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: 03 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1085. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 5 November.New clause 6 (continued)CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka):I understand that we are debating new clause 6—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): That is exactly what I just said.CHRIS HIPKINS: —in the current debate. That is what he just said. I was busy reading the clause and so I did not want to get it wrong right from the beginning.I have a few questions for the member in the chair Sue Moroney regarding clarification around how she arrived at some of the provisions in this particular new clause. The new clause replaces 16 weeks with 22 weeks effectively for those who give birth to two or more children as a result of one pregnancy—twins or triplets or even more than that; or for those who have a premature baby born before 36 weeks of gestation; or finally for those whose child has an impairment that would entitle them to a Government-funded disability support service.What I would really like to ask is particularly around Government-funded disability support services and I wonder whether the member in charge of the bill could clarify for me what some of those support services would be and in fact whether increasing the period of paid parental leave would likely have any impact on the Government-funded support services that they might get. Various support services might have a range of tests that one has to meet in order to get them so could extending paid parental leave in fact result in someone not being eligible because of the fact that they get paid parental leave and are thereby disqualified from getting paid parental leave if you like?I just want to get perhaps an explanation from the member in charge of the bill that we would not be doing that with this clause. I would hate for the situation where we created a circular problem that made it impossible for somebody to qualify under that particular provision. I do not know this area very well so an explanation of the sorts of disability support services that might be available would I think be very helpful to the Committee.I think that the provision extending paid parental leave for those who have premature babies and for those who have multiple births is a very sensible one. It will significantly reduce the cost of this bill of this legislation. Although I personally would like to see the Government spending more money on providing financial support to parents with new babies I want to congratulate the member on the steps that she has taken to try to get some compromise with the Government.I wonder whether in fact she could elaborate on the steps taken to try to achieve that so that we can actually have some surety that these particular amendments will be able to succeed. As I said although it would not be my first choice to reduce the number of weeks I personally support the original intention of the legislation which was 26 weeks’ paid parental leave for all parents of newborn children. This does raise some wider issues. I think that one of the questions really should be whether in fact those parents who fall into this category—have multiple births have children with disabilities or have premature babies—once we get to that point of 26 weeks of paid parental leave whether in fact the overall concept of paid parental leave should be changed to reflect those additional needs and the additional costs that those families are likely to face.I think it has raised an interesting debate that might be picked up further down the track. I think those are quite interesting issues. I suspect that they probably did not get picked up—or maybe they did come up earlier on during the debate. The member in charge of the bill might be able to elaborate on those further for us. I will leave my questions at that. The first one certainly is a relatively technical question which I would quite like to hear from the member in charge of the bill on.TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First):I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this bill. Around new clause 6 New Zealand First is particularly supportive of this. Personally my sister is the mother of twins who arrived early. They were delivered at National Women’s Hospital—I am not sure whether National Women’s Hospital is called National Women’s Hospital any more—and placed into the special baby care unit.I think you have to be in that environment to truly understand the extent of the stress on the parents when they have children in the special baby care unit. If you live in the main centre you have to travel back and forward several times a day to actually be with the babies because there is no accommodation provided or there was not at that time. So there are costs around that. Just the fact that you have got very little babies struggling for their lives inside the special baby care unit to provide support like this is not just critical. So we move away with a clause such as this from a conversation around bonding or all these other things but actually doing so is an absolute necessity for some of these families.Also for the babies and families in these circumstances there are often so many special requirements or needs—not necessarily just at that front end of delivery when the babies are so early and so small but afterwards when there are specialists required and so on and so forth. It is interesting.I would reiterate the point made by Chris Hipkins around just seeking wider clarification from the member who has put forward this amendment around how she sees that 26 weeks would pan out across the disability support services. I ask whether she has any concept of how many people this might affect downstream or any other technical details that I know she will have worked on because this bill was incredibly well worked on to start with. It was well processed it was well priced out and it was well traversed with the general public. It had a lot of support with the public in the last Parliament and it had a lot of support in this House in the last Parliament. We are yet to see whether it will gain the support that it needs in order to put something that is desperately needed with regard to support for babies and families at this very vulnerable end.New Zealand First will continue to support the bill for as long as we can. I do not think I need to elaborate any further in my contribution with regard to this particular clause but as I say I would support the member in the chair taking a call so that she could elaborate on the disability support services around that 26-week period and the work done behind it to advance the cause for these people who find themselves through no fault of their own in circumstances where their babies are in the special baby care unit. They need more support the babies need more support and there are ongoing costs for them in this period of time to support those newborns. Kia ora.CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston):I am really interested in new clause 6 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill and the extension that is put in here—from 16 weeks to 22 weeks and then on to 26 weeks—and I really would like to know from the member in the chair Sue Moroney what advice she has received about the financial implications of these changes. I know that the member had been discussing with the Government the fact that although her preference was to continue offering 26 weeks’ paid parental leave to all new parents this was almost a compromise given the Government felt that it was unaffordable despite the member’s own costings saying that that was not the case. So what I am interested in is the costings that the member has come up with and I would like to see whether in fact they would be affordable for any Government to be able to take on at this point.I was interested in the Families Commission submission on this bill as well. It stated that in 2009 when the effects of the financial crisis were most evident eight countries made changes to increase financial benefits for parental leave and actually the change in one of those countries was for multiple births. So eight countries actually increased the financial arrangements they had for paid parental leave and found that it was actually the fiscally responsible thing to do and actually it really helped during an