Dyson Ruth: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — Recommittal Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — Recommittal Third Reading[Sitting date: 25 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1951. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Sorry about that momentary interruption. I had to pick up my pen that I dropped in stunned surprise actually at the contribution from that member. I am unable to recall his name. He is a new member and perhaps that is why he gave such a confused rambling speech. I intend to put the facts on the record so that that member will not come into this House and make things up and talk about voting against a bill that earlier on this very day his Minister committed to introducing. He calls other parties confused. That member will be voting for this legislation when it is in the name of National. That will be the only difference.He calls Labour financially irresponsible. This legislation would have cost $6 million for the three target groups that Sue Moroney narrowed this bill down to in an effort to get some compromise and support for the most vulnerable families so that they could have the additional support they need. When Sue Moroney offered that compromise to National costing $6 million—a quarter of what National is spending on referendums for flags—that member and his party said no and tonight his name will be on the record for voting against extending paid parental leave to families of premature babies to families who have multiple births and to families who have disabled children or children with specific health needs. There are not many other families who are more deserving of additional support than those. If there had been the member could have added them at the Committee stage of this bill but instead he is voting against those families.That is one of the best things about our Parliament. The name of every member of Parliament is on the public record alongside how they voted. The member who split his call with the member who has just resumed his seat gave the second speech that he has given in Parliament. The first one was his maiden speech and that was his second contribution. I want to congratulate him on the birth of his baby. I know that it is a delight to him. I have seen him out and about in Christchurch showing off his baby and well-deserved too. Tragically he talked a load of nonsense as well—beautiful baby; terrible speech. He said: “If we don’t have the money it’s all just talk.” Well what about in 2002? In 2002 the Labour-led Government Budget surplus—I know that is a strange word for the National Party to hear but we did it every year—was $2.5 billion.Chris Bishop: Wasted the surplus.Hon RUTH DYSON: Mr Bishop should remember that—$2.5 billion. He wrote the speeches for the National Party front bench to come in and say: “You’ve got a surplus. Why don’t you give tax cuts?”. And we said: “Because there are better priorities—higher priorities.” So we introduced paid parental leave in 2002 with a $2.5 billion surplus and what did the National Party do? What did the National Party do? This party comes in here making stuff up like: “We’ve always supported paid parental leave. We’ve always supported families and babies.” Every single member of the National Party voted against the introduction of paid parental leave in New Zealand. We were finally taking a step towards getting up to speed with the rest of the world that we like to compare ourselves to. Every other country that we like to compare ourselves to has got paid parental leave. In 2002 we had a $2.5 billion Budget surplus and National voted against it.In 2004 the Labour-led Government extended paid parental leave and that year we had a $5.6 billion surplus. Eat your heart out Bill English—a $5.6 billion surplus. And what did National do then? “Oh we don’t have the money.” It had the money for tax cuts but it said it could not afford to extend paid parental leave. And exactly the same thing happened in 2006. We became in 2006 the first country in the world to have a form of paid parental leave for the self-employed. That is a very good thing because we have a lot of self-employed people in New Zealand. We broke new ground. What did National do? For that similar-sized Budget surplus—listen to those words; you will not hear them much while there is a National-led Government—National voted against it.So Mr Doocey and Mr Muller do not come into this House making stuff up because the Budget surplus and the voting record of your party are on the public record. And what you said—“If only we could afford it. It’s all just talk. You’ve got to walk the walk.”—is absolute nonsense.Chris Bishop: Laila made you do it.Hon RUTH DYSON: Mr Bishop knows it because he wrote those rubbish speeches that Bill English and his colleagues set up. I want to congratulate Sue Moroney on her attempt to get paid parental leave extended. I think New Zealand families would have welcomed this. In fact I can say that with a lot of confidence because I chaired the select committee that considered this bill and there were over 3000 submissions to the bill and 99.6 percent of the submissions on this legislation totally supported it. About 0.5 percent of submitters said that there are some good things and some bad things about it you know—that there were perhaps some tinkering measures that should take place before they would be 100 percent supportive of it. One single submitter—one single submitter out of over 3000—opposed it and that was a tragic submission actually. It was tragic. The young man who presented the submission clearly had been obliged to on behalf of his employer and clearly did not want to.Sue Moroney: The National Party I think.Hon RUTH DYSON: And the National Party I am sure strongly encouraged him. It could find only one person in the whole country. He said that one of the difficulties with giving women paid parental leave was that generally after having a baby and taking time off they forgot what their jobs were and they had to be completely retrained—so it is total amnesia. I am sure Mr Doocey would know about it. I am not sure whether his wife would share that view; I doubt that she would. She looks pretty on top of things to me actually and she has recently had a baby. But this submitter said that women who had a child should not have time off from work because when they went back they would have completely forgotten it. He also forgot that of course at the moment we have an entire year’s entitlement in the law for unpaid parental leave so this bill is actually just filling that gap of absence from the job with some money to support the family. For a lot of families of course it makes the difference between them being able to choose genuinely to stay at home with their newborn baby and have the attachment that Mr Doocey has clearly had experience with which everyone in this House will know is so important.Listen to the health experts and the family support experts who say that breastfeedingfor the entire time of 6 months if possible is best for the development of the baby. Of course the stress and pressure of having to work in a job part-time or full-time as well as having a new baby is big. So the more genuine choices we are able to offer families by giving them the financial support that can make that choice a reality the better it is for New Zealand families. So I am just stunned not only that the National Party fought so pathetically against this bill by filibustering on a member’s bill for hours and hours and hours when it had been watered down if you like or tailored to a meagre $6 million a year. It was a compromise on a plate that National could have accepted so that those who might be considered the most vulnerable of families the most in need of that additional support because of the pressures they are facing could be the ones who got the first additional assistance.This is less money than it is costing the Government—taxpayers—to move the Treaty of Waitangi one block from Archives New Zealand to the National Library of New Zealand. That is costing $6.7 million—a very good spend I am sure. It is a whole block that the Treaty is moving—$6.7 million. The implementation of paid parental leave for this targeted group would have cost $6 million. As I have said it is a quarter of the amount of money that the National Government is going to spend on referendums for a flag.Simon O’Connor: And how much in the second year? And the third and the fourth and the fifth?Hon RUTH DYSON: Mr O’Connor you should take a call and explain to your constituents and the country why your name is going against extending paid parental leave. Sue Moroney did her best to introduce—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member but her time has expired.SUE MORONEY (Labour): I seek leave to table a letter to Government MPs asking them to support this bill to extend leave to 26 weeks—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose.SUE MORONEY: Can I just describe who the letter is signed by and who the letter is from?