Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 23 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19377. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 25 June.Clause 2 Commencement (continued)ALFRED NGARO (National):Kia orana Mr Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Meitaki.ALFRED NGARO: Meitaki maata Mr Chair. I rise to take a call on this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I want to begin by saying that we know that families are important and children are important to us. I know that in the last Committee debate on this bill there were a number of accusations coming from across the Chamber. I wanted to stand to speak because one of the accusations was that we as politicians on this side of the Chamber in this Government do not care for families and do not care for children and that is absolutely not true at all. I also want to make the point that the comments that seemed to keep coming from the other side were that because we oppose this bill we do not care for children we do not care for families and that is not true at all.It is not true at all because when we look at the record of this Government and at the things that are absolutely important to this Government—at a time when we had the global financial crisis and at a time when things were difficult—it has been said time and time again that this Government actually stood firm and stood strong on the things that were absolutely important and that is our children and our families and the things that matter most to most Kiwis. So I just want to put on record that we absolutely do not agree with the comments that have been made from the Opposition at all.So how do we show that? This Government has actually said quite clearly in regard to paid parental leave that it was not against the aspect of the time period. In fact it has shown in Budget 2014 that it has been extended by another 4 weeks. Why? Because the fact is that as in all Governments and in governance you have to balance your responsibilities along with the rights that are actually important and that is what this Government has absolutely done. These are the things that actually show.For those who are New Zealanders out there those who are Kiwis out there those who are mums and dads and families out there who want to know what this Government has done and is doing in that regard Budget 2014 was really clear. We wanted to continue that role of working for families in New Zealand. So what is important is around health—free general practitioner visits and free prescriptions for children under the age of 13. We have increased that ability so that the mums and dads who are out there know that when their child is sick they can take their child to the doctor and can get a prescription. In fact it was Mr Faafoi who was talking about being down in Porirua where he saw prescriptions sitting on a chemist’s shelf waiting for parents to pick them up. Mr Faafoi actually talked about that. He talked about prescriptions in Porirua—you will remember that in his speech—and about how parents were waiting to pick them up but they could not afford them.It is quite clear that the extension by this Government to have not only free general practitioner visits but also the ability to pick up those prescriptions Mr Faafoi is important. We do care to ensure that families do get the medication they need as well. He is getting ready now. I can see a speech coming from him but there is more to come.The other thing that is important is that 4 weeks’ extra paid parental leave has been extended to a number of caregivers who were not traditionally eligible and that becomes important. We have increased the parental tax credit by $70 a week to $220 a week and extended it by 2 weeks to 10 weeks. That we know is truly making a difference to those families out there.What is also important out there is the issue around education. We know that ensuring our children can get into early childhood education makes a difference to their ability to go from the non-compulsory sector into the compulsory sector. We think that is important. In order to be able to do that again the party of actions has ensured Mrs Martin—the fact is that we have increased early childhood education services to get more kids participating and to keep fees down so that parents can access those services like Nukutukulea for instance in Māngere where we took the Prime Minister and where he met with that Niuean preschool and where they celebrated and enjoyed the fact that we have extended those hours as well.Le'aufa'amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: Same name last one.ALFRED NGARO: That is right Mrs Asenati Lole- Taylor. They made sure that they enjoyed the opportunity to extend their care. This is what they actually said. They said: “Thank you Prime Minister because under your Government we have thrived as well.” So we know that participation in early childhood education has grown as well under this Government.The other thing that is important is to say that we care for our children. I have been involved in a sector where we know that our children are vulnerable. The issues of abuse and neglect have been of great concern to this Government as well so we have extended support for vulnerable children. It includes eight new children’s teams to work with at-risk children and families and to support children in care as well. That becomes absolutely important as well. With extended and expanded paid parental leave and increasing the parental tax credit this will give parents more choices about what is best for them at an important time for their families as well.The other thing we have done as well that is important is around again extending the ability for health early childhood education and secondary education and