Mallard Trevor: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3682] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 This new part will be vigorously debated by Labour members. There has been one of the sneakiest attempts I have ever seen to strip the working women of Auckland—and for that matter in a minor way the men as well—of their right to paid parental leave. This Government is trying by a change of employer to take away the current entitlements of the pregnant women of Auckland. Having Judith Collins as the Minister in the chair is the most massive irony because a woman from Auckland is taking from her sisters the right to paid parental leave. 
There are women who quite carefully and properly have timed their pregnancies in order to get paid parental leave. It is something that thousands of women including hundreds— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How do you do that? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Tau Henare wants to know how one times a pregnancy. I plead guilty to not having a lot of expertise in it myself but I want to make the point— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It appears as though there are no copies of new Part 12 on the Table at the moment. I am sorry to interrupt the member; no doubt he got his copy from his research unit which we do not have access to. I cannot see it; there are none on this side of the Table. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Please members. The floor is the Hon Gerry Brownlee’s. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: They are not here. I cannot see them on this side of the Table. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: If the member’s complaint is that there are no amendments from Steve Chadwick on the Table I think that is a legitimate complaint. Members should have access to the paperwork and I ask the Clerk’s Office to do the necessary work to bring the paperwork to the Table for them. But that should not in any way interrupt stymie or stop the flow of the debate. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This is a relatively simple matter. Under the paid parental leave legislation a woman has to work for a particular period of time—6 months—before she is entitled to paid parental leave. She has to be with an employer for that length of time. It is one of the debatable points of the legislation. Labour when last in Government considered whether that period should be reduced or whether it should be there at all. But it is clear that an entitlement is triggered by employment with a particular employer. 
The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill changes the employer without a proper transitional provision to carry forward the entitlement with the effect of taking away the entitlements of women in Auckland who are employed by any of the eight councils—the seven territorial local authorities and the one regional authority. I say to members I had some doubts about this provision. I was not sure when I first saw this provision. I said surely it would not be true and surely the right would be there. But then it was pointed out to me that firstly the provision binds the Crown and secondly—and even more interestingly—the KiwiSaver legislation has a transitional provision with regard to the employer. Why is people’s entitlement to KiwiSaver maintained with a change of employer but a woman who is pregnant does not have an entitlement to paid parental leave? It is a disgrace—an absolute disgrace—and it is shameful. 
I make it clear that this is yet another reason why this bill should go to a select committee. It should go to a select committee so that this cock-up—the one where John Banks can put in Sam’s replacement—can be fixed. It is a relatively simple matter of fairness. I am informed by my colleague Annette King that 50 percent of women’s pregnancies are planned so why should a woman employed by one of those councils who has planned her pregnancy around her entitlement to paid parental leave have that entitlement expunged? Why should she have that money taken from her as a result of this legislation? It might be all right for rich Tories.