Roche Denise: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoche Denise: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11808. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take the first call in the Committee of the whole House stage on Part 1 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. Part 1 refers to—and it has been amended to ensure that it is up to date—replacing 18 weeks’ paid parental leave with 22 weeks. That reflects the decision from the Government Administration Committee—and I had the privilege of sitting on the select committee—that first of all we needed to update it to take into account the changes that were made last year basically as a result of Sue Moroney’s previous bill. But also 22 weeks is one baby step—excuse the pun—towards 26 weeks. Part 2 which I will not discuss now talks about extending that further to 26 weeks from 2018.The progression towards paid parental leave is an essential part of what we should be doing in this country to ensure that we do have a stable economy. People across the Chamber have been talking about costs and I think we need to bear in mind that the costs are actually more than covered if we look at the longer-term view. If we look at paid parental leave being at 26 weeks—although this Part 1 talks about 22 weeks which as I said is the baby step on the way—we are looking at a way of addressing the pay gap between men and women. We are looking at a way of ensuring that women who are having children are able to stay in the paid workforce and it addresses some of the inequities that occur in the workforce around pay. That is one area where it is good for the economy.The other place where it is good for the economy—22 weeks and then 26 weeks but ideally we would like to see 13 months which would bring us into line with many of the other OECD countries but let us focus on 22 weeks in Part 1. The other thing that this would be good for the economy around is the area of ensuring that newborns and their families are able to connect and make solid connections. It ensures that there is ample time for breastfeeding and it gives a startout that is a bit of stability for the family. When you do that you start to offset some of the potential problems that can occur further down the track. This is research that has been traversed time and time again. It is irrefutable. It is evidence-based that if we invest now in ensuring that we have stable families there are savings down the track in terms of the health system in terms of the corrections system and in terms of education failings—for all of those things there are savings there. So this short-term approach from that side of the Chamber saying “We are not going to support it because it costs this much.” is not taking into account the longer-term savings.The other area where this bill—and particularly this part the extension to 22 weeks and then to 26 weeks—is good for the economy is around the employers. We have now got a global labour market. We have got a situation here in New Zealand where in order for us to compete globally we need to be having a skilled workforce and employers are having to compete in that labour market to ensure that they get them. Our parental leave does not make it attractive for those skilled workers to remain in this country. Certainly if there are better family-friendly provisions in other countries and companies based overseas then we start to lose those people who could be contributing their expertise and their innovation to our economy which desperately needs that. We need that to solve some of the immense problems of the day—for example to address some of our issues around climate change. So it makes sense to extend paid parental leave as it says in Part 1 to 22 weeks and then to 26 weeks so that we can actually be an economy that can compete internationally.I think it is very short-sighted for the other side to suggest that this is going to cost too much when in fact that side has directed enormous amounts of funds at areas that we would see as not a priority—areas that do not have short or long-term benefits basically—things like roads of national significance which was an issue that was traversed a little bit today during question time.Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise for interrupting my colleague but she is ranging quite some distance from Part 1—DENISE ROCHE: Oh I did stray—you are quite right.Iain Lees-Galloway: —of this bill and in fact was talking about 26 weeks which is in Part 2.DENISE ROCHE: I was talking about 22 weeks.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Roads of national significance are not part of this bill.DENISE ROCHE: Sure back to babies. No you are quite right and I do apologise. I thank members this side of the Chamber for that. So basically 22 weeks in Part 1—we support that. We support it because it is a sensible progression from where we are at the moment which is 18 weeks through to 22 weeks and I will talk a little bit more about 26 weeks when we get to that part of the bill. Thank you.