this area. I am sorry but I think that the promoter of the bill in conceding that the National Government is doing a really good job in addressing those issues has missed the mark.If we just take a moment to go through what is in fact happening already for families which this Supplementary Order Paper is addressing we think we have got the balance right. So if you are a family and you have a multiple birth if you have twins and you already have another child under 5 or you have triplets or quadruplets the Work and Income multiple birth Home Help payments kick in. They are not means tested. They are available for all those people and that gives real down-to-earth practical help in the home with all those bits and pieces that all of us who have had children know can be so overwhelming in those early days especially if you have more than one baby. So that is the first thing that the Government currently provides.There is the Working for Families tax credit again through the Inland Revenue Department. The department provides four types of payments for families with dependent children who are 18 years or younger and a family with multiple births may well be entitled to those payments depending on the age of other dependent children the family income and where that income comes from. So already there are two major streams of assistance to those families. Plus of course Work and Income has a whole range of extra financial support for those families in special circumstances and multiple births of course are always special circumstances. So there is help with accommodation there is help with childcare and there is a range of other grants. There is already a great deal of assistance for parents of multiple-birth children—twins triplets etc.From the disability angle for families who find themselves with a brand new baby who has a disability we have our Disability Support Services of course which puts wraparound services around those families and there is a whole range of initiatives that the Government provides to give assistance to those families. Time does not allow for me go into the details of that but suffice it to say that there is considerable assistance for those families. Disability Support Services is in the process of putting in a new national specialist behaviour support service for children with challenging behaviour. This is something that I have heard called for consistently in this House. That sort of initiative is under way and is providing assistance and of course the work that is being done around autism spectrum disorder which seems to be expanding as we speak means that a great deal of help and assistance is going into helping those families who find themselves in those circumstances with a newborn who is suffering from some of those disorders.Then the final group that this Supplementary Order Paper is addressing is the premature births. Of course the maternity quality and safety programme has been implemented to make sure that women and their babies get that same standard high-quality care right throughout New Zealand. It was rolled out to all district health boards in 2012 and is funded at $2.8 million a year for 4 years. That is showing signs of local clinical improvement particularly around those women with premature births and we know the extra care and attention that they need.So what I am saying is that as well intentioned as this Supplementary Order Paper is conceding that all that other very specialist wraparound comprehensive care is being provided National unfortunately cannot support this given that there is already considerable help going into these families. We think we have got the balance about right and we will continue to evaluate and monitor the structures that are being put throughout New Zealand with the social sector trials now going from nought to 18 and the Children’s Teams being rolled out. We think we are getting a very good picture of what is actually happening on the ground and so unfortunately we cannot support this bill.CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston):Thank you Mr Chair for allowing me to take a call on this bill. I firstly want to acknowledge Sue Moroney for the work she has put into this. I also want to acknowledge all of the many credible and important organisations that made submissions on this bill. Listening to Minister Tolley I could not help but listen to her say we have different views on what will make a difference. I am sitting here thinking that our views on what will make a difference should be based on evidence and I have a number of submissions here from the Children’s Commissioner the Human Rights Commission different parenting groups the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Business New Zealand—submissions from a whole range of organisations saying that this is the right thing to do.Like many people in this Parliament I have children and like many people in this Parliament I have a very comfortable middle-class working situation. I was very fortunate for the first 6 months after having my own baby a year and a half ago to be able to take that baby to work to be able to continue to breastfeed and to be able to take that baby into board meetings. That breastfeeding was very important. We know through all the evidence that breastfeeding for at least 6 months is what is recommended not only by the World Health Organization but by our own Ministry of Health. Our own Ministry of Health advises that we should be breastfeeding for at least the first 6 months.In my little middle-class existence I was able to do that because of my own working environment and support from my employer. But so many of our people out there—our women out there—are working in jobs where that is not possible. They actually do need some assistance from the State to be able to do what is recommended by the State which is to be able to stay with their child and exclusively breastfeed for the first 6 months.Yet here we are listening to the Minister for Social Development Anne Tolley tell us that we all have different views on what will make a difference. Well actually there may be different views on that side of the Chamber but the rest of New Zealand including very credible organisations have a very clear view that 26 weeks of paid parental leave as a bare minimum should be something that those Government members over there should be supporting. Again I acknowledge Sue Moroney for pushing this bill forward.We have heard arguments in the lead-up to this bill being discussed in the Chamber about how that side of the Chamber perceives it as being fiscally irresponsible. But when we go through the submissions we see very clearly that actually it is fiscally irresponsible not to support this bill because of the consequences of not supporting parents to be able to stay home and look after their children if it is in their best interests and their child’s best interests and if it is what they want to do. Instead what we had when Sue Moroney announced her 26-weeks’ paid parental leave bill was that the Government tried to compromise an evidence-based position around 26 weeks by saying that it would give 18 weeks instead knowing that the bill is actually popular with the public and not only popular with the public but also based on evidence.I am really disappointed with the National Party. I am really disappointed because there has to come a time when we can actually look at legislation and provisions that need to be put in place and surely use our common sense—not quoting New Zealand First there—and make a decision that is based on the well-being of New Zealanders. There are so many repercussions for parents not being given the opportunity to stay home with their children in that first 6 months in particular. We see evidence from places like the Brainwave Trust in terms of how important that bonding is. There is all of the evidence that comes with breastfeeding and the fact that in the long term it actually has a positive influence on a number of different health areas for the child including things like protecting them from allergies. The longer you breastfeed the less likely children are to get things like eczema and asthma and a whole lot of other respiratory things. In the long term it actually saves us money if we are ensuring that right from the start in those very first 6 months we are looking after—DARROCH BALL (NZ First):I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of this bill. When looking specifically at clause 4 one needs to look at and understand the intent and purpose of the original bill and in turn see just how important it is. The amendment bill is popular with the public—I think 99.6 percent of all submissions were positive—because the public knows the importance of stable loving nurturing and long-term parental investment in the first 6 months and more of a child’s life. Looking at Supplementary Order Paper 15 and in particular to the first-noted amendment to clause 4 and focusing on clause 4 it is important because it lists the limitations that now need to be placed on the intent of the original bill and shows the focusing of the bill down to specific classifications—those three obviously being that the paid parental leave is extended and that only those giving birth to two or more children to one or more surviving children before 37 weeks and to a child whose impairment would entitle the person to a Government-funded disability support service are eligible.The background note of the original bill also states that the bill particularly promotes the ability of parents to choose to care for newborn babies and that it is an essential part of supporting families to develop nurturing relationships. It also promotes the fact that the World Health Organization recommends exclusive breastfeeding for up to 6 months. The only way that we as a society can listen to this advice and to these facts and to expect our people to do such things is to ensure we give them the opportunity to do so. New Zealand First does support the bill because we support the provision of the most important environment and the essential elements involved in that environment in a child and a parent’s life being time. It is unfortunate that the situation has arisen that the original amendment bill will need to be modified and further focused as is manifested in what clause 4 now states.It seems counter-intuitive for anyone with an ounce of common sense to deny the opportunity for such a common-sense bill to be enacted and at such a comparatively small financial investment. This is a simple bill with a simple change to a few words and numbers but it will change the future for a generation of our children and their families. The positive consequences should not be underestimated. It would create stability for a child; a long-term learning environment; healthy nutritious environments; a bonding and caring environment; and most important an environment that sets our future generations up with positive pathways.We are now looking at the modification of the bill now applying to just parents with two or more