I know that becomes important. I know that Ms Martin is talking about the fact of charter schools and so forth and we know that that becomes a point of difference because it gives communities—[Interruption] Here we go again.I challenge Ms Martin to go to those communities look them in the eye and say to them that their vision for their children young and old and parents who are looking after their children—I challenge that member to go to them and say to them that actually their vision of a better tomorrow and a better outcome for their children is not valid. I challenge her to do that. She will not do that. Instead she will sit here with parliamentary privilege and begin to quote all the things that she thinks go wrong but she will not enter those communities. Why? Because they are the very communities that have actually asked for it they need it and they want it as well. That becomes absolutely important to what we are doing.I just want to begin to slowly sort of sum up what I want to say on this because I think it is absolutely important. It is making a difference. I do want to say that those schools—and I want to acknowledge the Rise UP school as well—are really important. They have said there in Māngere that these are the things that they need for their children whether young or old children who have got parents and parents with their children whom they are bringing along. They are saying that that is absolutely important to them as well.We know that the fact is that as a Government we are doing all the things that are necessary and that are needed to care for children from health to education. At the same time too we want to say that caring for children is not just about extending parental leave. It is about a whole range of things that make a difference to our families in our communities as well. I stand on behalf of the Government to say that we oppose this bill but what we do support is children. We do support parents in their role to care for their children as well hence the stance that we are taking at the moment. I stand here as a father of four children and a grandfather of two knowing the fact is that the things we are doing do make a difference. I am confident in knowing that fact. What I do support is the fact that—JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):I move That the question be now put.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National):Sat sri akaal Mr Chair. Thank you for your consideration of my call. It is my pleasure to discuss clause 2 of this bill the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. National is very concerned about the future of this country. That is why we have been working on very well-managed spending where we can afford what we have achieved in these 6 years. What we can afford in the Budget is because of that well-balanced spending. However at the same time I would like to say that children and families are at the forefront of every Budget. At the same time we want to ensure that as a country we attain a balance between the bringing up of our children and the financial implications for the nation due to the increase in the amount of paid parental leave. Also we have to consider the intergenerational effects on the debt that this bill seeks to create for our children whose well-being we are all seeking.To share with you some facts all of us know that the recent Budget announcement by our finance Minister invests almost $500 million in developing our children. Further the investment made by the National-led Government in various sectors of the economy will no doubt result in more jobs and higher wages. The flow-on effect of this is that it will result in better lifestyles for our families. There is further facility for the Government’s participation in health and well-being of our children. The Government announced free GP visits and free prescriptions for children under the age of 13 years. We extended paid parental leave by 4 weeks which we consider is affordable at this stage.We do not think that this country can afford the reckless spending that this bill proposes. There is an increase in the parental tax credit by $70 to $220 a week and leave is extended by 2 weeks to 10 weeks. These are some of the measures that we have taken now. New Zealanders understand that all this comes at a cost and that the Government is doing everything practically possible to look after each of our citizens young or old. We debated all these issues in the Government Administration Committee and also considered them in the submissions. However we were unable to reach an agreement. During the select committee there was huge discussion about these issues and whether the Government can afford these measures or not. Increasing paid parental leave to 26 weeks is unaffordable right now.Families will benefit from the growing economy and from jobs with higher wages. It will also be appropriate that they are among the first to benefit from the Government’s spending as the economy picks up.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Narrow it a little.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Changes to paid parental leave and the parental tax credit alongside other measures in Budget 2014 will provide increased targeted support within the current economic conditions for working parents and newborn babies. In the first year of the child’s life particularly in the first 6 months it is important for the newborn baby’s development to get full-time personal care. It is also important for the parents and the caregivers to get support to manage budgetary and other measures. Encouraging the attachment of mothers and caregivers to the labour market has broad economic and social benefits and can support a stable family environment for their children to grow up in. I think this is appropriate for the Government which has already made some real progress on this area and I think we will continue as time proceeds.