Hudson Brett: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHudson Brett: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 25 May 2016. Volume:714;Page:11275. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]BRETT HUDSON (National): I rise to speak on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill. This National Government supports parents and supports greater paid parental leave. We do not support this particular bill.I would like to acknowledge Ms Moroney’s heartfelt and honest views on the subject—the various instances when she has raised this bill or variations of it and had them drawn from the ballot. I would also particularly like to note the very constructive working relationship in the Government Administration Committee even though it was apparent to members on that committee that we would not all be voting the same way on the final bill. We did work very constructively. Submitters were treated with respect. They were heard and were allowed to express their views irrespective of what those views were.But I would note one of the comments that my colleague Mr Mitchell made when he charged that Ms Moroney was perhaps this afternoon undermining the role of males as parents in the comments she made. I will not relitigate that particular statement or offence but I would note the real-time nature of the media both in this place and with the advent of social media. During the speech that Mr Mitchell gave Annette King has been reported in the media already as having said to Mr Mitchell that the purpose of this bill is to promote breastfeeding and men cannot do that.Well I acknowledge the veracity of that statement. It is very true. It would be something of a medical miracle if men were suddenly able to breastfeed. But what it raises is a deep concerning point. Ms King—and I also note she is the Labour health spokesperson so therefore presumably from a health perspective she speaks for Labour on this matter—thinks this extended parental leave is all about breastfeeding. So what does that mean for women who cannot or do not want to breastfeed? One can only take from her own statement in the House that they are somehow less worthy.Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not make a statement in the House. I responded to the comments being made by other people.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! These are debating points. [Interruption] It is a debating point.BRETT HUDSON: Such comments and interjections may be reported by members of the press gallery as that one was. So Ms King must now live with the comments she made in this House as she should. Therefore one can only interpret from her own words that women who cannot or do not wish to breastfeed are somehow seen as being of less import to the Labour Party and this bill. I think that is an absolute shame. Not all women can and not all women want to breastfeed certainly for perhaps a 6-month period and some have other choices that they make that actually are supported by this National Government in the flexible way that we have dealt with paid parental leave but which presumably is of less significance to the Opposition.The bill in question as it is reported back to the House if it were to pass would extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks—22 weeks from 1 April next year which was a constructive change that the select committee made. Originally it was going to be 22 weeks from 1 April this year and of course that date has already passed. So that was a good example of the committee working together at least to report a sensible bill back to the House. It would then be 26 weeks from 1 April 2018.A very worthy part of the bill as it stands I think is allowing for work contact hours. In respect of the way the bill is reported back I think that is quite a sensible approach. If you happen to be on paid parental leave for 22 weeks or more you can have up to 42 hours of paid return-to-work time. Taking in the extended period you could be on parental leave much of it unpaid—a total of 156 hours could be taken in paid return-to-work contact hours and the person returning to work would not be deemed to have ended their parental leave paid or otherwise. In the context that the House was going to progress a measure such as this I would make the point that I think that is a very sensible provision to have.When we come to the Government’s stance on this particular bill it is a consistent one. Before I move on to what the Government has done around paid parental leave—the Government’s position has been clearly stated all along. It is that the total cost of 26 weeks’ paid parental leave is unaffordable in the present circumstances—the total cost. It is not the incremental cost. The Government has never made a statement that an additional $1 of paid parental leave was unaffordable. In fact the Government has increased paid parental leave from 14 weeks to 18 weeks across two 2-yearly steps. So the Government was not of the view that a single dollar extra in paid parental leave was unaffordable. It remains the Government’s position that it is the total cost of the scheme as proposed by Ms Moroney that remains unaffordable given current economic conditions.That is backed up by data that the committee requested from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE). I quote from a very recent document for a specific question that members on the committee asked of MBIE and it has made an assessment of the costs of the implementation of this bill through to the financial year 2020-21 of $466 million over and above the cost of the plan that this Government has already put in place. That reinforces the point that the Government has maintained all along. It is not that an additional dollar of paid parental leave is unaffordable; it is that the total cost of the plan is unaffordable.I have to say that I feel that a number of submitters did not grasp that specific element. They appeared before us and just said “Well you’re almost there. You’re almost there. You’ve already spent this amount. What’s a little bit more?” which does quite frankly miss the point. It is not the little bit more that was the problem. It has always been that the total cost of such a plan would have been—and still in current conditions remains—unaffordable. The Government has done what within our fiscal envelope has been possible and that has been several things.One is obviously as I have pointed out that we have increased paid parental leave to 18 weeks from 14 weeks. But even more than that because I think it is very relevant and it captures elements that are not considered in Ms Moroney’s bill it is extending paid parental leave to other caring situations and other work arrangements. We have extended it to include life carers whāngai parents grandparents and permanent guardians. Different parenting arrangements arrangements that suit families where both parents presumably may be returning to work and also broader family structures—we support that and we have ensured that paid parental leave entitlements can be gained by people in those situations.We have also extended and addressed an issue where Kiwi workers who may have been working for more than one employer or might have been under casual arrangements seasonal or contract workers and those who may have limited or no eligibility in the past can now be eligible for paid parental leave. So what we have done is ensure that what we are able to afford to do is now able to benefit a broader range of New Zealand parenting arrangements and workers across the country.Beyond that we have also understood that not all parents choose to want to have an extended period of time off work. Some parents—and I know of several myself—have made the choice that they do wish to return to work earlier. So the Government increased the parental tax credit. It not only increased the tax credit by $70 a week to $220 but also extended the eligibility from 8 weeks to 10 weeks. So we are supporting parents who make a different choice which again leads to a Government that is supporting a broader range of circumstances across the country.I would also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the work of David Seymour who came to this House with a proposition that suggested that parents with pre-term babies are in a particularly challenging circumstance. No one chooses to be pre-term. No one chooses to have a pre-term child. So Mr Seymour put up the proposition that perhaps we could extend additional weeks of paid parental leave to parents in those circumstances. So we were happy to support that very sound measure and have extended 1 week of paid parental leave in addition—[Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Barracking across the House is unacceptable. Speaker’s ruling 69/2 states that you can only interject on the person with the call. You cannot do that across the House. I brought this up earlier on. The Speaker’s ruling—I suggest you look at it—is 69/2.BRETT HUDSON: We support one additional week of paid parental leave for each week the baby is born pre-term. That is a very sensible measure and I would like to congratulate Mr Seymour on bringing that to the House. [Bell rung] I am very proud to sit in a Government caucus that supported that measure.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry. You have got 15 seconds remaining.BRETT HUDSON: Oh is that right Mr Assistant Speaker? We do oppose this particular bill but we have done much for parents and will continue to do so. Thank you.