children premature births or a child with a disability. Although the bill is now unfortunately limiting this important opportunity New Zealand First supports it because it focuses on the neediest of parents. That is why New Zealand First supports this bill.JAN LOGIE (Green):I am really pleased to be able to take a call in this Committee stage. I think it is my first substantive call right through the Committee process so thank you. After having gone through the 3809 submissions that were presented on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill and the 2 years and 3-month journey it has been to get to this discussion of the purpose of this bill which is to provide 26 weeks’ paid parental leave to parents in this country it feels as if it is something this Committee should spend some time talking about and really discussing. I have got to say that the Green Party policy is to support 13 months’ paid parental leave. For us ideally the purpose of this bill would have been to extend the duration of parental leave payments to a maximum of 13 months. I know that in the current context of the debate—where the member Sue Moroney who has brought to the country this offering that has been so well supported by the population has had to reduce it down with Supplementary Order Paper 15 to provide leave only to families who have had a premature baby or multiple births or a child born with disabilities—it just feels really sad because we know what a difference 26 weeks makes.The country knows what a difference 26 weeks makes. When the Government members and the Minister for Social Development Anne Tolley stood up before and said that there is no doubting that everyone in this Chamber is committed to the well-being of children but we just have different ideas around how to get there 99.6 percent of submissions said 26 weeks. So when the Government is saying that its view is different it is the view of the 0.4 percent; it is not even the view of the 1 percent. It is the view of the 0.4 percent. Come on! Our country can do better than this. It is not really a matter of just weighing it up. If we weighed it up there is the evidence and there is the National Party up in its ivory tower in a position of privilege ignoring all of the evidence and all of the people. Come to the party people! It is not good enough.The Minister said that she agreed with the Green Party that 13 months was the best thing like the member sitting in the chair Sue Moroney agreed that what National is offering is the best thing for the country—she is nodding vigorously in disbelief of the statement. She also listed all of the things that the Government is offering to families with children with disabilities families who have multiple births and families who have premature children. They get extraordinary largesse from this Government. It really beggars belief that there is poverty in this country. Really when you heard all of those things the Government is providing it is like: “What? What are these people complaining about? Where is the problem in this country?”. Well the problem was detailed to us through almost 4000 submissions through heart-rending stories of what is happening in the struggle of families in New Zealand. The existing supports Minister are not enough. They are not serving our families and they are not serving our society and our children. We keep on saying this and most New Zealanders believe it: if we invest in our children we invest in our future. We invest in our well-being into the future. This is not about the cents now; it is about our future.I would like to go to the specific story that Sue Moroney mentioned of one submission from a woman with twins who presented in front of the Government Administration Committee. She had to go back to work when her twins were just 5 months old. She had to leave work every 2½ hours to breastfeed during that time all while her babies were both still waking at different times every night to breastfeed. Can you imagine that? That meant having no sleep going to work and breastfeeding while trying to work. That is not in the best interests of those children. That was a recipe for disaster for that mother and that is not sensible or constructive for that workplace. Without any surprise that was something that she did not manage to continue so she left her job. She resigned after 5 weeks of trying to juggle that because 5 months after the births was just too early.Three years on when she submitted to the committee she was still working part-time outside of the IT industry in which she had trained and contributed significantly to before the birth of her children. She estimated that going back so early and not being able to sustain that employment had cost her family about $70000 a year and it had cost the IT industry a skilled worker. We have a shortage of skilled staff in the IT industry. So this is something that—by crazy short-term thinking or blind political dogma of not wanting to be beaten by the Opposition putting forward a good idea which is the only reason I can see why you would not be supporting this bill—is costing our businesses our families and our babies.All of the research tells us that a minimum of 6 months’ paid parental leave really benefits bonding and attachment and we have heard other speakers talking about that. You cannot repeat that too much. We know that that attachment in those early years has consequences right throughout people’s lives. It has consequences for their mental health. It has consequences for their ability to focus and therefore their ability to contribute to the workforce. It has huge consequences. We can help that bonding by providing 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. It also improves health outcomes for mothers and babies which reduces the burden on our health services which are straining to the point of breaking as they are at the moment. It reaches the World Health Organization’s guidelines for exclusive breastfeeding. We can see in that example of the mother with the twins just how really difficult it can be to try to maintain that guideline of 6 months while you have already gone back to work. I think it is asking too much to be honest.Another thing that we have not really talked about so much in this is that through the submission process there was a lot of support from employers for the paid parental leave period being 6 months. Where it has been at 14 weeks and even at the 16 and 18 weeks it is really difficult for them to manage because it is too short a period of time to get in a replacement staff member. So mostly they are just filling in over that time with other people doing extra work and having work not done and it is reducing the productivity of workplaces. It is also putting extra strain on other colleagues in workplaces. So employers are finding it more difficult to manage and they said that 6 months is the kind of period of time when you can go through that recruitment process and get somebody in for a short term and it would work for them. It is a win for business. It is a win for society. It is a win for babies. It is a win for women. But the Government is siding with the 0.4 percent. What is that about—really?The other aspect of this which I think is really important to mention is around the importance of maintaining women’s attachment to the workplace. We saw that in the example of the woman with her twins—going back to work not being able to manage and having to lose that job. That has now affected her entire career path. Rather than being able to go back and manage in a job and to keep on the same career trajectory—STUART NASH (Labour—Napier):There are a couple of things that the Minister for Social Development said and one in particular I agree with actually. She said that the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill will not solve child poverty that it is not the panacea to solve all the ills that are facing our children today and she is right. But that is not what this bill is about. There is no magic bullet to actually solve child poverty but this is a start. This is all it is. This is a start. The Minister actually said that she thought the Government had it about right in what it was doing. But the interesting thing is that Professor Gluckman Unicef the Human Rights Commission the Commissioner for Children—I could go on and on—actually do not agree with the Minister. The thing is that these people are experts in their field. These people know what they are talking about. In their evidence base they have massive budgets to investigate this sort of thing and they understand what they are talking about. With all due respect to the Minister these are the experts in this area and they say that the National Government has not got this right and that Sue Moroney has.The world has changed. I was very lucky. I was born a long time ago but when I was growing up it was in an era when it was almost expected that the man of the house the father would go out and earn money and the mother would stay at home and look after the children. That is what happened in my family and that is what happened with all my friends. When we got home from school our mothers were there. But as society has changed over the last 41 years since I was born—OK 43 years since I was born—we really have not changed with it. The Labour Government brought in paid parental leave in 2004 and goodness me did we get hell from the National Opposition but it was necessary. Since 2004 the world has changed even more. Ten years on out of economic necessity what we are finding is that actually a lot of women have to go back to work after giving birth. It is not their choice; they have to because if they did not they just could not provide. That is a completely different situation from what it was a generation ago. So what we have to do as a Government as a Parliament is accept that the world has changed and deal with the reality.The interesting thing is that in question time today Mr English made a very interesting point. I cannot remember who asked him the question but someone did and he said that this Government makes policy based on the evidence. Well this is not a political bill. This is not a bill Sue Moroney dreamt up because she thought she could get some votes for it. This is a bill that should be bipartisan. It should be one of these things where we come together as a Parliament and really work hard because we know it is the right thing to do. Sometimes I firmly believe that as a Parliament we actually have to look and ask ourselves what is the right thing to do. If it is the right thing to do then we do it. There is a cost to this. I acknowledge this. There is an expense and it is an expense at a time when the Government has limited money and the Government has a responsibility to allocate that money in a way that best meets the outcomes of the citizens it represents. But let me give you one example—and I am unsure how Peter Dunne is voting on this. I am not too sure. But he took a bill to the select committee on income splitting that was going to cost $500 million—on income splitting. We turned that down at the Finance and Expenditure Committee because it was unsustainable but what it did was benefit those who really did not need it. That did not benefit those at the lower end but this actually does. I sincerely hope that Peter Dunne does support this because remember that he was the man who set up the Commissioner for Children. This is vitally important to actually moving forward as a society. It is evidence-based.The other thing is that it is about helping those who live in poverty. Those are the ones who are actually going to benefit from this. We have been criticised by none other than Unicef. Most of us hold up the United Nations as an agency that is actually there to represent everyone across the globe. We sign up to nearly every single UN charter. We are huge supporters of the UN. But can I just quote what Unicef has said its mission is. It says: “We believe that nurturing and caring for children are the cornerstones of human progress.” It was created with this in mind. Let me quote what its mission is. “UNICEF was created with this purpose in mind—to work with others”—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Sorry to interrupt the member—his call is finished and so is the bell.