economic crisis in terms of the benefits that came from it. So I would really like to know from the member whether she received any advice on that and whether actually she knows what those eight countries were that extended their paid parental leave provisions and how it actually helped them during difficult economic times. I think that would be something good for this Government to take on board despite the fact that I have heard from the member of the compromise that is being made here in terms of changing the availability from being for all new parents and new births to being multiple births children with disabilities and premature births. I would really like to know the financial implications.I would really also like to know from the member what the long-term savings will be. There is some research out there particularly in relation to premature births multiple births and children with disability about the increased importance of breastfeeding exclusively for those first 6 months. I think I have seen some pretty serious statistics that outline that those babies who are not exclusively breastfed in those first 6 months are 14 times more likely to die than those who are which is a pretty serious statistic. I think that one came from Unicef so I would be interested to know from the member whether she had further information along those lines because I think this Parliament should take that kind of information quite seriously. With regard to premature babies and to babies who are born as part of a multiple birth—and I know that multiple birth babies are more likely to be of a lower weight when born so there are risks there—I ask what the benefits are to having 6 months’ exclusive breastfeeding that the member has come across.I am also really interested in a submission on this bill in relation to what we are discussing in this clause that was put forward by the Children’s Commissioner which pointed out that the current rate of paid parental leave is the same rate regardless of whether there is one or more children born—so regardless of whether it is a single birth or a multiple birth. The Children’s Commissioner actually put forward in its submission that it disadvantaged parents of multiple birth babies—I am not sure whether I am phrasing it quite right. I know that that point made in the submission by the Children’s Commissioner is slightly different to what is in the clause but it does touch on the issue of multiple births and how there needs to be some different arrangements made to take into consideration the additional pressures that are on the parents who give birth to more than one baby at one time. I am really interested in the long-term costings or savings that could be made in respect of the health of these children.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call the next member I just want to ask people to take their seats and then indicate that what we are discussing at the moment is a very narrow matter. It is quite marginal as to whether it should have been ruled in or out given the fact that the earlier substantive clauses have in fact been rejected by the Committee. So I ask the members who are going to speak to speak to the clauses on the two Supplementary Order Papers that we are currently referring to and not to submissions on other matters.JAN LOGIE (Green):I rise to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 15 which is specifically around the provisions in the case of multiple births in the case of children being born before 37 weeks’ gestation or in the case where a child is born with an impairment that would entitle a person to a Government-funded disability support service. This is the context of the Supplementary Order Paper. It is a reduction of the bill—on which sadly we have already lost the vote in this Committee. It is to reduce it down. Rather than having the 26 weeks apply to all children—because tragically that was not deemed by this Committee to be deliverable by this country despite the overwhelming number of submissions in favour of it—the member Sue Moroney has brought to the Committee this Supplementary Order Paper that has a much reduced level of provision to meet the absolutely most important need that we have in our community which is in the instances of premature births multiple births and where there is a case of disability.I would like to spend a little bit of time just actually focusing in on those families and what their needs are. We did hear through the submission process of people who had multiple births. They talked about their babies waking up at different times during the night so that when they tried to go back to work with the provision of paid parental leave being at the 12-week point they were going back to work without having had any sleep whatsoever basically. Their babies were not waking at the same time every night so they were feeding basically the entire night. So there is a very real demonstrated need that we were informed about for the provision of paid parental leave in the cases of multiple births.I think that anyone in this Committee if they have not had twins or triplets should imagine themselves in the shoes of that family trying to actually be new parents of multiple children at once. I think that most of us here would have some empathy and want to give them the time of at least 6 months to get to grips with that job for the benefit of their family and for the benefit of their babies. We know that actually the health benefits of that to those babies are just unchallengeable; that they are lifetime benefits.I will just talk a little bit more about premature births too because approximately 10 percent of all babies born in this country are premature. That is over 5000 babies a year who are born premature. The consequences of that—we heard from somebody who presented to the select committee who I think brought all of us to tears. Before the time of parental leave she had had a premature birth. Her baby had been in an intensive care unit and she was having to leave her baby to go to work. I am not a parent but the thought of that to me is just completely gut-wrenching—giving birth to a child this most special time in your life and your baby is in an intensive care unit. What level of stress and anxiety you must have and fear that you would lose that baby and then you have to go to work. It is a horrific thought as are the consequences of it as well.What makes Supplementary Order Paper 15 so important is that when the baby comes out hopefully willingly and well and healthy then in effect the process starts. Whereas most women would have access to parental leave from a full-term point these women would have to take paid parental leave from a much earlier point which actually means that the time around breastfeeding is much reduced. That time for bonding in the flesh is much reduced if you are constrained to 14 or 16 weeks so 26 weeks is absolutely critical.If we think that that is applying in about 10 percent of cases in New Zealand then it is really hard to see—and I would like to hear a Government member argue against why you would not want to provide that bare minimum of 26 weeks to families in the case of a premature birth. And I would also say in the case of disability that that clearly is also a point of very real need.SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill):Thank you for allowing me to take this call on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I first want to give Sue Moroney the member who brought this bill to the House a concession. I would like to compliment her on her motives for bringing this bill to the House because at the end of the day this bill is about giving kids the best start in life.This Government cares about children and I care about children. I have two children myself and both of them were premature. My child Christabel was born in her 33rd week. We hung on with my son and he was born in his 36th week. So I acknowledge the hardship that people face when they have premature babies. But this Government believes that one size does not fit all and we are taking an all-round approach to the welfare of children. That is why unfortunately we do not support this bill at this time.To explain that further it is up to the Government to decide how to spend and how to be fiscally responsible and achieve results for kids to have the best start in life. As part of that we have already extended paid parental leave from 14 to 18 weeks. That has been well received and we will continue to look at it as this country continues to grow and become more fiscally strong.The other thing we are doing is investing in other measures such as extending free GP visits for children from 6 to 13—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am not sure whether the member was in the Chamber at the time but I did give quite a general warning about the narrowness of new clause 6. I think that having warned Opposition members about the narrowness it should apply to everyone. So can we address this clause not the second reading. Thank you.SARAH DOWIE: Thank you Mr Chair. Although we can acknowledge that it is certainly a hard time for parents who have premature babies and babies with disabilities there is provision for extending paid parental leave from 14 to 18 weeks. As we move forward as a country we will again look at this issue but we cannot afford to increase funding to 6 months’ paid parental leave at this point. Again I acknowledge the hardships that families find themselves in but there is support. There is support throughout the medical profession. Unfortunately we cannot support this bill at this time.