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):I move That the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the question that the question be now put.TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National):I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member Jacinda Ardern has twice now taken a closure motion once when it was rejected by you. It is my understanding that under the Standing Orders it is not possible to do that more than once for any particular clause and I am wondering why you accepted the closure motion.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is my understanding that a member can take more than one closure motion. It was a change by the Standing Orders Committee. I could be wrong and I am happy to seek advice on it but it is my understanding that the member can do more than one closure motion. I can check it for the member. I have been advised that I have already taken the question so I need to proceed.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes56New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Noes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):I leapt lightning-like to my feet there Mr Chairperson. I want firstly to take a minute to acknowledge the member Sue Moroney like I did with Dr Cam Calder. Yes getting a member’s bill drawn is luck but actually bringing it to the House is challenging; I absolutely can see that. Although obviously National has a policy difference I just want to acknowledge the member for the fact that she is very passionate about the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. She has lobbied strongly on it and I acknowledge the efforts that have gone in there.From the perspective of National clearly we depart in policy on a couple of levels. I would have to say that on a personal level I also believe that paid parental leave is not actually the answer to vulnerable children and it is not actually the answer for communities in the sense that the most important role that a parent will have is to support to love to nurture and to bring up their child and that is not necessarily something that is about the Government. In fact if one asks me I actually think that the less involvement the Government can have in the bringing up of a child the better.Denis O'Rourke: Disgraceful.MIKE SABIN: Well it is not disgraceful. Why does the member think it is disgraceful? Why does the member think it is disgraceful?Denis O'Rourke: The Government should be interested in children.MIKE SABIN: No no; I did not say that the Government should not be interested in children but the primary—Denis O'Rourke: That’s a contradiction of what the previous speaker said.MIKE SABIN: Well the member is right off track. The member is right off track because the Government is far less important in a child’s life than the parents. The parents’ responsibility is one that will always be primary and will always usurp the responsibility of anyone or anything else. I believe that very firmly. So although I do see a place for paid parental leave—Denis O'Rourke: It’s nonsense.MIKE SABIN: It is not nonsense. It is not nonsense at all Denis O’Rourke—it is not nonsense at all Denis O’Rourke. It is about ensuring certainly from this party’s perspective that the primary responsibility of parenting is the responsibility of the parent. Responsibility is about sacrifice. There are plenty of times in a parent’s life when they will have to put themselves second and the needs of their child well ahead of them. The sad reality is that in this country—Tracey Martin: That’s what you’re saying isn’t it Mr Sabin—only people with money can have children.MIKE SABIN: That squawking does get to me. The sad reality is that in this country the default position of far too many parents is that the Government should take the primary responsibility role—it is the Government that should take that primary responsibility role. That in my world is wrong. If you ask me why so many families are falling apart it is because they have forgotten what it is to be a responsible parent. It is not the role of the Government to take over the responsibility of parenting.When it comes to paid parental leave most will actually put their child first and they will make the sacrifices not for 14 weeks not for 16 weeks not for 26 weeks but for 5 years or beyond. There is no magic figure that is the amount of time people should spend with their children. The reality is that if a parent can spend the first 5 years the formative years of a child’s life with them full time that will be the best for that child. It is not about 26 weeks. It is not about 18 or 16 weeks. Sure there will be some—Denis O'Rourke: An anti-parent speech.MIKE SABIN: Well that is absolute rubbish Denis O’Rourke. That is absolute rubbish. It is the parent’s responsibility to be a parent first and foremost and that is not about the Government stepping in and usurping that role. Regardless of what support exists out there the primary responsibility should always be and will always rest with the parent. Although I acknowledge that the member cares passionately about this particular bill the Government opposes it because we believe we have got the balance right.SUE MORONEY (Labour):Look it has become obvious already that the National Party members are going to continue to play their political games with the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. This is the last members’ day of the parliamentary session of this term of Parliament.Hon Christopher Finlayson: What a deadbeat. What a mediocrity.SUE MORONEY: And yes Christopher Finlayson the National Party members are at