Seymour David: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionSeymour David: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11820. Text is subject to correction.]DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): The proposition in Part 1 of this bill is that the length of time for which paid parental leave is paid to new parents should be extended from what it presently is—18 weeks—to what the bill proposes which is 22 weeks. That is the question to be debated.If you will forgive me I have a recent experience on behalf of a friend who had a baby quite recently and had it very near to the time—1 April of this year—when the entitlement period under the current legislation was changed from 14 weeks up to 18 weeks. She was also aware at this time of other changes that were being made to paid parental leave on which I will not dwell as members are well aware of what those are. It is interesting to just get an insight into how much this change actually makes to the people watching this debate on TV or listening at home on their crystal sets because ultimately these bills are about the people of New Zealand and the access that they have to the resources of Government. It is interesting because she was quite keen to hear when the amendment would go through and the changes would occur and whether or not they would occur at such a time that if her baby was born in time she would access an additional 4 weeks’ leave. Who would not want to attract an extra 4 weeks of payment when they have just had a baby at a time when they are under some financial pressure?We can actually backcast what a 4-week shift from 18 weeks to 22 weeks might look like by looking at the experience of a person who had a baby right around the time there was a similar law change to what this amendment would propose occur on 1 January 2017 which occurred on 1 April 2016—to increase paid parental leave by 4 weeks. As I said she was interested in this change and in this occurrence but not wholly interested. I can tell you why that might be and it goes to the heart of the fact of this issue and it questions the reason why Parliament has devoted so much time to debating this matter because as an expectant mother she was embarking upon a voyage that will last for around about 20 years. As soon as one begins to debate the correct length of time for the Government to offer some support the question immediately turns to “Is 22 weeks the correct length of time to pay paid parental leave in the year of 2017?” which is as long as it will continue if indeed this part and Part 2 of the bill are passed by this House.It leads you to ask about other stages of development that we might equally have used to make an argument for the optimal length of time for the Government to use scarce taxpayer resources to give money to parents. Parents sitting at home might ask what about 22 weeks is so substantial. Is it not more important to extend paid parental leave to 40 weeks? If you get to 40 weeks you are at the stage when babies begin to crawl when they can pick up objects when they can wiggle. This is actually important because this part is fundamentally about a debate about what the optimal length of time is.What is on the table is 22 weeks. I would like to illustrate by contrast that there are some other developmental stages that are important in a baby’s life that might bring into question for members in the Chamber and those listening at home whether or not there really is so much wisdom—as the Opposition and the member in charge of the bill claim—in picking this time of 22 weeks for the bill. So I do think it is germane to raise the question of whether or not it should be 40 weeksbut what about another critical time to be at home with a child? That is the time of 52 weeks the time when a baby begins to understand simple instructions. That particular period is absolutely critical in a child’s development because so much of our brains and the way that they have developed and the reason that our brains are so much larger than other animals of similar size is that we have developed such complex language.Processing and developing language is actually a task that is critical to our development; in fact it drives much of our development. If we accept the premise of this part—that we must increase the entitlement of paid parental leave from 18 weeks to 22 weeks in order to improve the quality of children’s development—then we might ask why we are prepared to extend it only to a time that will not allow parents to benefit from this bill when children are developing language which is so important to our entire species and the development of our brains.But there are further stages in a child’s development that might equally have the question asked of them. Once you start to ask about 22 weeks you come up with so many other milestones that parents sitting at home know are equally important. They might ask about 104 weeks—that is language again so critical in the development of a child—when children are expected to join sentences together. That is a critical stage because the ability to formulate full sentences is absolutely critical in the development of any child. There is much research showing that the children who are confident and articulate are those who are able to succeed in a whole manner of ways in life and that might well be a good use of scarce taxpayer resources under a bill such as this. But again parents might ask if that is really the correct balance.You can actually carry on this debate quite extensively—perhaps as far as a child’s 260th week or 5 years of age when they begin to attend primary school. I have heard it debated that there should actually be 260 weeks of paid parental leave. Why stop here? If we accept the premise that parenting is so dependent on having paid parental leave then why stop at 22 weeks? It appears to be—Sue Moroney: Then any step toward that is a positive.DAVID SEYMOUR: I hear—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Kia ora tātou. The House is resumed. Members prior to the dinner hour we were debating Part 1 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. David Seymour had the call and he has 2 minutes and 11 seconds remaining should he wish to avail himself.DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you Mr Chairman and I do indeed wish to avail myself of this remaining 2 minutes and 11 seconds or whatever is now left of that as my contribution to the Committee stage debating Part 1 of this bill.Mr Chair when one of your fellow presiding officers was here I was just making the point that there are actually very interesting stages of development throughout a child’s life and the question of whether we should be voting in this Committee to extend the eligibility for paid parental leave from 18 weeks to 22 weeks on 1 January 2017 is really a question that has to be put in the context of those other developmental stages. Just to give you an idea I was referring to the development of language and the various stages of a child’s development at which language becomes an important factor because a child has reached a milestone in linguistic development and the way that that affects the development of brain capacity. Indeed language is very important as an explanation for why humans have much larger brains in comparison with their body size than other species.I would also preface that by talking about the very real personal experience of a close friend of mine who gave birth at or near 1 April this year when there was a 4-week increase in the period of eligibility for paid parental leave and the effect that that had on her. I just make the point that ultimately that particular increase although attractive was really not critical because it occurred in such a long context. The reason for that might be that this particular amendment will not affect the overwhelming majority of parents because as it has been noted in earlier debates there are approximately 60000 children born in New Zealand each year and only approximately 26000 