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):It is my pleasure to make another contribution to the debate on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. As you have pointed out we are debating only new clause 6 which is very specific in that it is a clause that amends I guess the length of leave and also narrows the criteria for those who are eligible for parental leave. All of the reasons that that has been done have been well traversed in this Committee. It is obviously with some reluctance from the original drafter of the bill that we are now looking at the consideration of that extended eligibility being only for those families that have one of three criteria: multiple births—multiple births during one gestation; that is clear in Supplementary Order Paper 15—premature births or giving birth to a child who has a disability.I want to ask a couple of questions based on those criteria though of the member in the chair Sue Moroney. My colleague Chris Hipkins raised a few questions around this. I want to support those and add in a different one. New clause 6 states that this applies “to 1 or more children before 37 weeks of gestation where the child or children survive birth for the duration of the parental leave payment; or to a child whose impairment would entitle the person to a government-funded disability support service.” Would that be within Ministry of Education guidelines or for instance Work and Income guidelines? Obviously there are disability allowances that are within Work and Income that I think probably have broader criteria than you are likely to get within the very narrow scope the Ministry of Education applies to extra entitlements for children. So what are the criteria for that Government-funded disability support? I would hope they would be reasonably broad.The other additional interesting issue I guess is that there are some impairments or disabilities that are not yet recognised by the Government or do not receive Government-funded support directly but have a significant effect on a parent or caregiver. One of two particular types of support that are now becoming a bit more frequent is for children who are born with foetal alcohol syndrome for instance. The Ministry of Social Development is increasingly I think putting in additional support around caregivers who may be caring for children who are found to have foetal alcohol syndrome but it is not well developed. It seems to be ad hoc. I do not believe there is a firm Government policy yet; there should be. The Health Committee which did some excellent work under Paul Hutchison on the first 100 days of a child’s life did look at the need for us to do more work around foetal alcohol syndrome and to formulate a plan. I think the country that has probably done the most and that has gone the furthest is Canada. It has a way of recognising and diagnosing that is not yet well established in New Zealand. It is a bit ad hoc but I would like to think that it would be eligible under this clause so I ask for some clarification from the member in the chair as to whether or not she would anticipate that as well.Equally children who are perhaps born to parents who are on a methadone programme—it may not be that those parents have ongoing care of that child as these children are frequently removed. I note that the clause would of course allow caregivers to be eligible for this as well which I think is really important. Often these children are actually premature so they would probably be covered that way. But those who would not be covered often remain hospitalised because of essentially the addiction they are born with and therefore withdraw from. That has additional costs as well. It would probably not be considered a Government-funded disability but it certainly has significant consequences. So did the member consider for instance whether the length of stay in hospital would become a criterion? Premature birth obviously indicates that yes that would be the case but I know of families where children are born with heart conditions for instance that may not be considered a long-term disability but it is a health impairment that at times requires lengthy hospitalisation and I do think it is worthy of consideration.SUE MORONEY (Labour):I thank members for their contributions to the debate that we have had so far on new clause 6. I just wanted to put a little bit of context around why we have got clause 6 coming forward in the shape of a Supplementary Order Paper—in fact two Supplementary Order Papers which makes it quite difficult to debate—so that members could understand that because it forms part of the history of this debate and what we have done with this bill.Before I do that can I just take the opportunity to acknowledge that I have had the first acknowledgment from the Government benches for bringing this issue forward. Gosh it has taken almost 3 years to get that but today finally a Government member actually said that this is a good debate for our country to be having. That is certainly a slight change in attitude from the Government benches so I think that is worthwhile acknowledging.We are debating these new clauses—well this new clause I should say because this is the debate on clause 6—as two separate Supplementary Order Papers for the following reason. We had very good advice from officials at the Government Administration Committee. In fact the select committee process on this bill was very robust. We had official advice from a range of ministries. It was really a very good example of having a whole-of-Government response to an initiative because we had officials from the Ministry of Education the Ministry of Health the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment Treasury and the Inland Revenue Department all in the room advising us for this select committee process. They were able to take my humble member’s bill which I think initially had just five clauses in it—I thought I could get away with you know a two-sided piece of paper that would deliver 26 weeks’ paid parental leave and found that as a private member it was not quite that simple; almost but not quite that simple.New clause 6 was something that was discussed substantially at the select committee because the officials advised us that in drafting this bill what would be best would be to describe each of the three phases of the coming in of this bill. I had designed it so that the 26 weeks would not come in all in one financial year and that it would be staggered over the course of 3 years. The advice from the officials was that that was best done by separate clauses rather than actually lumping it all together in one clause as I had done.In the normal path of things the select committee would have agreed that that was a very sensible thing to do we would have reported back the bill and it would already have had clause 6 in it as an amendment from the select committee. That could not happen because of the politics that was being played in the select committee at that time. What in fact happened was that the National Party members asked me for an extension of time to report the bill back to the House because they wanted to consider accepting my proposal. I agreed because although I sniffed the scent of a political game I did not want to do anything that would disadvantage New Zealand families from having this opportunity to actually get 26 weeks’ paid parental leave.So I took the National Party members at their word. I took them at their word because they said to me that if they made any changes to paid parental leave—any improvements—it would be done in my bill in my name because it was already in front of Parliament. What transpired is that they spent the next 2 months twiddling their thumbs playing for time using delaying tactics not considering that option at all and then they voted down the bill at select committee.