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa):Kia ora Mr Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this very important Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Sue Moroney on the tenacity she has shown to actually put children and parents at the heart of a piece of legislation.This bill is all about making sure that every child in New Zealand has the opportunity to grow up in the first 6 months of their life with their parents. We know how important it is for children to have that attachment to a primary caregiver. All the research tells us this—the research from Brainwave Trust the research from Families Commission the research from Sir Peter Gluckman. Why is it relevant? It is relevant because if we do not get good attachment it actually has ongoing long-term consequences for the health and well-being and the development of children. We know for example that paid parental leave reduces infant mortality. We know for example that children have fewer behavioural problems social problems or emotional problems later in life. So the value of paid parental leave is actually about setting the framework the context for our children so that they can grow up healthy strong good New Zealanders and fulfil their potential.What I want to contribute to the debate tonight is a Treasury report dated 20 September 2012. It is really interesting because this Treasury report was given to the Minister of Finance and it was very clear that the evidence around paid parental leave exists. In fact that is what drove the National Government to respond to Sue Moroney’s member’s bill and put its own paid parental leave increases in place. On 1 April 2015 paid parental leave will increase by 2 weeks to 16 weeks. On 1 April 2016 it will increase by another 2 weeks to 18 weeks. So the National Government knows that paid parental leave is good for our families. There is no argument about that. I guess what we are arguing about is the length of time.What is interesting in that Treasury report is that it did not commit to a length of time but the National Government did commit to a length of time—but from where? If it is an evidence-based Government where did the 18 weeks come from? We on this side of the Chamber say that it should be 26 weeks and in fact the Green Party wants it to be—Jan Logie: 13 months.LOUISA WALL: —13 months. What do other countries do? Well we know that in Britain it is 39 weeks and in Sweden it is 16 months. So everybody agrees that paid parental leave is a good thing to do but then we quibble about how long it should be.So I want to commend Sue Moroney the member in charge of this bill for being pragmatic and putting forward Supplementary Order Paper 15 which maintains the integrity of her bill. For us it is about 26 weeks—that is our bottom line—but because of the fiscal constraints and because the National Government do not want to give all parents 26 weeks what we have decided to do is prioritise and target some families that we think are most in need. Those families are ones that have two or more children the families of children who are born prematurely and the families of children born with a disability. We all know that within that context those families are most in need. They are most under stress. They are most under pressure. I want to emphasise our commitment to parents who have a child with a disability.For me this bill provides an opportunity for us to do a little bit of targeting. So let us target those families most in need. If you are a parent and you have a child who is born with a disability I would have thought—I have not been blessed; I have not had any children. I have got brothers who have got children and I know what a child means to a family. But I imagine that if a child is born into a family and that child has a disability it is an incredibly overwhelming stressful uncertain time for those parents. They need support. I guess they need to know that they have got support from each other from their families from the medical system from the social system and also from the Government which is why we are targeting families whose children are born with a disability. We recognise actually that having paid parental leave for 26 weeks in some way may take a bit of that stress away. It may enable them to prepare—JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National):I move That the question be now put.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills):Mr Chairman can I say first of all that I wish I had not spoken in the Address in Reply debate because I could have used this as the opportunity to warmly congratulate you on your elevation and to also acknowledge the huge amount of work you did as the Associate Minister of Justice particularly in the youth justice area. I hope that you continue to make a contribution from a different position.We are speaking on clause 4 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I see that there are several amendments that have been tabled as Supplementary Order Papers that have yet to be discussed and I look forward to some discussion on them. This is the most important part of the debate this evening because it is about the purpose of the bill. Clause 4 is pretty straightforward. It just says that the point of this bill is to extend the provisions of paid parental leave to 26 weeks.Some people might ask why that would be the case—why 26 weeks? Why not 20? Why not 18 as the Government has decided is the magic number? Why would we go to that? The reason is that this is based on evidence of best practice—best practice for the newborn citizens of our country. I cannot imagine how the National members can say that they know better than the World Health Organization in terms of making sure our newborn babies have the best start in life. What gives the National Party members more evidence than the World Health Organization has? I do not think it is true. I think they are making it up. I know that the members who have been sitting in the Chamber for this period of the debate have not made a contribution. We had one contribution from the Hon Anne Tolley who talked about other benefits—benefits—that families get if they have multiple births if they have a child born with an impairment or if the child is born prematurely. I think she entirely missed the point.Actually the Hon Anne Tolley did quite a vitriolic speech in opposition to paid parental leave when it was originally introduced. I can recall it very clearly along with others. Nick Smith and Katherine Rich were others who contributed in that debate. It was pretty awful. They adamantly opposed the introduction of paid parental leave at the time. The National Party is on the record opposing the introduction of paid parental leave so when we are debating clause 4 in this legislation amending paid parental leave to 26 weeks which every country in the developed world thinks is a good idea I am not surprised the National Party is opposed to it.I want to commend the member who has this bill in her name Sue Moroney. This is a fine bit of work and it has been a very important debate for the Government Administration Committee to have but also for Parliament to have. The fact that it has taken 2 years 2 months and 3 weeks to get to this stage is probably the fault of the select committee actually. I think that it probably looked at the bill pretty rigorously during its investigation. I happen to know because I was sitting on the committee during that time and the clause that we are debating now was at the heart of a lot of the deliberations at the committee but so too was the cost and the number of parents who are not currently eligible for paid parental leave. We looked at international comparisons. We looked at all the evidence that we could.I do not know whether other members of the Committee recall but when this bill was first introduced Bill English threatened to use a financial veto to block it which is quite extraordinary particularly on a member’s bill. He got over that thank goodness. I am pleased that we got to this stage of the debate and hopefully we will get to a third reading and to the conclusion of it because what we heard about the purpose of this bill was that every single piece of evidence has said that this is best practice. This is the next big step that New Zealand should take to better support families.I have looked again at the submissions we heard. There were 3809 submissions which is quite a lot. We are just considering a fireworks petition and I would predict that we get a fair number on that but I do not think it will be anything like 3809. Of the submissions that the select committee heard 99.6 percent supported the purpose of this bill and the detail of it and said that this is the way to go. We had all sorts of organisations from employer groups to church groups and community organisations. We had individual parents. Both Jan Logie and Sue Moroney have spoken of—CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):He mihi nui ki a koutou katoa. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak on this bill. As a grandmother it is very close to my heart. I know there are many parents uncles aunties and others in the Chamber tonight who understand the importance of what we are doing. Just as important as talking about war is talking about babies—just as important.I would like to start by just acknowledging in terms of clause 4 that the measure of a civilised society is how it treats its mothers and children and so tonight should be the greatest opportunity we have had in a long time. I would like to thank Sue Moroney for her commitment to this bill. It has been a difficult and arduous journey championing this member’s bill but I think many of us have appreciated it. What is more many people outside this House no matter what happens to this bill will remember that Sue Moroney her party and others of us have consistently supported the importance of paid parental leave at a reasonable and evidence-based level. Good on Sue and good on all who are supporting the bill tonight.I know that in our contributions some of us have looked to logic. People have wondered what the logic of the National Party position is. Well I would not want to waste time on that. There is not any logic to the position because basically there is no way to refute the evidence that has been presented to the Government Administration Committee. There is no way to refute the economic investment argument to refute the health argument or to refute the common civilisation argument. There just is not. So basically do not look for logic. You will be disappointed.National knows that this bill is a good idea but it is just too mean to do it. Sometimes meanness overwhelms everything and tonight unfortunately—including in terms of Supplementary Order Paper 15 which is a big compromise on behalf of the promoter of the bill—there is just too much meanness on one side of the Chamber to be able to see it through. And it will be remembered. It will be recalled by people in this country who see this as an opportunity. We have taken opportunities in this House in my time here that we have been proud of—all of us. Marriage equality was a great moment in this House but this could be of equal importance—a great moment for our children which some of us are prepared to support and others not. So it is pretty disappointing.I would just like to talk briefly about the Supplementary Order Paper because I can understand why the promoter of the bill has supported it. It is kind of difficult though to pick the most vulnerable in this situation and I think the promoter of the bill Sue Moroney has done a good job of that. But actually sometimes it is the first baby that is the hardest. I am not saying twins or multiple births would ever be easy. I would never say that having a child with a disability was easy. I have family members who have that experience.I would always support the idea that money when you have got newborn children and little babies makes a difference. We can romanticise it all we like but the reality is we need money when we have got little children because we need somebody to commit to those children and we need somebody to be able to afford to do that in the whānau and in the family. We have great literature and art around the world about the Madonna and child—great romanticism. Every Mother’s Day there are cards full of saccharine lyrics about the wonders of motherhood but what we really need is paid parental leave so that mothers or fathers—but particularly mothers at the beginning—can do the job. The job is to be there to feed that baby and to give that baby an opportunity to get the best start in life. So it is really ironic that the mean-spirited Government will not support this because we do not need the cards so much on Mother’s Day. We do not need motherhood and apple pie. We need paid parental leave. If this Parliament was prepared to support that and if the Government would support the rest of us we would be demonstrating the respect that parents are due and that children are due.Culturally it is interesting because historically around the world many societies regard the time when the child is born and is little as a sacred time. Having been through that myself I understand what this is like. It is a unique time in the life of a family. It is the precious time that you want to give time to and you need to give time to. It is also a fragile time. I really want to acknowledge Metiria Turei for pointing out that even with this bill we would not be meeting the needs of the poorest people on benefits because they would not be recipients of paid parental leave and to remember the consequences for all of us when we do not look after everybody every whānau at this most fragile time. In some cultures the woman does not leave the house for 40 days. Wise women come to the house with food. The woman is regarded as being in a sacred space where she is learning to bond with her child. In other cultures there are only certain foods that she is allowed to eat. The point is that in those cultures—BRETT HUDSON (National):I move That the question be now put.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes1United Future 1.Noes120New Zealand National 60; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1.Motion not agreed to.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka):I am happy to take a call—Joanne Hayes: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wish to change our vote for National to 60 votes in favour.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I have declared the result and I have called the next speaker. I think we will continue. It does not stop you having another go again soon.CHRIS HIPKINS: I am happy to take a brief call on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I thank the Chair for the opportunity. I thank the National Government for voting down its own closure motion and giving me this opportunity to speak on this bill—one that I think is very important to this House. I certainly congratulate the Government on having the foresight to allow us to continue this debate for a little longer because I think it is an important debate. On a day when the House set aside several hours to debate international matters I think it is only right that we set aside a few hours to debate the welfare of children living in this country. Therefore I am very pleased that the Government has seen the error of its ways and decided to continue this debate. We are on clause 4 of the bill which is the purpose clause. The purpose of this bill is to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. That is I think a very worthy goal and I congratulate the member Sue Moroney on her persistence. One of the things about members’ bills is they take an awfully long time to drag through the House’s processes. One of the sad ironies of this bill of course is when we first started the debate on this we were in a position where the bill may well have been successful.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Can I now ask the member to speak to clause 4 and the amendments.CHRIS HIPKINS: Absolutely Mr Chair. Clause 4 of the bill which basically says: “The purpose of this Act is to extend the duration of parental leave payment to a maximum of 26 weeks.” is one that I think we will agree on. It is disappointing of course but I suspect the Committee is no longer going to have a majority to pass that. Many members of the Committee feel that is a very worthy purpose. One of the things that was raised by many members or that many members will have had raised with them on the campaign trail is what the Government is doing what the Parliament is doing and what the respective political parties are doing to ensure that children get the best possible start in life. It was one of the themes of the election campaign. Ensuring that parents have time to spend with their children when they are first born we know will have a significant flow-on positive effect on those children throughout the rest of their lives.I can say as the Labour Party’s education spokesperson that this is an issue I looked at quite a lot during the election campaign because there is a correlation. It has been well established with regard to attachment theory for newborn children with their parents—or actually with anybody but parents obviously being the logical people in most situations—that if the attachment between the parent and the newborn child is well formed and there is very good physical research and other research to demonstrate this is the case then the child is more likely to be successful later on in life. In fact there were some very good studies that came out from other countries that showed that where attachment was not properly formed in the early part of a child’s life in those first critical months and years then that child was more likely to have difficulties with their education and more likely to become an offender at a young age. We know that attachment at a young age is important. That is why extending paid parental leave can be a hugely beneficial thing because it gives parents more time to spend with their children when they are first born.I want to be clear here. This is not just about mothers either. Paid parental leave can apply to fathers too. Fathers often get left out of the debate on this but I think they are very important. Families will arrange the way they use their paid parental leave in different ways depending on the needs of their family and their family’s individual circumstances. I think that is both an important thing and a very welcome thing.I acknowledge the amendment that is being put forward by Sue Moroney to change effectively the purpose of the bill. Instead of extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks for all families it would significantly reduce the number of families that would qualify. Although I understand the reasons for doing that and I again congratulate Sue Moroney on trying to reach a compromise so that the Committee can make some progress on this matter I would like to put on record my principled position that actually 26 weeks is not too much to ask. When we look at international comparisons New Zealand is by no means a generous country in this regard.SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill):I move That the question be now put.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes62New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 59New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 15 in the name of Sue Moroney to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 472 in her name to clause 4 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Maori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes61New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand.Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 472 in the name of Sue Moroney to clause 4 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Maori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes61New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1.Amendment not agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat clause 4 be agreed to.Ayes60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes61New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1.Clause 4 not agreed to.Clause 5 Section 71J amended (Duration of parental leave payment)SUE MORONEY (Labour):Well is it not interesting? After all of that debate before the election on this very bill when the Government members wanted to talk and talk and talk now they want to close the debate down. Well I think New Zealand families will be able to see exactly what is going on there.Hon Ruth Dyson: There’s a word for that that you’re not allowed to use.SUE MORONEY: Ha ha! There is a word for that; we are not quite allowed to use it in this context.Clause 5 is the part of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill that does need extensive debate because this is where the duration is actually spelt out in this bill. This is the contentious part of the bill because this is the specific point of disagreement between the people who are voting for this bill and the people who are voting against this bill—the duration.What clause 5 does is it actually stages the implementation of 26 weeks’ paid parental leave into stages. People might recall that this was a part of the bill that caught the public’s imagination. When my bill was first drawn from the ballot at Easter 2012 the then Minister of Finance Bill English—he is still the same Minister of Finance today—said: “Oh you know it’s just completely unaffordable—completely unaffordable.” So the idea of staging the implementation of this became an incredibly important part in the public debate because people could see that I as a member and the Labour Party actually were taking a very responsible approach to this. Actually the Labour Party’s policy was to get to 12 months’ paid parental leave. We did not believe that that was immediately affordable in the fiscal environment of 2012 and so we decided that the next best stage that we should aim for was 26 weeks.But again as an acknowledgment of the global financial crisis which was really at full throttle at that period of time we wanted to do it in a staged way and this is the clause—clause 5—in the bill that actually does that. It does it by bringing 22 weeks’ paid parental leave in as of 1 July next year. And because of the amendment that I have to clause 5 as well this would mean if the Government was not so mean-spirited that families in the categories that we have been outlining in the previous debate could have been enjoying 22 weeks’ paid parental leave from 1 July next year. Then in clause 5 it says that they could have been taking part in 26 weeks’ paid parental leave by 1 July 2017. And that is the impact of clause 5.I want to take some time to debunk the flimsy small contribution that the National Party members have made to the debate this evening about their reasons for voting against those families. What they have said is that families who have multiple births according to the current Government already get well supported by the Government. But here is the truth of the matter: the home help that the Minister for Social Development Anne Tolley referred to is available for 3 months. It is available only for 3 months and that is the period of time that people currently get for paid parental leave. That is the reason why paid parental leave needs to be extended for people who have had a multiple birth. It is because their home help support runs out after 3 months and that is the very reason why it needs to be extended to them.But also it is not available to all of those families who have a multiple birth. It is available to them only if they also have another child under the age of 5. So the statement from the Minister was completely misleading about the level of support that these families already enjoy. That is why we actually had the woman Donnelle Belanger-Taylor come before our select committee and tell us about her saga. I know that Jan Logie spoke about it earlier but I want to read from the written submission that Donnelle Belanger-Taylor put to our committee because I think it really catches it.She said to the select committee: “We did all the right things before we decided to have a second child. We saved budgeted and accrued annual leave. And then an ultrasound showed two little black blobs. Suddenly our plans looked inadequate. We needed more equipment more money and a bigger car yet I had to stop work a lot sooner.” Her obstetrician made her stop work at 28 weeks so her paid parental leave ran out when the twins were 6 weeks old. So at 6 weeks old they were in a growth spurt that saw her feeding the babies for 16 hours straight they were using nearly 100 nappies a week and she could not imagine going back to work but their budget was already hurting. She said: “We managed to cope until the twins were 5 months old but they were still waking three or more times a night each.”But financially she had to go back to work. She said: “We were away from home 13 hours a day commuting on the train. Every break I got I rushed over to the day care to feed them. It just about killed me. I had to resign after 2 months on the verge of a complete mental breakdown. Three more months of paid parental leave would have made a big difference. If we had been able to wait until they were 8 months I could have coped with going back to full-time work. They were sleeping better. Breastfeeding would have been less frequent so my workdays would have been shorter. I would have been paying proper taxes for the past 2 years I would have been putting money onto my student loan and into KiwiSaver and we wouldn’t be getting Working for Families. Parents of multiples in particular need more paid parental leave. Nobody plans on having twins. We have to stop work earlier we have greater risk of pre-term infants and we have higher expenses. If extended paid parental leave can’t be fully funded maybe it could be targeted at the families of multiples.”That was her plea to the select committee and the inspiration behind the Supplementary Order Paper that I have brought to this Parliament today. Colleagues who have spoken are absolutely right. That is not what we aimed to achieve with this. But I have taken the step in good faith to try to get an agreement across this Parliament that would benefit families and the Government tonight has snubbed exactly those families with its response.But it is no surprise actually. I do not know why we were expecting that it might have done something that is common sense because the Government has shown time and time again that this is not its priority that families are not its priority and that paid parental leave in particular is not its priority. It has spent more money moving the Treaty of Waitangi one block than what this bill asked it to spend in the next financial year supporting around 2800 families who desperately need the support. I am a great fan of preserving the Treaty of Waitangi but that is the amount of money that we are asking to be spent on the future of those children’s lives and there is no comparison that should be able to be made on that. That figure is less than half—it is about a quarter—of what John Key wants to spend on his referendums about a New Zealand flag that we do not even know most of the country might not even want and yet the Government would rather spend money on that sort of folly than address the issues that are actually affecting us as a society.Clause 5 is the provision that would make the difference to those families. It would bring in 22 weeks on 1 July next year. Think about what that means. It means that families who have possibly just had their first ultrasound and possibly just found out that there is more than one black blob in the ultrasound would if this bill was passed tonight have extended paid parental leave of 22 weeks for their newborn children. It means that the families who will not know at this point in time that their baby is going to be a premature birth which is before 37 weeks’ gestation would be entitled to it as well.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I call Anne Tolley but before I ask the member to proceed I would like to remind members that when dealing with clause 4 of the bill we dealt with a number of amendments and have therefore taken some decisions as to the general direction of the bill. Therefore the discussion from now is quite likely to be quite narrow.Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development):I just want to pick up on a couple of things that the previous speaker Sue Moroney has said. First of all she talked about good faith and trying to get agreement with the Government. I would have thought that if you are talking good faith and getting agreement from the Government the first thing you would do is come and talk to us but no one talked to me. So actually where is that good faith?Sue Moroney: You’re not the responsible Minister.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes well—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well I am certainly not.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No Mr Chair—I do beg your pardon. The previous speaker could have come and talked beforehand in time for the Government to have the opportunity to discuss it because that is my understanding of good faith. It is not just about saying: “This is what we are going to do what do you think?”. It is about a genuine conversation taking place and people having time to consider it and make the appropriate decisions. So that is just to put that on the table.But also when we are talking about paid parental leave as we are in clause 5 and the duration of that leave I just think that this Committee before we get carried away with all the arguments should focus on what exactly this Government has done. This Government has pledged and budgeted for an extra $171.8 million over the next 4 years for paid parental leave enhancements.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I regret to interrupt the honourable Minister but I think I warned at the beginning that we are now on a quite narrow debate. Although I understand that the Minister is responding to the comments of the member in the chair which I probably should have pulled up I fear that if I let her go on I am going to have to let everyone else get well away from it.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: My understanding looking at clause 5 of the bill is we are talking about the duration of paid parental leave being extended to a maximum of 18 weeks a maximum of 22 weeks and then a maximum of 26 weeks. We are talking about a progression of the rollout of paid parental leave. That is what I want to address because in fact this Government has already agreed to that and as I say that is a considerable amount of money that this Government has committed to extending paid parental leave. What we are saying is that rather than spending all the money on paid parental leave at the same time we are doing other things as well. Indeed around paid parental leave as well as extending the time as proposed in clause 5 we are also extending the reach of it. In an area like the one that I represent East Coast where there is a lot of seasonal work that is just as important as the length of time of the paid parental leave. This Government has said that it is not just about how long you get that paid parental leave; it is about who is eligible for it. That is just as important.I appreciate it is a narrow discussion but it is an important concept. The Government is being accused of not wanting to spend this money on protecting our children and giving them a good start in life. The Government’s position is that we are saying yes of course we are but we are doing it in another way around paid parental leave a way that is not focused on just the length of time that you give it to a certain group of women. We are saying that yes that is important and we are agreeing and extending the time but we are also extending the scope of paid parental leave which is just as important. So another group of women are eligible for that paid parental leave which is indeed what the member tried to do in the previous clause. That is an important fact about clause 5. This Government realises and does accept that we do need to extend the paid parental leave. We have set out a process to do that but we are not dancing to the tune of this particular clause in this particular bill.