Ardern Jacinda: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — Recommittal Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — Recommittal Third Reading[Sitting date: 25 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1934. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to take a call in this final reading of Sue Moroney’s Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. Perhaps I need to start by correcting the record. The Minister who just resumed his seat Michael Woodhouse stood and asked the House why if Labour cared so much about this issue it did not do anything for paid parental leave when it was in Government and running a Budget surplus. I find it extraordinary that the Minister who claims to have responsibility for this area does not know the history of paid parental leave. It was introduced Minister Woodhouse by the previous Labour Government. Let me repeat that again: paid parental leave was introduced by a previous Labour Government. Can I just point out that at the time it was introduced in 2002 National opposed the introduction. It opposed the introduction of paid parental leave when at that time in 2002 we had a surplus of $2.5 billion. It was absolutely financially responsible for Labour to say we have the ability to do this and it is the right thing to do and it was National that opposed that we did that.We did not just introduce it; we extended it. In 2004 we looked to expand and extend it again. National again opposed it. At that point we had a surplus of $5.6 billion. Again it was possible to do it we did in it a fiscally responsible way and it was the right thing to do. Perhaps if the Minister missed all of those points he might like to be reminded of the National Party’s positioning at that time because it was not oppositionjust on monetary grounds or fiscal grounds. It is not that the members stood up and said: “Lovely idea but we really can’t afford to do it right now.” because at that time they were begging for tax cuts. They knew that we actually could financially afford it. That was not the rationale for which they opposed it. They opposed it because they ideologically did not believe in it. They ideologically did not believe in it. Anne Tolley in 2002 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 women of the 21st century…”. Anne Tolley never supported paid parental leave. Those were her words.Nick Smith said that the draft bill was a “dumb bill”. Paul Hutchison said that it was cementing State dependency rather than incentivising individual responsibility—what for an infant? I do not even know what he means by that statement. Judith Collins in 2004 said it was another example of this Government using taxpayers’ money to try to win some votes. I find it absolutely rich for that Minister to try to tell this side of the House that we have never believed in paid parental leave when it is that side of the House that is only supporting it for the pure politics because when you strip it away it still does not believe in the concept of supporting women and newborn children when they are unable to work at the most vulnerable period of a child’s life.Members talked about dependency being out of touch with women and harking back to a feminist era of the 1960s. Well actually if it is harking back to feminism that is not something I would apologise for. But the point is that that Government is extending paid parental leave only because of the hard work of Sue Moroney and the support of parties like the Greens Labour and New Zealand First. That is why the Government eventually shifted.If we want to talk about anyone being out of touch it would have to be the Government. Only yesterday a report was released by Growing Up in New Zealand a longitudinal study that 7000 children are part of. It is the most in-depth study we have seen of children. It tracks them from birth to adulthood. That report has found that more than 50 percent of New Zealand mothers experience hardship between late pregnancy and the first 9 months of their child’s life. I repeat that: 50 percent of New Zealand mothers experience some level of hardship between late pregnancy and the first 9 months of their child’s life. And here we are with some arguing that we cannot afford to do more to support those families in the most vulnerable period of their child’s life. That is not something I am saying off the cuff without research and evidence.You do not have to look at the UN’s feedback—of course it supports breastfeeding in the first 6 months. That stands on its own. But organisations like the Brainwave Trust have long argued that if you want to invest anywhere invest in those first critical months of a child’s brain development. Their connection with a parent is critical. It is what determines whether or not they are able to build trusting relationships in adulthood. It determines whether or not for instance they will experience some of the behavioural issues that we then grapple with as taxpayers further down the track. Conduct disorder something that is connected to whether or not a child forms those trusting relationships and bonds costs the taxpayer $1 million—$1 million—per child. We have been shown what we need to do about it; yet we turn a blind eye.We literally cannot afford not to do things like what Sue Moroney has proposed in this bill. So if we want to talk about cost I can tell you that that is where the real costs exist. If we want to talk about being in touch with what new parents are experiencing we should be looking at the evidence like the longitudinal study Growing Up in New Zealand. It is interesting that when mothers were first interviewed before they gave birth the mothers’ plan was to go back into the workplace to use up what paid parental leave they had and then return. What the study found was that a number of mothers would use up that paid parental leave then they would try to use up all their holiday leave and they would then try to take unpaid leave. They would do everything they could once their baby arrived to stay with their child as long as they could. That was when mothers started exiting the workforce. When they used up all that leave and realised that they were not ready to go back they exited the workforce.So if that Minister was really serious about mothers trying to maintain bonds with the workforce he would recognise what the evidence was telling him and maintain that link via decent paid parental leave. That is what would make a longer term bond to the workforce and that is what he should be looking at and listening to. That would demonstrate that he was truly in touch with what New Zealand families are experiencing.That study was the kind of information that we as the Labour Party looked at when we established our Best Start policy. Not only did we ensure that paid parental leave in our policy would be 26 weeks but after that we said that for the rest of that year we wanted an additional contribution for those families to ease the burden that almost any family no matter what their financial circumstances experiences in that first year of their child’s life. We absolutely stand by that policy. It is the right thing to do and it is the most cost-effective thing to do.I want to use the last moments of my contribution to pay respect to Sue Moroney and the work she has done on this bill. The audacity of the Minister—to claim that she has confused politics and passion. There is no harder thing than to compromise as a politician and yet Sue Moroney saw an opportunity. She could not get 6 weeks’ leave for every family—or try to at least do that for families who experience a premature birth or a multiple birth or who have a child with a disability—so she compromised her bill in order to try to make gains for at least some families. That demonstrates that this was always about the issue more than it was about the politics. It was always about the issue and it is extraordinarily disappointing that that Government has been unwilling to accept that sometimes when you see a good idea you should vote for it regardless of who puts it up.Labour votes with National on good ideas. That is what we do. That is what a good Opposition does. What a good Government should do is recognise that a good idea can come from the Opposition as well. I am saddened on behalf of New Zealanders that the Government did not recognise that. So let it be said and let it be on the record that when that side of the House comes before this Parliament with a bill that will allow those families to access greater paid parental leave it was Sue Moroney who did that for them. There is no way that that Government deserves any recognition.