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I think this is now either the third or fourth time that I have issued a warning to the Committee about the fact that this is a very narrow debate and a historical going over of what happened at the select committee—not on these clauses—cannot possibly be in order. So can I ask the member in charge of the bill to come back to the very very narrow debate that we are going to have if it is to continue.SUE MORONEY: Sure; thank you for the advice and the guidance. I probably did get a little distracted because I was talking about the reasons why clause 6 is actually in a Supplementary Order Paper. It was because we could not conclude as a select committee that what we had previously agreed on would be some sensible amendments to the bill. We could not agree on that as a select committee so I as a member had to bring them forward as a Supplementary Order Paper and one of those was in fact clause 6.Clause 6 of course had to be amended again by another Supplementary Order Paper once I had determined as a member that I wanted to try to reach a compromise. That compromise has been traversed in the course of this debate. Members have asked me what the cost differentiation is of the compromise that is embodied in clause 6. Effectively it brings the cost of this bill down from $50 million in the first financial year to just $6 million in the first financial year.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National):I move That the question be now put.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):I am delighted to have an opportunity to talk about clause 6 in these Supplementary Order Papers 15 and 472. I do want to acknowledge the member Sue Moroney whose Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill these Supplementary Order Papers are for for showing in a way the incredible determination that is sometimes required to get things to happen remembering that if clause 6 helps one family—one household one baby—it is worth fighting for even though it is not what was set out at the beginning. I think it is a credit to Sue Moroney that she has agreed to develop clause 6 with that in mind. I think there was a huge longing from right across Parliament that we do something much bigger and better but this is what is happening.I would like to address specifically in clause 6 the issues around children with an impairment. We have heard a lot about premature birth and multiple births and some about disability but today is the International Day of Persons with Disabilities. I want to talk about children born with an impairment and how important clause 6 is to them and their families and how a decent society—and we hear a lot about vulnerable this and vulnerable that in this Chamber—would look after these families first and would look after these families not only at a time of physical stress and cost but of huge psychic shock. I really do commend the member for recognising the importance of paid parental leave of 26 weeks for families whose child is born with or who develops an impairment often as a result of birth trauma. Having seen other people with whom I have connected go through this—and I feel fortunate not to have gone through it myself—I know there is tremendous shock and grief when a child is born with an impairment.The first thing that happens is the grief cycle and that takes a while to work through. It is a cycle of denial anger depression fear—all of those things we experience when our hopes for our newborn child are shattered. Part of that is because as a society we do not celebrate the importance of children no matter how different they are from each other no matter how different or so-called not normal they are. We do not have a society that is particularly tolerant. I do believe that this clause is actually upholding and celebrating and recognising difference. I would never want to romanticise the experience for parents. The best thing we can do is acknowledge that there is a grief cycle that it takes time to go through before—and this is what usually happens—that family comes to some kind of terms.But in order for that family to come to terms and start dealing with and living with the challenge that has been put out and recognising loving and celebrating their child as they are and what is needed for that child they need the support of the State. They do not need to be going to work; they need to be at home. They need to have that financial support so that that grief cycle can be worked through so that they can start looking for the social support counselling therapy education and understanding of exactly what it is that they are dealing with because they do not know—it is all new. I had a connection whose child was born with Down’s syndrome who is a beautiful child with much potential but that initial stage was very painful. It was very hard on the parents and the family because remember it is not just the baby and the parents during that first stage; it is also the other siblings. There is a huge shock that has to be worked through.Paid parental leave is not a luxury. It is not an expense we cannot afford. It is a total investment in making sure that those families can actually build a life. It is not very much to ask of the rest of us—those who have been fortunate enough at that stage to have healthy babies with no impairments—to provide that support. So I am fully in support of the idea of 26 weeks’ paid parental leave for a child whose impairment would entitle the person to Government-funded disability support. I think that is the very least we can do. If we do not and if we assume that parents are going to just adapt there will be suffering and there will also be opportunities missed. The parents should not be back at work when they are going through this process of trying to acknowledge what has happened and what needs to happen. So I am very much respecting the member today for acknowledging that and saying how important that is. Children born with an impairment can have a great life. I know this because—IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):I appreciate the opportunity to address new clause 6 in the two Supplementary Order Papers and I thank the member Sue Moroney for explaining that there are two Supplementary Order Papers. I have not been particularly part of this debate and I realised I was looking at the old one not the new one so we have got Supplementary Order Paper 15 which amends Supplementary Order Paper 472. New clause 6 replaces “16 weeks” with “22 weeks” in the provisions that relate to a person who gives birth to either two or more children as a result of one pregnancy or where the child is born with an impairment that would entitle that person to a Government-funded disability support service. The first that I noticed is that the amendment is from 16 weeks to 22 weeks. I note that the legislation as it still is on Legislation.govt.nz still says 14 weeks. I appreciate that this is the transition that the Government has actually followed from 14 to 18 weeks but the 16 weeks do not kick in until July next year. I just want to check with the member that this is an appropriate amendment from 16 weeks to 22 weeks given that the current provision is for 14 weeks notwithstanding the fact that the Government has changed the law to 16 weeks. So that is just a matter of clarification. It would be useful to make sure that we are clear on that.I am also interested to know why the 22 weeks and the 26 weeks were chosen. I appreciate the rationale that the member has given given that the original intention was to shift to 26 weeks for all parents. But having a look around the world at overseas examples where there is extra provision given for multiple births there seems to be quite a range in different countries as to what