Moroney Sue: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMoroney Sue: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6735. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SUE MORONEY (Labour): I move That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill. He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata he tangata he tangata. Just over 3 years ago on 25 July 2012 I began my first reading speech on a bill similar to this with the same powerful proverb and 3 years later it still remains the driving force for this bill. What is most important of all? It is people it is people it is people. Being of Irish heritage I find myself honouring the superstition of wearing the same jacket I wore 3 years ago—that is a bit of a triumph in itself—in the hope that it will act as a good omen and bring about the same result of this bill being supported to select committee.Although my motivation for the bill has not changed some things have changed since we were last debating this issue. Because of my previous bill paid parental leave has already been extended from 14 weeks to 18 weeks by April 2016. That result demonstrates Labour leading a positive and future-focused initiative that gained the support of the Green Party New Zealand First the Māori Party United Future and Mana when it was in this Parliament. We have maintained that support for this important initiative during the most testing of economic times and I thank all of those parties for their loyalty to the families and the children of this great country of ours.Even though we achieved those improvements the argument that extending paid parental leave to all for the first 6 months of life is a wise investment in New Zealand’s future is as powerful as ever. It is the strongly held belief and strongly held view of the New Zealand Labour Party that early investment and intervention is a much better option than having to spend more taxpayer money on the bad outcomes of getting it wrong. We do prefer to spend a bit of money supporting bonding between parent and baby during those important 6 months of brain development than to spend ever-increasing amounts on remedial education unemployment benefits mental health services and even prisons.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.”Well we do not hear much from the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor these days. His appointment seems to have been somewhat of a gimmick rather than a serious attempt to have research and evidence-driven policy development. But it is true that Labour also prefers to spend some money supporting the establishment and maintenance of 6 months’ exclusive breastfeeding as recommended by the World Health Organization than to spend an ever-increasing amount of money on the hospitalisation of children and adults with preventable respiratory and other related diseases. I am still dismayed that our own Ministry of Health refused to recognise the strong link between paid parental leave and improving breastfeeding rates during consideration of this proposal last year. Data gathered by Plunket clearly shows a surge in breastfeeding rates immediately after Labour introduced paid parental leave in 2002. I hope that the ministry will take a more enlightened approach in this new consideration under its new Minister. It is a no-brainer. That is why 99.6 percent of the almost 4000 submissions on the bill last time around supported the proposal to extend paid parental leave to 6 months.This proposal has always been about choice for families and this new bill introduces more flexibility by allowing a parent on paid parental leave to return to work for short periods throughout their period of leave in order to maintain contact with their workplace without losing their entitlement to paid parental leave. Under this bill they could return to their workplace for up to 156 hours over a 12-month maternity leave period and still retain 26 weeks’ paid parental leave.I acknowledge that a Government bill recently introduced in the House does something a little similar. However there is one big difference. I will support amendments that the Government is proposing on paid parental leave. The Government however seems determined not to support mine. In an arrogant display of putting policies before people Government members will even support proposals that I have proposed just as long as it is not done in my name or in the name of the Labour Party. Not only is this petty and churlish but sadly it is stopping families from getting the support they desperately need in a timely manner. I will not put politics ahead of the needs of these families and I strongly urge the National members to put their ideology aside for the sake of families. They have pulled every mean trick in the book to stop families from getting this support. National has exaggerated the cost. Government members have used delaying tactics at the select committee. They have broken promises they made to me as the member in charge of the bill. They have denied voting rights to an MP who attended the birth of his own grandchild. They have cast proxy votes for another party which then had to be corrected the following day. They have filibustered and they have even voted against the version of the bill that would have cost just $8 million. All of this to deny families—Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The allegation that a whip has cast a vote incorrectly is a very serious one. In this instance it is quite wrong and—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member will resume his seat. I remember the case quite well and it was corrected. I think I was in the House at the time.SUE MORONEY: The Government has used all of these measures to deny families the support that the majority of Parliament believes in.Government members thought they had won when the modified bill was defeated 60 votes to 60 but they did not count on losing Northland. Within days of National losing and Winston Peters winning Northland I submitted the bill we are debating tonight back into the ballot. And they did not count on the ballot gods—or is the ballot goddess? The ballot goddess has smiled on Kiwi babies and the bill was drawn out of the ballot just a few months after it was defeated by the narrowest of margins in a diminished Parliament. Some call it good luck but I like to think that it is a sign that some things are just meant to be.Shortly we will hear Government members say that they agree with my bill in principle but they cannot afford it. When I hear that excuse I am reminded of the powerful submission Zonta made on my previous bill on this subject when the then international president New Zealander Lynn McKenzie told the Government that we cannot afford not to do it. The Government’s excuse lacks credibility when it is prepared to spend $26 million on a flag referendum and $11 million on its shady Saudi sheep deal. But those expenditure follies pale into insignificance compared with the billions of dollars National has given away in tax cuts to the 10 percent highest earners since it has been in office. My bill will cost an additional $45 million next year and there is cross-party agreement that it will save at least $28 million just in short-term savings alone like reduced Government subsidies for babies to be placed in early childhood education centres. Well Labour would much rather that money was spent on supporting mum or dad to stay at home with baby than paying for a baby under the age of 6 months to go to day care. All the evidence says it is better for baby and as a mum myself I instinctively know that families choosing what works best for them will have the best outcome.My previous bill on paid parental leave was structured in such a way that it would not reach full implementation until the Government had promised to have its books in surplus. That promise was made for the current financial year that we are in and there is still no sign of surplus. This new bill also staggers the implementation of 26 weeks’ paid parental leave by increasing it to 22 weeks on 1 April next year and reaching 26 weeks in April 2018. This time I have full confidence that the Government books will indeed be in surplus by then with an incoming Labour Government that has a track record of running strong fiscal surpluses. The last Labour Government ran nine surpluses in a row.In my maiden speech I said my priority in this Parliament would be addressing issues of work-life balance. I am proud that this bill does that in truckloads. What better work-life balance to have than the sort of work-life balance that sets your children up for a happy healthy productive life? I am proud to commend this bill to the House.