Beaumont Carol: Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBeaumont Carol: Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 15 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17974. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): Part 1 of the Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill obviously is exciting a lot of attention—and it should because this is an important matter. In Part 1 we are talking about a staged process of making a very small but incremental improvement to paid parental leave. For that I have to say that it is a very good thing. It is good that we are making that improvement. Over a 2-year period 2 weeks of paid parental leave will be added from 1 April 2015 and another 2 weeks will be added from 1 April 2016. Finally it would seem that National members have got their heads around paid parental leave so that has to be a good thing and maybe that provides a basis to do a whole lot more.Maybe National should think now that it has got its head around it about whether perhaps it could do the right thing tonight and support Sue Moroney’s amendment on this part which actually does what is really needed—that is a good solid movement to 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. This is something that has been well considered in the Government Administration Committee deliberations on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I found it somewhat disturbing that the Minister of Labour could say that there had been no work done on this and no policy considerations and all of those things. Actually the select committee heard many submissions. The select committee looked at matters like the cost. One of the reasons the Government is saying that it is doing only 2 weeks in one year and 2 weeks in the next is that that is the financially responsible thing to do. Wellactually a lot of work was done on the costings—a lot of pretty robust measures—and the costs were not that significant when you offset them against some of the savings.If you add on top of that an understanding about the investment that is being made here—the investment in the people of this country and the future of this country—then this has to be a priority surely to goodness. Paid parental leave has to be a priority. It is good for the babies. It is good that they get that best start in life. Labour has very strong policy on giving children the best start including 26 weeks’ paid parental leave because that bonding as others have said is so important in the very early development stages of that child. It is time to establish breastfeeding and to try for people who are able to to have a child breastfeed exclusively for the first 6 months which has long been the World Health Organization standard. That is for good reason—it gives children immunity. It is proven to be useful in things like ensuring that there is less chance of things like asthma and in a whole bunch of other positive health outcomes.I have to say though that I do think the motivation of the Government in making the moves that are signalled in Part 1—these very small improvements to paid parental leave—is quite cynical. It is cynical because it has tested the waters it has heard what the public is saying and it can see there is a very strong desire for change. Families need this. As well as babies needing this families need this and women need this so that they can make ends meet and manage their household budgets so that women can manage their paid work and their time as a primary carer for a young baby and so that they can have a choice about spending time with their baby. The Government has heard that and cynically has put up something but it is very very small.I think it is interesting when one looks at the Minister’s media release on this. It goes to the conversation we had right at the start of this part where there was some discussion about what the Minister was covering off in the debate. I just want for the record to be very clear that Part 1 is essentially saying an extra 2 weeks’ leave from April next year and 2 weeks thereafter. It is not talking about extending eligibility to anybody who is not currently eligible. Maybe the Minister was just getting a bit excited and putting the context there and all of that; perhaps that is what it was about.But actually I think it was more cynical than that because when one looks at the media release around this it is the same—what would you call it—fudging really. It is fudging because it talks about extending parental leave payments to more workers—in particular to people who have recently changed jobs seasonal and casual workers and workers with more than one employer. I have to put on record that I absolutely think that that is the way we need to go because there are people who are currently excluded.Labour brought paid parental leave in back in 2002 and then extended it in 2004. Labour then extended it again to the self-employed in 2007—in fact I think the Hon Ruth Dyson might have been the Minister at the time; indeed the Hon Ruth Dyson has long had a commitment to this issue as has the Labour Party. But of course there are further extensions that are required. The Minister’s media release covers some of those people—but very cynically. If a person was to pick up this media release they would think this was all happening right now. Well let us get it really clear for the record. What is happening here with this bill the Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill is 2 more weeks’ paid parental leave from April next year and 2 more weeks the following April—no extension to new people. So it would be good if the Minister was able to get up and just clarify that himself to make sure that he has not misled anybody or caused any confusion on this important matter.Like my colleagues we do see that it is important to support any improvement in this area. To vote against something like this would be not only churlish; it would be tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater literally. This is animprovement but it could be so much more. We could actually be really meeting the needs of New Zealand families. We could be investing in our future.Another person whom I think it would be very good if she got up and spoke given that she is in the Chamber is the Hon Anne Tolley. I have got a lovely quote from her. She may not have heard it earlier but on paid parental leave Anne Tolley said: “This legislation … shows how the Labour-Alliance Government is stuck in the radical feminist era of the 1960s and 1970s … and is completely out of touch with the women of the 21st century and their diverse involvement in today’s labour force.” She said: “This is bad legislation. It is a travesty.” Well Minister I would love it if you could get up now and explain to this Committee why in 2002 paid parental leave was a travesty but now this small move by National is somehow the best thing that the Government has done for some time. Of course the Hon Judith Collins also had a similar sort of attitude. Hers is probably a little bit more timely in its kind of implication because the Hon Judith Collins in 2004 when Labour extended paid parental leave at that stage said: “It is another example of this Government using taxpayers’ money to try to win some votes.”I wonder whether people listening to this debate might ask themselves whether this is a cynical move—a very small improvement because there is a really strong demand that has developed particularly around the bill that Sue Moroney has been championing and that 26 for Babies has campaigned around and because there is such a groundswell of support. We are so close to an election that it has to be questioned whether this is just a cynical election manoeuvre particularly when you get a Minister who indicates that this legislation is going to do a great deal more than the bill before this Committee tonight is actually going to do.But there is an opportunity. There is an opportunity for all of us here to make this right. Let us actually do what the people of New Zealand would love to see us do. Let us support 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. It is affordable; the work was done. The proposal in Sue Moroney’s bill was also to phase it in but with a much stronger benefit to families. So from July 2014 there would be 18 weeks’ leave 22 weeks’ leave from July 2015 and 26 weeks’ leave from July 2017. Let us actually do something really significant that the families of this country will really benefit from. Let us support the amendment on Part 1. Let us make a real difference.