additional amount of time is given to parents who do have multiple births. Actually I could not find a lot of evidence of extra time given to parents where the child is born with some form of impairment so I would be interested to know what the evidence was that the member used to land on 22 weeks in the case of new clause 6(1) and 26 weeks in the case of new clause 6(2). Obviously it is important if we are going to narrow the focus of this legislation down—which is what new clause 6 does; it is a narrowing of the bill down to a smaller number of parents—that that is being done with some kind of evidence base. I know that the member wanted to use a strong evidence base in the wider bill. I think it is important regardless of what the purpose of the narrowing is that clause 6 places upon the legislation that that is still done with an evidence base. From my very quick reading there seems to be quite a number of divergent views around the world about what an appropriate additional amount of time should be for people with multiple births.I also raise the question whether the provision for children who suffer an impairment that would entitle them to Government-funded disability support is broad enough. I think another member raised the question of foetal alcohol syndrome. There is a range of impairments that will require much more additional attention from parents for those children who are not necessarily covered by legislation. I appreciate this is probably a matter of definition. It is a matter of having a clause here that is easy to define and that has a narrow scope. I appreciate a lot of this has to do with the narrowing of the scope to reduce the cost of the legislation but I do wonder whether the member took that into consideration and whether there was any consideration for those impairments that fall outside of that very narrow scope.There is also the question of 37 weeks’ gestation. I have not heard yet an explanation as to why that number of 37 weeks was chosen. I am sure there are good reasons for it but that again is a specific number that has been chosen. There are examples of children who have been born viable after 37 weeks but still come with the challenges of being premature.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National):I move That the question be now put.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes64New Zealand National 60; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes57New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments 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 add new clause 6 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendments to 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.Amendments 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 add new clause 6 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.New clause 7The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): We now come to new clause 7 and Sue Moroney’s amendments to Supplementary Order Paper 472 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 15 and the substantive amendment inserting new clause 7. Can I warn the Committee again that this is a very very narrow debate the principle having already been decided and remembering that it is a clause and not a part.SUE MORONEY (Labour):Thank you for the opportunity to rise and attempt to explain why we have got a new clause 7 in the bill. I will try not to stray too much into the debate that was going on in the Government Administration Committee. It is quite hard to do when debating new clause 7 and others like it because these were debated in quite a lot of detail in the select committee. It was difficult to go through what we thought was a really robust debate and get good discussion across all parties in the select committee only to find that right at the eleventh hour it was the Government MPs who would not support the bill and therefore any of the work that we had all done together including new clause 7.New clause 7 does actually again describe I think the difference between a bill that has been drafted by a member and one that has been drafted by the Government. My double-sided two-page bill attempted to bring in 26 weeks’ paid parental leave for everyone currently eligible for it but fell short in the way that it had been drafted so we were given advice at the select committee that there were in fact a broader number of regulations under the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act that also needed to be amended to bring them into line with what I was substantively trying to do with the rest of that Act. That Act of course is the one that was brought in by a Labour Government actually in 2002. At the time there were big debates about whether we ought to have any paid parental leave at all.The regulations that are described in new clause 7 come from that period of time when we were bringing in a completely new system that we had not had in New Zealand at all so it was quite a complex exercise. It involved having the main body of the Act and regulations. Those regulations of course have been changed many times over that period of time because despite what the Government has tried to argue actually when Labour was in Government it actually not only introduced paid parental leave but amended it and improved it on three occasions during the course of its 9 years in Government. The current Government is inclined to say: “You know if you wanted to improve paid parental leave why didn’t you do it when Labour was in Government?”. Well we did on three occasions and many of these regulations are the ones that actually address that.New clause 7 on the advice from the officials would bring all of the other parts of the regulations in the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Regulations in line with having the 16 weeks that the Government—actually it is a small triumph and victory in the journey of this bill to get the Government to increase paid parental leave to 16 weeks. New clause 7 says that in a whole bunch of regulations where you have done that—and the 16 weeks will be coming in on 1 July 2015 next year—my amendment aims to increase that from the 16 weeks that the Government has agreed to up to 22 weeks in the first instance by 1 July 2015. That would be the first step.Of course as we know from the previous debate that would be for the particular three groups that I have identified in an attempt to get some improvement for a group that I think are particularly needy. In fact the Multiple Birth Association said it is not a want for the members of its association to have 26 weeks’ paid parental need; it is an absolute need. They were quite upset at the debate that happened in previous clauses when the Government said that it had a whole range of other payments already available to them. Actually most of those payments are not available to people with multiple births at all because they would get those payments if they had an older sibling for the twins or the triplets who have just been born and in many instances that just is not the case.New clause 7 is amending the various regulations. It is making sure that they would be consistent with the substantive part of the Act that I was aiming to improve. It does it in two tranches. It would bring the regulations in line with having 22 weeks’ paid parental leave for parents who have the joy of a multiple birth—can I say the joy of a multiple birth—for parents who have a baby who is born prematurely or parents who have a child with a disability.KEVIN HAGUE (Green):This is my first call in the Committee stage on this bill. I take the call actually largely because of the extreme narrowing of focus. It was interesting to hear in the previous speech Sarah Dowie speak about her experience as a parent of premature babies. I am sure I am not alone in this Committee in speaking as a parent of a child with disabilities. I want to pick up on some of the questions that I believe are unanswered about the scope of the provisions in this new clause 7 in Supplementary Order Paper 15 and in particular an issue that was raised by Jacinda Ardern in relation to babies with cardiac conditions.A cardiac condition in and of itself—I am not sure and I would be interested in the advice of the member in the chair Sue Moroney as to whether or not such a condition would qualify the parents of a child with such a condition for this extended parental leave in this new clause 