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green):I understand the narrowness of the debate on clause 5 but I did not get an opportunity to address the amendment that Sue Moroney had put forward Supplementary Order Paper 15 in her attempt to find a way to get this bill through with a more narrow approach to the extension of paid parental leave. I just want to refer particularly to the issue of children with disabilities the cost for parents and the additional supports that parents with children with disabilities often need particularly at that very early stage but also throughout their life. I would also be very interested actually if the Hon Ruth Dyson had experiences to share as well because if I remember rightly the Hon Ruth Dyson ushered the Government through the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. She may have a unique perspective to bring to this debate as well.The Children’s Commissioner’s report by the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty directly addressed the issues faced by families with children with disabilities and children with parents with disabilities when it comes to issues of poverty. I just want to highlight a few of the things that were said there. It noted that there was not yet enough information about the effects of poverty on children with disabilities in New Zealand and that the Government was intending to gather more information about that. If the Government is still doing that that would be wise because those families are particularly vulnerable and they are families who have been identified by Sue Moroney as being particularly vulnerable for the purposes of this bill.The expert advisory group had a paper dedicated especially to this topic. The group referred to some research that it could access from the Institute for Public Policy Research in the UK. The research there showed that there is a two-way relationship between disability and poverty in childhood. Disabled children are among the most likely to experience poverty and poor children are more likely to become disabled than those who are better off. It went on to say that there needs to be a transformation in the quality and accessibility of services for disabled children and young people and their families. The research from the UK talked very clearly about the particular difficulties in terms of poverty that families with children with disabilities face part of which can be well addressed through extending paid parental leave to these families.The report from the Children’s Commissioner went on to describe child disability in the context of poverty as meaning that children and families must cope not only with the disability but with the added challenges of poverty-related health disparities social disadvantage and extra direct costs of time money and resources associated with a child’s disability. I understand that Sue Moroney’s attempt to narrow the scope of this bill was because she had identified the particular need that young families or new families with a child with a disability face and that the ability then to have access to 26 weeks’ paid parental leave would help to address exactly those costs that this UK research and the Children’s Commissioner’s report have identified: the direct costs of time money and resources that are needed to address the whole family as well as the child who has the disability.The report went on to say that the Institute for Public Policy Research published findings from a study in the UK to inform policy makers on what the priorities should be to maximise the opportunities for people with disabilities through to 2020. So this is an extended piece of research. The report states that children with disabilities are more likely than non-disabled children to live in poverty and that children with a disabled parent are also more likely to experience poverty. The report concluded that in order to meet the UK Government’s poverty reduction targets tackling the poverty of children with disabilities must be a top Government priority. This report very clearly describes the particular challenges that families with a child with disabilities face in terms of the social disadvantage the economic disadvantage and the stress and pressure that manoeuvring through a range of services creates for that family. Any family with a child with a disability will understand what it means when you are trying to negotiate through a whole range of services.The report went on to say that in order to protect the interests of those children with disabilities—JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):It is my pleasure to take another call in this debate on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection) Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. Although I was very interested to hear the discussion from Metiria Turei on clause 5 I want to speak to one of the Green Party’s Supplementary Order Papers Supplementary Order Paper 18 which would add an additional clause after clause 5 around the parental tax credit or—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before you go on—because otherwise I will have to terminate your speech—I understand that the Greens have withdrawn their Supplementary Order Papers and therefore you cannot talk to those Supplementary Order Papers.JACINDA ARDERN: I am happy then to simply talk to section 71J in clause 5 of this bill but with some regret that we are not able to lament of course the opportunity that the bill did raise and papering over the fact that despite the Government’s rhetoric around issues of child poverty and child deprivation there has been some reluctance to put any meat on the bones as it were in terms of policy.This bill provided the Government an opportunity to give additional support to families with newborns. In particular it would have made a very big difference by extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks as clause 5 does to those families who are living in the most deprivation in this country. The reason I wanted to highlight that is because the Prime Minister himself in his state of the nation address said that child poverty was an issue that he specifically wanted to focus on that this was going to be a key focus of this Government. This bill and the extension of paid parental leave generally is one manner in which we can do that. Sure it is a universal way but there has been a bit of a trend for us in the past to move away from universalism in support of children. That is a trend we need to start reversing. In fact we saw that trend even further entrenched with the last Budget initiatives around the parental tax credit.This is relevant because we are talking about universal extension around the duration of paid parental leave versus other mechanisms that have previously been proposed. Those other mechanisms like for instance the parental tax credit as we have seen are flawed. When you start narrowing and moving away from generalised provisions of support rather than just saying: “Look anyone who is eligible for paid parental leave should receive it regardless of income test.”—the amount yes sure is income tested. A universal provision means that we do not get the fraught issues we got at the last Budget when we started looking at filling in gaps with things like parental tax credits. The Government when it had that opportunity with the parental tax credit continued to allow an exclusion zone for those families who are in the most poverty in New Zealand. If the Government was as serious about child poverty as it claimed it was that would have been a prime opportunity to remove an exclusion zone and allow families who are for instance on benefits to receive that support. Of course unlike this clause which talks about an extension beyond 18 weeks that was not for a full 26 weeks. That again was a very narrow range of support. But it does prove the general principle that if we want to improve child well-being generally we should be moving to more universal provisions as this bill tried to do for families in work rather than moving away from that and to the kind of targeted support that this Government has favoured instead.I have heard the idea reiterated in this House again—by Anne Tolley in particular; it almost sounded like actually she wanted to support the general notion of paid parental leave—that somehow we do not have the money to prioritise this now. It is something that we pushed back strongly on this side of the House. We have provided ample evidence of other priorities that we could have moved away from in order to allow this to happen. She also tried to claim that the decision of Sue Moroney the member in the chair to try to at least eke out something from this Government for premature babies for multiple births for children with disabilities was somehow a concession that this Government has done enough for families with newborns. That is an absolute stretch. It is not only a stretch it is actually making a mockery of what everyone who has pushed so hard for this bill said. The points that they have made the principle that they have stood on—none of that shifts. The fact that the member in the chair has been willing to make the amendments that we have seen today is an example I think of just really principled pragmatism. It is saying that we have gone as far as we can but if this Government is absolutely determined to veto what we have put forward in this bill generally—if it is that determined to do that—then we will make a compromise.MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party):Given that I have some experience in this matter I have been quite eager to talk about it. I have as has been widely reported nine children and have worked with all of them. So the duration of parental leave payment the narrow scope that we are sticking to is something that I am very keen to talk about and support.Metiria Turei: 500 kids.MARAMA FOX: Yes the 500 children I have had. Sorry no. It is nine. Just for the Hansard let us get that right. So as a new mum we all know how difficult it is to bring a child into this world and then have to deal with all of the drama. Nobody knows exactly what it means to go sleepless nights until you really have to go sleepless nights. Nobody knows exactly what it means to try to get a baby to latch on to something that should be—I was going to say used for other purposes but in fact no—used for the purpose that it is given to feed that child. And