parents actually take advantage of paid parental leave.The premise that we have been asked to accept by the Opposition and the member in charge of this bill is that paid parental leave makes such a substantial difference that it is critical to the upbringing of a child—that it is critical tonight that we increase the period of time for which a child qualifies as rapidly as possible and that we do that in time for 1 January next year. Yet how can it be simultaneously true that this 4-week increase is so important to the welfare of children and yet at the same time we find that the majority of parents will not be affected whatsoever because they do not take up any amount of paid parental leave for any length of time?The other interesting thing about this particular amendment to move from 18 weeks to 22 weeks is that it actually is very poorly targeted at people who really need additional care and additional resource. You might contrast that with an amendment the Government has recently made to paid parental leave that extends it for babies who are born prematurely. You can look at the data that this Government increasingly has when it chooses to direct the State’s resources to increasing outcomes for children. What we find—for instance from the outcomes of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study which was presented in an excellent lecture to parliamentarians over the dinner break and it is a shame that more did not take advantage of it—is that actually this bill would make an extension of State resource to around about 45 percent of kids born in an indiscriminate manner.In reality this Government now has a lot of data through its social investment framework to show that rather than applying wholesale increases and extra resources for an additional 4 weeks to the 45 percent of children whose parents have self-selected to apply for and receive their paid parental leave entitlement this bill is actually going to lack the targeting that could be so much better in terms of getting outcomes by applying resources to those who are in greatest need. Let me give you a few examples from this rich data set that the Government now has available and that we should be applying scarce resources to rather than applying them wholesale—Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Although the member is speaking about the bill in broad terms he is not really addressing Part 1 which I think he should be doing at this point.DAVID SEYMOUR: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chair I can absolutely assure you that I am speaking to the question of whether this part which extends resources wholesale to a wide range of the population is the most efficient way to apply resources.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): OK well I am ready to make a ruling. The member will know I have already given one signal to keep it narrow. Although the member may well have been speaking to that up here  in his head it needs to be delivered because it is not what he is thinking that is in or out as far as relevancy goes; it is what he says. If he can keep bringing that back to his 22 weeks over the next minute and 14 seconds he will be doing great.DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you Mr Chair. I suspect that my greatest challenge of all is to ensure not only that I am thinking it here in my head and speaking it here with my voice but also that you Mr Chair are hearing it there in your ears.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Don’t go there OK?DAVID SEYMOUR: Let me continue by saying that it has been raised in this debate—by members who are in favour of the bill and members who are opposed to the bill and opposed to this part and in favour of this part—that it is the best or in some speakers’ cases an inefficient use of the Government’s resource to have a wholesale increase in the entitlement for all parents from 18 weeks to 22 weeks when arguably given the resources that the Government has in terms of data it could be better targeting that resource. That is a very important consideration for members of this Committee listening to the debate but also for those people at home and those parents at home who might ask: if we are going to have a social contract where we pay an amount of tax—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): David Seymour final call.DAVID SEYMOUR: If we are going to have a policy where a scarce taxpayer resource is utilised in order to achieve better outcomes for all of our children in this country then would it not be better to ensure that that investment is informed by the best data that we have? Simply saying that we wish to extend leave from 18 weeks to 22 weeks on 1 January 2017 is far too arbitrary given that there is so much need out there and we need to do so much better for our children. Yet we find ourselves with an Opposition that is not prepared to use the relevant data and is not prepared to target resources towards need but is instead content to rather arbitrarily—and as I said in the case of my friend it does seem rather arbitrary in the wider consideration of parenting that is required—try to extend paid parental leave to 22 weeks on a particular day.Why might that be? Well we actually can look at the motivations behind a part such as this and the history of those who have proposed such parts because public policy exists in a political context. Public policies that are not politically sustainable will not be sustained in a country so it is worthwhile examining what previous speakers have said about initiatives such as this and their attempts to justify them.As far back as 2002 Labour introduced paid parental leave—I think it was to only 12 weeks. Labour members would have argued at that time that it simply was not fiscally responsible to further extend paid parental leave. Of course what is interesting about 2002 is that it was an election year so I am building the case that we are not talking about extending paid parental leave from 18 weeks to 22 weeks because there is any evidential basis that this is the best use of taxpayer funds for making children better and for allowing them to develop into stronger and better citizens. There is a history where actually this type of policy has been proposed in years such as 2002 which was an election year. Labour again moved a change in the law similar to this in 2004 at exactly the time that there was a major change in the polling fortunes of the party that year. The interesting thing is that those were quite modest extensions of paid parental leave. They got us from zero to 12 weeks and 12 to 14 weeks. But the interesting thing is that at that time the Government had much much much larger fiscal surpluses than it has now.This is why targeting is so important. Today we live in a time when compared with 2002 or 2004—when we had large fiscal surpluses and political pressure on Labour in Government—there have been modest extensions. The extensions today are constrained by there being a much much smaller amount of fiscal headroom and frankly a lot more pressure on taxpayers who have suffered from acute fiscal drag since that time. When we look back at the history we can unpack some of Labour’s motivations.It is not about the welfare of children. If it was why do only 46 percent of parents who are eligible actually take it up? It is not about stages of development because as I have argued there are so many other critical stages of development that 22 weeks or even 26 weeks—which I am looking forward to debating in Part 2—will miss. It is simply about political posturing on behalf of the Labour Party to attempt to raise the age of entitlement and when you gather up the evidence that we have seen throughout the history of this particular topic when you gather up the evidence from child development and when you gather up the fiscal record of various Governments when they have attempted to increase the eligibility for paid parental leave what you find is that—[Bell rung]Iain Lees-Galloway: Thank God for that.