7. Those children may well have other disabilities that are not yet apparent. At the point that a child is born the medical staff and all of those surrounding that child are focused on keeping the child alive and dealing with the cardiac condition that the child presents with. Many of the other disabilities that frequently accompany such a cardiac condition will not become apparent until later in life. So very clearly that is a child with disabilities but whether that child will qualify under the definition that is in new clause 7 I think is something that is very important for us to tease out.It is gone now but the paediatric cardiology ward at Green Lane Hospital was a very very sad place to be. It was filled with babies in incubators babies otherwise hooked up to monitors and other machines babies on very heavy medications and babies who in many cases had experienced or would experience in that first part of their lives open-heart surgery. It was a ward that was populated by parents who were living in a daze. They were completely disconnected from their ordinary lives from the world outside of that paediatric cardiology ward. Those were parents who were in desperate need—desperate need—of support of time out to be with their baby and of time out to adjust to those new circumstances. Those parents are usually sleep-deprived. I understand of course that that is a common experience for parents but for parents of babies who are at risk of dying from the impairment that they have sustained the particular shock is extraordinary.And it goes on. Even if those parents are lucky enough to have their baby come home with them I can assure the Committee that the anxiety continues—the anxiety of your child being asleep and not knowing whether they will wake; the anxiety of not knowing whether your child will survive the rigours of the heavy medication that they are taking. The particular need of this group of parents of babies who have sustained an impairment is extreme. That is why I think it is important the Committee hears from the member in the chair as to whether or not this group of parents who do have this particular need are going to receive some extra support that this new clause 7 would provide for. I will be looking forward to that answer.I have spoken so far about the needs that are associated with I guess the shock of diagnosis—the shock of having a baby with such a severe impairment. It does not stop there. I have spoken about the incubators about the machines and about the drugs. One of the consequences of that kind of intensive medical intervention that these babies sustain is that a parent’s time to bond with their child is very much obstructed. It is obstructed by the walls of the incubator by the machines that are keeping their child alive. One of the particular purposes that jurisdictions around the world have recognised for extending parental leave is the particular purpose of giving parents and their children the opportunity to bond. This particular group of parents and this particular group of babies and children whose opportunity to bond in those early days and weeks is so compromised by the intensity of medical intervention do have a particular need to be able to take advantage of that opportunity to bond that an extended period of parental leave would provide for. I come back to the question as to whether or not this group will be covered by that provision.I want to go on to mention some of those other disabilities that can accompany these cardiac conditions that I have been speaking of. They can include learning disabilities sensory disabilities and other disabilities that very clearly would be captured by the definition of impairment that applies to this new clause 7 that is proposed. But it is very likely that those conditions would not be diagnosed until such time as perhaps a child is engaging with the formal education system—perhaps in their before-school check. We have a situation where a child clearly does fit any definition of impairment that was adopted but the fact that they fit does not become clear until some later point. I would be very interested to hear the member in the chair’s account of what advice she has received about that kind of delayed diagnosis of impairment that clearly applies.I want to respond to a point made by Sarah Dowie earlier. She raised the point of cost in the Chamber and suggested that of course the extension that is proposed in this new clause 7 would be desirable and that everyone would support it. But unfortunately the Government could not afford to do that. I would be pleased to be corrected by the member in the chair if this is the case but my advice is that the cost of the particular extensions that are proposed in this new clause 7 is minimal in the scale of the total cost of paid parental leave. The figures I have in front of me and these are rounded estimates for the 2015-16 year are for an extra $6 million followed in subsequent years by $4 million $8 million and then $9 million in the next 3 years taking it through to 2021-22 at an extra cost of $10 million.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato):Having heard that thoughtful contribution from the member Kevin Hague it compelled me to take a call. I have not taken a call on this bill for the duration of its debate but I too am concerned about how the Government Administration Committee considered the most vulnerable children and why it would not extend paid parental leave to 22 weeks. But more important the definition that most compels me to stand is the one related to those whose pregnancy results in a live birth before 37 weeks of gestation. Having had some experience in this area I can say it is medically possible to keep a child alive from 23 weeks with medical intervention. The greatest prospect of risk at that point in time is actually the development of the lungs. If you count the fact that it is a reality that it can be possible for children to live at 23 weeks factoring in 16 weeks of paid parental leave may mean that parents are still in hospital with their child. I just want to get some sense from the member as to what extent the select committee heard submissions around this. There is obvious hardship when parents are in the neonatal intensive care unit with their young children because of medical intervention.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I just remind the member that as the previous presiding officer said it is a very narrow debate. The provisions have been voted down already. This is about the consequential amendments as identified in new clause 7. I say to the member that we cannot get into a wide debate on this. It is on the regulations that are amended in new clause 7. That is where we need to focus. I say to future speakers that it is a very narrow debate.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I will bring the debate back to new clause 7 and into alignment with the regulations. It would be I think in line with the previous speaker seeking some advice from the member in the chair regarding the issues of cost—whether some factual information and evidence were provided to the member around how many children would be affected by limiting the definition in the way that you have recommended—and how this might better aid and support the real numbers of families that are provided for because I suspect when you put that into context it is actually a very narrow number of families. It was important to ensure that there was a thorough and robust debate at the select committee level when you were considering the regulations on how very real support is required for families who are meeting the challenges especially as new parents of multiple births and of children who are severely affected and need medical intervention from an early age. They may not have the multiplicity of their disabilities recognised until much later in life. The regulations are somewhat technical and align to the greater proposition of the bill but they really go to the nub of the issue that is trying to be met.I want to acknowledge that the member has tried to make some practical changes to the bill in light of the political discussions that have preceded them and it still remains not evident certainly to me and members on this side of the Chamber why these practical changes would not have been adopted. The scope has been limited. The number of children affected—and therefore parents—would have been