it again playing political games in order to get in the way of families having the support of 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. Well it is a disgrace. It is a disgrace and it is on display for the nation to see so feel proud of yourselves National Party members. I do not think that the rest of the nation enjoys this at all. I do not think they are enjoying seeing you actually be disrespectful to families in this way. I think it is a great shame.Here we are debating clause 2 of the bill and we are supposed to be talking about the commencement date. Just in case any of the members are interested—because they have not spoken once about the commencement date yet—this bill brings 22 weeks’ paid parental leave in on 1 July. It brings that in on 1 July next year compared with that Government’s offering of just 16 weeks. This bill would bring it in at 22 weeks and then finally 26 weeks on 1 July 2017. Those are the commencement dates. That is what we ought to be talking about. But I just say to all of those parties in here that actually do respect families that do really want to support families in this way let us just get on do the voting and do the right thing by families and by children.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana):I move That the question be now put.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes56New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Noes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth):I am pleased to stand and speak on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I want to just say that I endorse Mike Sabin’s comments—and I am sure many members of this Committee also endorse them—regarding the responsibility of parenthood.Although one member across the other side talked about the responsibility of the Government the Government cannot be the parent of every child. Every child comes on to this earth because of two parents. What we need to do is continue to encourage adults and teenagers in this country who end up being parents to take on the responsibility of that parenthood with great seriousness. Although the Government might be there to assist and prop up sometimes we go too far. When we go too far we dilute the responsibility that people need to take for their individual lives and for their children. It does not mean that this Government does not care. It does not mean—[Interruption]The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! [Interruption] Order! Just two things. First of all I would like to advise members that barracking is not acceptable in the people’s House. This is a place for debate. Members will conduct themselves with the respect for the traditions of the House as enshrined in the Standing Orders. That is the first thing I want to say. The second thing I want to say is that this is a debate on clause 2; we are not on clause 3.JONATHAN YOUNG: The commencement clause—well I believe that this bill should not commence because it goes too far. We believe that there needs to be some support for parents. We do believe that but we need to have support for parents that goes far enough but not too far and that does not dilute the responsibility that parents have.Tracey Martin: No no no—not too far!JONATHAN YOUNG: I do not know about you but I was raised—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!JONATHAN YOUNG: I do not know about that member across there but I was raised in South Taranaki one child out of seven by farming parents who worked incredibly hard and who managed. And I believe that when people are faced with those challenges of how to manage—yes with the appropriate support but not so much support that they abdicate their responsibility—then they develop resources they develop strength of character and they develop ways in which they can care not just for their own family but for their community as well.So many of the families in our community when I was a young boy helped each other and I think it is a sad day when that stops and all the help comes from the Government—that faceless group of people in Wellington who have this incredible sense of obligation placed upon them by people who think that they do not have the resources. I think it is important to find those resources amongst families extended family amongst community and amongst grandparents. I mean how many grandparents actually fulfil a great role of assisting their families and their grandchildren? Many many many do and I think that that is a great thing. It brings the great sense of connection and purpose and fulfilment that they all have.We believe that supporting parents is a very important thing. Supporting children is a very important thing. The Vulnerable Children Act is one of the most significant pieces of legislation to go through this Parliament and that is all about supporting children. The Government Administration Committee that reported on Sue Moroney’s Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill could not come to agreement. That is because there are differences of opinion. This is what—Jacinda Ardern: No it’s because we didn’t have the numbers.JONATHAN YOUNG: No there are differences of opinion Ms Ardern. There are differences of opinion and that is what this place is all about. It is about differences of opinion. We can come into this debating chamber and we can debate our viewpoints and I think that is what New Zealand likes to see. There will be myriads of people out there who will support Sue Moroney and myriads who will not. We are the representatives of viewpoints not only our own but the viewpoints of others in our communities. I know that yes there are people who are very concerned when they see deprivation and when they see hardship but the solutions to that are not always the same. So that is why