there is stress and there is drama to high heavens and I can tell you some explicit stories about that. In fact I might tell you a couple.Jan Logie: Go on.MARAMA FOX: I will. With No. 1 child—and I have come to numbering them now because it is just easier—I took that child to kōhanga reo when that child was 2 months old simply to get out of the house. It cried for China that baby. That baby had enough tears for the whole of the Yangtze River—is that the one?Jan Logie: Yep.MARAMA FOX: That is right. I would hold that baby for 3 hours just so that child would sleep because every time I put him down bless his little heart he would start crying. Do you know what sort of pressure that is what sort of stress that is on a new mother who does not know what she is doing? Let us fast forward a few years to when I have five children and I bring a new baby home to that house. One morning I remember waking up when that child was about 3 months old realising I had slept a whole night. Then I tried to think how long it had been since I had slept a whole night. I counted back 5 years—5 years since I had slept a whole night. Yes I have had to do this I have chosen to do it and I make no bones about it but if I knew that at some point I could get some leave so that I would not have to work—because I worked with all of these babies. I went back straight back to work with a child feeding in my arms because there was no provision at that time. So I am taking a baby with me getting four other little children ready for school for kōhanga for kura and I am caring for another 10 children in the kōhanga reo while I am feeding while I am changing and while I am doing all of those things because I cannot afford to take time off and stay home.When paid parental leave finally came in and I could take 12 weeks I tried to get back-pay but that was not written into the legislation and so no that was not coming. What a revelation it was to have 12 weeks at home with a baby and not have to worry about trying to earn enough money and going back to work with a feeding child in my arms. If you are a feeding mother 3 months is a pretty standard time but 6 months is the recommended time. I fed all of those children all nine of them except for one until they were 6 months old on nothing else but me. Do you know what that does to a mother? Do you know how much all the goodness that you are taking into you—every bit of food every bit of water every bit of thing that you are eating and consuming in you—is all going to this child? You have just spent 9 months bringing all of the goodness that you have into that child to produce that baby to be a healthy-born child and then for the next 6 months as you eat and drink to produce milk to feed that child do you know what that does to you? I have lost one tooth per child. It is a true story. That is nine teeth gone because of the lack of calcium. The grey hair that I keep trying to dye over which is still here now early—all of those things happen. The thing is you are tired you are bereft and you have a family at home to look after.If we could just have 18 weeks or 26 weeks then you can spend the time—[Bell rung]. No no no. I am not finished and this is very important. I would like to speak again thank you Mr Chairperson and considering it was the first call I would appreciate your diligence.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I understand that but there are two other members calling.STUART NASH (Labour—Napier):To be honest I would never be able to give a speech like that because I do not know what it is like to have nine children—quite celebratory.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No but the challenge to the member is to be relevant to the clause.STUART NASH: But what I would like to talk about is clause 5(3) which adds new section 71J(c). There are some words in here that we have to be aware of.There are a couple of questions I would like to ask the member in the chair and the first one is why is this staggered in the way that it is—why is it staggered at 18 weeks why is it staggered at 22 weeks and why is it staggered at 26 weeks?But the one word here that I think we have got to be aware of is that it says a “maximum of 18 weeks” it says a “maximum of 22 weeks” and it says a “maximum of 26 weeks”. The thing about this is that that does not mean that everyone who gives birth to a child is going to take that maximum. In fact there are around about 60000 babies born every year give or take one or two and there are about 26000 parents taking parental leave so at this point only about 43 percent of parents take paid parental leave anyway.So when we look at the financials of this and when the bill says at “26 weeks” that does not mean that every single mother is going to take 26 weeks’ leave. Obviously when this bill goes through the dates are going to have to be adjusted. Well I assume I say to the member in the chair that you are going to adjust them or if we are going to go straight to 26 weeks in 2014—I am not too sure; maybe you could help me with that one.Hon Ruth Dyson: It’d be hard to do in April 2014.STUART NASH: I know. It would be hard to do in April 2014 because it would be retrospective. But you know the cost of this is actually not as large as it looks from new section 71J(c) in clause 5(3). At a staggered amount at 18 weeks it adds only $6 million and that is assuming that nearly every single mother takes—well I suppose this is paid parental leave so it could be paternity leave as well as maternity leave. The other thing is that at 22 weeks it adds only an extra $40 million and again you are not going to get—not you Mr Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Certainly not me.STUART NASH: Not at this stage—well you never know.Chris Hipkins: Amazing what biology can do.STUART NASH: Ha ha! I have lost my train of thought. My wife and I have found this ourselves; we have got two very young children—a mother or a father gets only about 80 percent of their salary anyway so often what happens is that mothers or fathers have to return to work earlier than this out of economic necessity.So I think when we look at this and say that the cost is going to be an extra $63.9 million because every mother is now going to take 26 weeks’ leave we are not dealing with the reality of the situation that we find ourselves in in 21st century New Zealand. I suspect that the reason why a lot of mothers do not take 26 weeks’ leave and the reason why it is a maximum—you know we are not going to impose 26 weeks’ leave—is that some mothers have to return to work out of economic necessity.So what this is actually doing is giving parents choice. If a parent wants to stay at home for 26 weeks they have the choice to be able to do that but it does not mean they have to and it does not mean that every single parent is going to cost society that much. So that is actually quite an important word. If we look at the other subclauses subclauses (1) and (2) it is pretty difficult to know what they are because they are just sort of stuck in there so that is all I really wanted to say.But I do have a couple of questions for the member in the chair: why has it been staggered out this way and is there an amendment to actually change the dates because it has been so long? Thank you very much.CHRIS BISHOP (National):I move That the question be now put.SUE MORONEY (Labour):I think it is important that I do respond to the questions that were asked by the member Stuart Nash who has just resumed his seat. I know that the member was not actually in the Chamber when we debated some of the earlier clauses during the Committee stage because the previous clauses in this Committee stage were debated before the election. So when we debated clause 2 there was an amendment moved to clause 2 that brought the commencement date in as being 1 July 2015. This relates to clause 5 in the way that the part that comes into being on 1 July 2015 is the 22 weeks’ duration that is described in clause 5.So I can see what the member has done. He has looked at the bill as it was presented to the Government Administration Committee and because it was at the select committee for rather a long time—this bill had a very long gestation we might say—we went past the date that had originally been put in by me as the member. I think it was the right consideration from the select committee that paid parental leave is a great thing but getting it paid retrospectively probably is not a goer.Stuart Nash: Why was it staggered as well?SUE MORONEY: It was staggered because there was a recognition that in order to make this affordable for the country at the time when the bill was written—we were at the height of the global financial crisis—this was a way to make sure that it would not be harmful to the Government’s books.It was a way to make it affordable and it was done in conjunction—in consultation actually—with a group that was set up around advocating for this very issue called 26 for Babies. In amongst that group a group of wonderful community organisations are networking around this particular issue including Plunket Barnardos Every Child Counts the New Zealand Breastfeeding Authority organisations that represent women in their workplaces unions—a collection of organisations that agreed with the approach that is taken in clause 5.This approach is to make sure that this is done in a way that is fiscally responsible quite frankly—fiscally responsible—because that is what we have all wanted in this House. We have wanted this to be done in a fiscally responsible way because we know that if we can get that investment put in place and have the public support it in that way it will be successful. So those are the reasons—Chris Hipkins: What are the dates now?SUE MORONEY: The dates now are that the leave would be extended to 22 weeks’ paid parental leave on 1 July 2015 and then on 1 July 2017 the final 4 weeks’ additional leave would be brought into place so that it becomes a total of 26 weeks.The importance of getting to 26 weeks was well rehearsed when we debated the last clause but one of the matters that was not debated at that point and which is relevant to clause 5 is around where we sit when we compare ourselves with other comparable countries—the OECD countries. Actually where we sit at the moment is second to last in the OECD countries.I frequently have women write to me who immigrate to this country thinking they are coming to a place where we are progressive around women’s rights around children’s rights and around families’ rights. They leave their homeland places like Canada or the UK thinking they are coming to a country that is going to better support them in raising their children. But they find they are leaving countries like Canada which has 12 months’ paid parental leave and coming to New Zealand which has just 14 weeks. Quite frankly they tell me that they find that backwards and barbaric from a country they thought was a progressive country they were immigrating to.So clause 5 is the opportunity for our country to regain the position that we should rightly have. Our reputation has been that we are a progressive child-friendly place. We used to say that New Zealand is the best county in the world to raise children and it can be and it should be but the Government needs to wake up and start supporting these measures. It is not acceptable for the Government to say that 16 weeks is OK. No one else agrees with that.