limited but the very real needs and challenges I think are so important to address. There have been a couple of questions put to Sue Moroney as the proposer of the bill. I think she has conceded quite a bit in so far as the regulations are concerned. It would be useful from a technical point of view to see whether there was actually a great deal of debate in this part or whether the substantial debate was preceding this part of the bill.One last comment I would like to make is that for families who are struggling with children who have required significant medical intervention and require staying in hospital for a long period of time extending paid parental leave to 22 weeks may have better benefited them.SUE MORONEY (Labour):Well they say that timing is everything. With the timing of the debate on new clause 7 which we are now debating being on disability awareness day who would have thought the last time we were debating these amendments that I have put forward was during Multiple Birth Awareness Week. So it seems that all the way through the debate on this bill the stars have been aligning and begging us to do the thing that new clause 7 asks us to do. But it is not the first time with this bill.I think it is pretty clear that I am not going to get a third reading speech on this bill. That I think is a great shame and it is the shame of the National Government that I will not ever get to talk about the journey of this bill. Indeed with new clause 7 that is part of the journey of this bill because we are talking about it only in Supplementary Order Papers 15 and 472—in fact two different parts of the Supplementary Order Papers—because of I guess the politics that have been played with the bill all the way along. So at the Government Administration Committee we sadly were not able to report back a bill that the select committee could report back with amendment. It could report it back only without amendment because we could not get agreement so new clause 7 is one of those.Bringing this as a member’s bill—we used to call them private members’ bills; I think we call them only members’ bills these days—what it effectively means is that you do not have access to the Government advice and the Government officials to be able to make sure that when you draft your bill it is going to be entirely in order for what is going to be needed to be making the law change. So new clause 7 is an example of exactly that.These are the regulations that I had not even thought about as a member—an ordinary old member looking at wanting to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. I thought that on two pages you could actually do this by saying: “Let’s have 26 weeks. We are going to amend the part that says what the duration is of paid parental leave and that will do it.” Well new clause 7 is the part that would actually make it if it had been accepted by this Parliament a complete piece of law that would make some sense when the people who administer the law were required to actually grant people their paid parental leave of 22 weeks on 1 July next year and 26 weeks’ paid parental leave in July 2017 because that is how those regulations would be changed.Some of those regulations in new clause 7 are the form that people would fill in—the actual form that people who have had a child born prematurely the people who have had a child born with a disability the people who have had the joy of a multiple birth would fill in. They would be filling in that form and new clause 7 is attempting to amend that form.People have asked questions around the disability part in particular and I think it is right and proper that I do traverse that on disability awareness day. It is simply a definition to use. One way of defining what a disability was going to be would be to refer to disabilities that were already accepted for Government support. We know that those are contentious. We know that does not cover everything that we would want it to do. But here is the other complication when talking about children born with disabilities and paid parental leave. As members quite rightly said many of these disabilities we do not know about until the child is older. We do not know that the child has got a hearing difficulty or a lack of hearing for example until much later on in their life.As a member I had to think about what that means. If you find out when your child is 2 that they actually have had a disability since birth can you go back and have your 6 months’ paid parental leave? I had to come to the crushing conclusion that no you could not. The point of paid parental leave was actually having it at that time at that critical time in those first 6 months when the bonding and attachment were going to aid and abet that child’s recovery or that child’s ability to get on in their life with their disability which of course as we know actually often makes people that very very special person that they are.So these were the things that were quite complex to think about in bringing forward this particular range of amendments in new clause 7. Paid parental leave is critically important at that time.TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First):I just want to say thank you very much to the member in the chair Sue Moroney for her contribution. That was very helpful. I just want to go over the changes so that the people who are listening understand what is very likely to be voted down with regard to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Regulations 2002 because this is what new clause 7 does: new clause 7 in Supplementary Order Paper 15 amends the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Regulations 2002. Nobody at this point in the debate has actually articulated this and said exactly what this does. It changes those regulations to say: “In the following provisions of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Regulations 2002 16 weeks means 16 weeks or in respect of a person who gives birth either to 2 or more children as a result of 1 pregnancy and assumes or intends to assume the care of those children or to 1 or more children before 37 weeks of gestation where the child or children survive birth for the duration of the parental leave payment or to a child whose impairment would entitle the person to a government-funded disability support service 22 weeks:”.So there are two numbers in there. There are 16 weeks and 22 weeks and this is how the regulations would be amended. Why are those two numbers really important when we amend the regulations?Well what is the difference between 16 weeks and 22 weeks? It is 6 weeks—6 weeks’ difference. When we are talking about these circumstances babies are born at about 35 or 36 weeks. Normal gestation would be 40 to 42 weeks. That is a 6-week difference. All that this change to the regulations is trying to do is bring these parents and these babies to a point of ground zero—to a point of ground zero—the same place that every full-term pregnancy ends up at. That is all it is trying to do. It is just trying to support those babies and those parents with that simple change to the 2002 regulations to allow these babies and these parents to be at ground zero like everybody else once those babies end up out of hospital. In my personal experience that is kind of where most people end up. We have much more tragic circumstances often we do but there are smaller numbers of those. Often it is a 35 or 36-week birth in the special care baby unit. Once you get to full term and everything is going tickety-boo then home you go and you can start at ground zero like everybody else. That is all new clause 7 is trying to do. That is actually all this whole piece of paper has been trying to do.So with all due respect to Ms Dowie who stood up and said the Government would love to it is nice but it cannot afford it—when you hear the numbers from Mr Hague and you think about the small numbers of New Zealanders who actually require it the argument does not stack up Ms Dowie. It becomes a philosophical argument and that is unfortunate because all these amendments to the 2002 regulations are trying to do is allow these parents and these babies to get to ground zero and then start off like everybody else.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National):I move That the question be now put.