Moroney Sue: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Moroney Sue: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3943. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill be now read a first time 
. I nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill. 
In Maori Language Week I want to start with the profound Maori proverb “He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata he tangata he tangata”—what is the most important thing in the world? It is people it is people it is people. That proverb describes the basic principle behind the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill which I bring to Parliament today. 
New Zealand can be the best place in the world to raise children. That is the vision that Labour has for this country and that is the origin for this bill which I drafted in 2009. It is a lofty and ambitious vision but it is achievable in a peaceful country like New Zealand because we are not war-torn we do not suffer from famine and drought and just look at the natural riches and resources we have. We really do have a head start in making this a reality. We really can be the best country in the world to raise children but it seems National does not like that idea at all. 
There are many things that we need to do in New Zealand to fulfil that vision. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Where’s the money coming from? 
SUE MORONEY 
: If Mr Smith would like to listen I am talking about a vision. I am talking about a vision that I know he cannot get but he should listen. We will not get there unless we are prepared to put children at the heart of our policy making unless we decide to prioritise investment in those early years—that is right I say to Mr Smith and to the rest of the National members—and unless we make an investment in those early years. That is what my bill calls for. Extending paid parental leave is just one measure that the Government can take to invest wisely in those early years. 
This bill proposes extending paid parental leave by 12 weeks to reach 6 months over the course of the next 3 years. It is Labour policy to reach 12 months’ paid parental leave over time but I have drafted my bill with this global recession in mind. This bill stages the introduction of extended paid parental leave over the next 3 years and the good news is it does not reach full implementation until National—National itself—says that it will have the country’s books back into surplus in 2015. That is still the plan is it not? Is that still the plan? Nick Smith is not sure that that is still the plan. But I tell you there is an old saying “Where there’s a will there’s a way” and that is so very true of paid parental leave but it does require the political will to do so. 
I said at the outset when my bill was drawn that all political parties say that families are a priority but how parties vote on my bill will show whether they really mean it or not. At the end of this debate it will be demonstrated for all to see. 
This bill does not require the Government to borrow any more money for paid parental leave. Instead it should be funded by reprioritising other spending. My personal favourite would be the cancelling of tax cuts for those earning over $150000 which would more than fund this initiative. But I would also— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is that Labour policy? 
SUE MORONEY 
: It is indeed Labour policy. It is indeed Labour policy. But I would also settle for cancelling the $1.76 billion construction of the “Holiday Highway” north of Auckland where traffic volumes do not warrant the spend; the money being paid to investment bankers for advice on privatising our profitable State assets; the millions being squandered on flawed restructuring plans like the one for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; or the millions being spent on designing ghost roads—any of those would do. My point is that investing in paid parental leave is affordable if there were the will from this Government to do so but the National Government has other bad spending priorities. 
Ironically the day National threatened to use a financial veto against families needing extended paid parental leave National also announced that it was keeping agriculture out of the emissions trading scheme for longer. The cost to the taxpayer of that decision alone is estimated to be $400 million. That decision alone would pay for extended paid parental leave with plenty of change for other worthy investments. But there was no mention of a financial veto when it came to that decision was there? Why does National insist that it would have to borrow to pay for extended paid parental leave when it can make a decision costing the taxpayer $400 million at the height of a global recession with apparently no further borrowing? Answer that question Mr Smith for us. This Government’s priorities were spelt out loud and clear on that day in April. It has money to incentivise farmers to pollute for longer but not for hard-working families raising our next generation. 
But here is the real clanger: the Minister of Finance Bill English even stooped to heavily inflating the cost of my bill when he threatened a financial veto on it. That is how strongly National opposes supporting families in this way. He claimed it would cost $500 million but he had received official advice that the most it would cost would be $285.6 million over 3 years. He almost doubled the cost of it to justify using a financial veto. 
Working families deserve a fair go. They do not deserve a Minister of Finance who makes up figures to use against them and their needs. But then he is the same Minister who had Treasury work out the cuts to education in the form of increased class sizes. He was out of step with the needs of families then and he and his party are out of step with them again now. 
The same week my bill was drawn out of the ballot the Government decided it would spend an additional $11 million on adolescent mental health services—fair enough. Sadly there are more of our young people needing those services. It was interesting though that there was no hand-wringing over having to borrow money to afford that. But here is the question I want to pose: how much better off would our young people be and how much would the rest of us get to save if we invested money in their early years instead? 
The Prime Minister’s own Chief Science Advisor Sir Peter Gluckman had this to say on the subject: “The early years of life have a unique and formative impact on child health development and relationships throughout life. Secure mother-infant attachment is an important predictor of resilience in later life including high self-esteem reduced anxiety and reduced hormonal responses to stress.” He went on to say: “Social investment in New Zealand should take more account of the growing evidence that prevention and intervention strategies applied early in life are more effective in altering outcomes and reap more economic returns over the life course than do … strategies applied later. This will require long-term commitment to appropriate policies and programmes.” If only the Prime Minister would listen to his Chief Science Advisor. 
There are now several pieces of research showing that for every dollar invested in supporting children and their families in those early years the rest of us get to save $12 to $17. I come from a horse-racing background and I know the odds of getting back at least $12 for every $1 invested. That is what I would call a dead cert—that is a dead cert. 
Researchers and scientists like Sir Peter Gluckman know that if we get it right in those early months and years then we do not have to spend as much money on remedial education on health problems or on youth justice for that matter. But making that smart investment requires a Government with vision. It requires a Government with courage and a real commitment to a brighter future. Tonight Labour is stepping up to show the leadership required for that type of Government—a Government that understands the stresses on working families a Government that really does have a plan for the future a Government that is fiscally responsible one that promotes more choice for families and a Government that puts children ahead of tax cuts for high-income earners. 
 Extending paid parental leave has gained broad support from the community and I think this demonstrates significant progress since the bill was introduced by a Labour-led Government. Tomorrow a coalition of community organisations will be launched in support of extending paid parental leave. It is called 26 for Babies. It involves organisations like Plunket Every Child Counts the Council of Trade Unions Unicef and the Breastfeeding Authority. I have heard from grandparents from older parents from younger parents from those contemplating parenthood and from those who were once babies themselves—that is right; everyone has got a stake in getting this right. 
Both unions and business representatives support the extending of paid parental leave and I was very pleased to hear public declarations of support in principle from both Phil O’Reilly of Business New Zealand and Michael Barnett of the Auckland chamber of commerce. It demonstrates the growing recognition of the value of women in the workplace by employers and that is not before time. 
In fact the 2006 evaluation of our paid parental leave scheme noted that there is widespread support amongst mothers fathers and employers for paid parental leave. And just last week the United Nations chastised the New Zealand Government and the Minister of Women’s Affairs Jo Goodhew for our low level of paid parental leave as part of the UN’s concerns about discrimination against women in New Zealand. We ranked second to last in the developed world for the duration of the paid parental leave we offer. Only the United States is below us because it has none at all. Australia used to be below us but in January last year it introduced 18 weeks’ paid parental leave. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! Ten seconds to complete. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Ten seconds. In my maiden speech in Parliament I said I wanted to improve work-life balance for New Zealand families—