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National):I move That the question be now put.CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour):I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): You are not going to dispute my ruling are you?CHRIS HIPKINS: No I am not going to dispute your ruling. What I am going to ask Mr Chair is for you to reflect on any instances in the past where a closure motion has been accepted after a member in charge of a bill has spoken.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am happy to reflect on that Mr Hipkins. I am also saying that the member in charge of the bill is bound by the same rules of relevance as other members.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes62New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Maori Party 2.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 472 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 15 in the name of Sue Moroney to clause 5 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes61New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 472 in the name of Sue Moroney to clause 5 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes61New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1.Amendment not agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat clause 5 be agreed to.Ayes60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Maori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes61New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1.Clause 5 not agreed to.New clause 6 Consequential amendmentsThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): We now come to clause 6 of the bill and probably even more so than the last warning that I gave with clauses 4 and 5 not standing part of the bill there is a temptation to rule out clauses 6 and 7 because of previous decisions the Committee has made. I am not doing that but it is going to be an exceptional challenge for people to speak relevantly to clauses 6 and 7 when we get to it because of the previous decisions that have been made.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills):I am very pleased to speak to new clause 6 and I want to commend and congratulate you on the consistency of your rulings in relation to relevancy. New clause 6 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill is outlined in two places. One is in Supplementary Order Paper 15 and another is in Supplementary Order Paper 472. The one in Supplementary Order Paper 15 proposes new clause 6 and it says in subclause (1) that the term “16 weeks” should be replaced with “22 weeks” in respect of a person who has given birth to two or more children as a result of one pregnancy—so just to be clear about that we are talking about a person who has had a multiple birth. That is a good thing to talk about this week because the House has already had a discussion on the fact that this is actually Multiple Birth Awareness Week and we are debating that very point. The person as outlined in this new clause has to assume or intend to assume the care of those children.The second provision is where one or more children is born before 37 weeks of gestation—so a premature birth—and where the child or children survive the birth for the duration of the parental leave payment.The third provision in this new clause 6 is where a child is born with an impairment and that impairment would entitle the child or the carer to a Government-funded disability support service. That is the first part of new clause 6—that is part one.The second part is in subclause (2) which replaces the 22 weeks’ paid parental leave provision with 26 weeks. Again it links those criteria in the same way as subclause (1) with multiple births a premature birth or a disabled child who is entitled to Government-funded disability support services.The difference between subclauses (1) and (2) is the length of time. In the first one subclause (1) we have replaced the 16-week provision with a 22-week provision and in subclause (2) we are replacing 22 weeks with 26 weeks. That would then of course be the path of the progressive extension of our current paid parental leave provisions to the outcome that is intended as the primary purpose of this bill which is to have New Zealand parents who are entitled to receive paid parental leave be in receipt of 26 weeks. So that is the point of subclauses (1) and (2). In this same amendment subclauses (3) and (4) are deleted.There is another amendment in Supplementary Order Paper 472 also relating to clause 6 and they are all consequential amendments. I am confident that no prior decisions of the Committee have ruled out any of those consequential amendments. I am not sure whether you would like to tell us that before you put the vote or whether you are going to allow for debate. I am assuming that you would not allow debate on clauses that have been—The CHAIRPERSON (Trevor Mallard): I probably should not offer you—are you inviting me to rule it out?Hon RUTH DYSON: Well actually what I was inviting you to do is just give us a hint as to whether you were going to tell us or not not actually ruling on it. It is quite an interesting situation that the Committee would find itself in where we would be debating presumably for some time because there are how many—if we go from paragraphs (a) to (k) in subclause (1) then we go from paragraphs (a) to (k) in subclause (2) and then there are subclauses (3) (4) and (5) all with different amendments. So I am assuming we can debate these until we in fact get the opportunity to vote in which case you might say that because of prior decisions of the Committee that particular amendment is ruled out.The CHAIRPERSON (Trevor Mallard): No it is not my intention to do that although it would be a bit of a nonsense to pass it having made the previous decision.Hon RUTH DYSON: Do I have to sit down when you are making a contribution like that? I was not quite sure whether you were interrupting or just having a—The CHAIRPERSON (Trevor Mallard): No I am an old-fashioned member—back and forth in the Committee is all right.Hon RUTH DYSON: I am really encouraging of this open style of debating. I will go back to Supplementary Order Paper 472 which is new clause 6. What it does in subclauses (1) and (2) is replace the term “16 weeks” with “22 weeks” in each of section 1A(c) section 9(1) and (3) section 19A(3) section 19B(2)(a) section 26(2) section 27(2)(c) section 32(d)(i) section 45(4)(a) and (c)(i) section 71A section 71L and section 71LA(1)(a). Those sections are sections of the primary Act which as we know is not a paid parental leave and employment protection Act. They are in fact sections of the 1987 Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act. I want to just briefly draw the attention of the Committee to that point because many members have assumed that we have had paid parental leave in New Zealand for a long time and when they have noted that this is legislation affecting the principal Act—for example the sections referred to in subclause (1) which I have just been through are all consequential amendments to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987. That was not legislation that gave New Zealand’s new parents entitlement to any payment. It was for employment protection only. That is the point of the primary legislation which clause 6(1) in paragraphs (a) though to (k) amends.I will now go on—again in Supplementary Order Paper 472—to subclause (2) paragraphs (a) through to (k). In paragraph (a) we have a replacement of words in section 1A(c). In paragraph (b) we have a replacement of words in sections 9(1) and (3). In paragraph (c) we have a replacement of words in section 19A(3). In paragraph (d) we have a replacement of words in section 19B(2)(a). In paragraph (e) we have a replacement of words in section 26(2). In paragraph (f) we have a replacement of words in section 27(2)(c). In paragraph (g) we have a replacement of words in section 32(d)(i). In paragraph (h) we have a replacement of words in sections 45(4)(a) and (c)(i). In paragraph (i) we have a replacement of words in section 71A. In paragraph (j) we have a replacement of words in section 71L. And as in subclause (1) paragraph (k) we have a replacement of words in section 71LA(l)(a) in paragraph (k) of subclause (2). In subclause (2) paragraphs (a) through to (k) the phrase “22 weeks” is replaced with “26 weeks”. And that would be the celebration. That would be when we move our legislation to what is accepted best practice by the World Health Organization and by 99.6 percent of the submitters to the committee on this legislation. They would move paid parental leave to 26 weeks.There are three further subclauses in this new clause 6. One is subclause (3) which replaces the words “10 weeks” with “16 weeks” in section 9(2) of the original legislation. Subclause (4) of this new clause 6 replaces in section 9(2) again the words “16 weeks” with “20 weeks”. Subclause (5) has a replacement of an entire part Part 2 in schedule 1AA. I assume that other colleagues are going to talk to that because it is actually quite substantial in that it covers all the transitional provisions.Part of the rigour of a Committee consideration is looking not just at the point of the legislation not just at the social financial or whatever impact it might have on citizens or communities but at the actual detail. We all know that the devil of legislation is in the detail and in this legislation there is quite a substantial amount. This bill has been around for a long time it has had a lot of changes and it is a member’s bill which means that the member has had to do a lot of this work on her own. When you are looking at three-quarters of a page of quite detailed and specific amendments inserting an entire new clause to the original legislation then it is my view that it is the responsibility of this Committee whether members are voting for or against the legislation in the end to make sure that the bill receives proper scrutiny and that all those details are correct.The final point that I would like to make is to seek the indulgence of the member in whose name this bill is to ask her to explain exactly where the previous date changes were made whether they were made in the Committee discussion prior to the House. Was it earlier this evening? I have not been able to find the Supplementary Order Paper on the Table and I am keen to make sure that before we reach the end of this debate that if those details have not been covered off—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I regret that I have to interrupt the member because the time has come for me to report progress if that is not misleading.Progress reported.Report adopted.