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes64New Zealand National 60; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes57New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments 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 add new clause 7 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendments to 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.Amendments 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 add new clause 7 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.New clause 8SUE MORONEY (Labour):I just wish to make probably a quite brief contribution on new clause 8 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. This is the clause that comes about because since we have been debating 26 weeks’ paid parental leave guess what has happened? The Government decided to pass its own legislation in 2014.Phil Twyford: What a coincidence.SUE MORONEY: It is a coincidence a strange coincidence but actually the victory that this bill has had—this brave little bill as I call it—is that it forced the Government into extending paid parental leave to 16 weeks from 1 April I think next year and to 18 weeks from 1 April the following year 2016. So we have had a victory. It might not feel like it today because all those parents so desperately needing the ability to have 26 weeks in the set of circumstances we have talked about during the course of this debate will not be having that thanks to National voting against it. I think that is a great tragedy. But clause 8 was I guess acknowledging that there has been a movement in paid parental leave due to the success of this bill. That has happened in 2014 and as a result of that we needed to have some consequential amendments to that piece of legislation which passed earlier in the year.It is with regret that this call will be my last contribution on this bill in this House but please be warned that it will not be the last time we will hear about 26 weeks’ paid parental leave—universally actually because there is such a groundswell of support throughout the country for this now that the Government is not going to get away with burying its head in the sand and pretending it has done what is needed for the future of the country because it simply has not. I want to take this opportunity to thank all those parties who have had the foresight to support the bill in its various stages up until this point. We are going to keep this battle going. We are going to keep this argument going because this is the right thing for New Zealand families. This is the thing that really does deliver the brighter future for New Zealand. This is the investment that would make a difference and yet the very Government that campaigned on delivering a brighter future is the Government that is stopping it from happening.Thank you to the Green Party. Thank you to New Zealand First. Thank you to Mana when Mana was here voting for it. Thank you to United Future. Thank you to the Māori Party and particularly thank you to my Labour colleagues who had the courage to know that this was the right time even though we proposed it in the midst of a global recession. It was the right time to make sure that we invested in our families and it was the right time to get this debate going and New Zealanders joined with us. It is a great tragedy that the Government has not been able to see how important this is and has not had the foresight to understand what a wise investment it is in the future and how really to build a brighter future. But the good news is that the rest of us are here to keep reminding you and we will.CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston):As I stand to speak to the last Supplementary Order Paper that will be discussed in the Committee on the bill Supplementary Order Paper 472 I really just want to acknowledge Sue Moroney and the work she has done. What she has brought to the House is something that really resonates with New Zealanders. We know that this bill in its entirety has put pressure on the Government. It was forced to lift the number of weeks of paid parental leave from 14 weeks to 18. It did not go as far as Sue Moroney and the Labour Party have attempted to push it. We know that it is affordable despite what the Government says particularly with the amendments that Sue Moroney has put up. There were allegations by the National Government that this would cost $5 million which was ridiculous.Sue Moroney: $500 million.CARMEL SEPULONI: $500 million which was a ridiculous amount of money that the Government assumed it would cost. It misled New Zealanders—I will say that. The real cost is significantly less than that and actually with the amendments that were made so that it would apply only to multiple births to children with disabilities and to parents who had premature births the cost was significantly reduced to around $6 million.So I want to say in my final speech on this bill thank you to Sue Moroney and shame on the National Government for not agreeing with this. It was for pure politics that it has not supported this bill. It knows it is good for New Zealand. It knows that in the long run there would have been savings made for this country but because it did not want the Labour Party to be seen to be popular or to be making a decision that was popular with New Zealanders it opposed it—purely based on those political purposes. So again thank you to Sue Moroney shame on the National Government and hopefully in the next 2½ years Labour will have the opportunity to make changes like this positive changes that New Zealand wants to see.JAN LOGIE (Green):I am grateful to take a final call on this very important bill and to speak to new clause 8 the consequential amendments after seeing this Committee vote down the bill as it got narrower and narrower to try to deliver the 26 weeks—which all the health evidence all the economic evidence and all the social evidence showed us was our benchmark for looking after families and workplaces and most important babies in this country.It has been a bit of a demoralising experience I think for many of us in this House to go through this process. There were the numbers in the House to get it through and the Government stalled and threatened to use its financial veto. And then we lost the numbers. Even for the families in absolute need—those with premature babies those with children with disabilities and those with multiple births—the Government does not believe that it can find $6 million to be able to take care of those families. It just boggles my mind that we hear so much rhetoric from that side of the Chamber about taking an investment approach and yet the Government cannot come up with $6 million. Or you know to give it credit about the full cost of it it would be $55 million over 7 years. The Government cannot come up with that to care for families in the most need in this country at the time in their lives when we can make the most difference for babies and for the lifetime development of those children as well as the stabilisation of those families.I just wonder what the Government means when it says “investment” because if that is not investment then what on earth is? I really do wonder. When we have seen that child poverty is such an issue in this country—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Narrow it down.JAN LOGIE: I know; I will narrow it down. It is to the point of investment which is around the narrowing of this bill. We have seen how just by small investments like this Australia has reduced child poverty by 30 percent while this country has reduced it by 3 percent.I just cannot understand what this Government’s concept of investment is when we know that we can make a real difference when 99.9 percent I think it was of submissions supported 26 weeks as a baseline. That is what all of the evidence tells us is the baseline—not 16 weeks; it is 26 weeks. It is a very disappointing day to stand in this Chamber where this Government is depriving our families and depriving babies of that base provision leaving us lagging behind the rest of the world in support for families when we think of ourselves as a developed country as a country founded on principles of decency. The Government is not demonstrating an understanding of investment it is not demonstrating a sense of decency as it votes this bill down.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 472 in the name of Sue Moroney to add new clause 8 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.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.