sometimes we come to this place and we find that there are differences of opinion.TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First):Kia ora Mr Chairperson. I would like to speak about the commencement date which is in clause 2. I believe that the commencement date is appropriate—totally appropriate—for this sort of a bill and actually should probably be brought forward. But just while I talk about that on the comments of the previous speaker Jonathan Young I just want to remark on his hard-working parents in the Taranaki I believe it was. I agree with the honourable member Mr Young that his parents were probably an exceptionally hard-working farming family who were supported by their Government with family support for the first 15 years of his life. They could capitalise on it for their first family home and that got them ahead. If this bill commenced on the commencement date in clause 2 it would merely be a step towards restoring the support that families used to get before the neo-liberal movement of the National Party. Kia ora.DARIEN FENTON (Labour):I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 472 in the name of Sue Moroney to clause 2 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes60New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand National 59.Amendment agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes60New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand National 59.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Clause 3 Principal ActJACINDA ARDERN (Labour):I am going to do a very novel act in this Committee tonight and speak to the clause as I implore my colleagues across the other side of the Chamber to give that a go. Clause 3 is the amendment to the principal Act of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987. I think it is a good opportunity for us to reflect on the fact that multiple amendments have been made to the principal legislation that set out originally paid parental leave. We often learn a lot from history. We learn sometimes that positions change. That is particularly the case for National. I applaud the fact that it has moved away from its ideological problem with paid parental leave because it did have that problem in the first instance.Labour introduced this scheme in 2002 when there was obviously a surplus at that time because we ran nine Budget surpluses FYI. At that time Anne Tolley in 2002 stated the following: “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 and their diverse involvement in today’s labour force. … This is bad legislation. It is a travesty.” Anne Tolley a Minister of this Government called paid parental leave a travesty. And now members on that side of the Chamber try to implore hand on heart that yes they believe in it but just a little bit. So enough that we can have it to just where they are comfortable with it but anything that we suggest is a travesty.Well let me put on record tonight for those members of the Committee: one day you will reflect on your position here and now and you will be as ashamed as you are now of Anne Tolley’s comments in 2002. It took only a little bit over a decade for a little bit of reflection and to look back and say “Well we were wrong.” and surely you admit that was wrong because you have even taken a position that has gone further than what was introduced in 2002. So it would be bizarre if you continued to agree with Anne Tolley’s position. Just to be fair though she was not the only one. Nick Smith in 2002 said: “I say that if a member went out of their way to draft a dumb bill this would have to be it.” He said that he had looked around the world at various paid parental leave models and this one was as bad as they get. Apparently Nick Smith has now moved to it being so bad that National is going to keep it and extend it just a little bit until it is comfortable with it. Obviously he has supported the changes that the Government made in the Budget.And it continued. It was not just 2002 because of course we extended paid parental leave in 2004 because that is what Labour does. When we are able we extend a scheme that we fundamentally believe in. So what was said in 2004? We had Paul Hutchison saying that Labour was “cementing in that State dependency rather than incentivising individual responsibility.” For babies? Is that what he was implying? Judith Collins in 2004: “It is another example of this Government using taxpayers’ money to try to win some votes.” Again from babies? I am not entirely sure what she was trying to say.I think the point that I am trying to make is that it is very easy to look back in hindsight but we are providing you the benefit of hindsight tonight. I say to members on that side of the Chamber that you have already acknowledged you were wrong 10 years ago. We are providing you with the benefit of the doubt to not make that mistake again. You will one day reflect. We will read out again your quotes from tonight and you will hang your heads when you realise how wrong you were. I urge this House to pass the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill tonight to no longer let it sit on the Order Paper and to do the right thing.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):I think the member Jacinda Ardern is quite correct—things do change absolutely. That is the nature of the beast. Positions certainly do change. Polls change leaders of political parties change the global financial conditions change and the landscape in Canterbury changes and that is pretty much how it goes. Things do change positions do change and that is exactly the position that New Zealand has found itself in in recent years.What this Government has done much to the criticism of people like Jacinda Ardern and the Labour Party and their friends over there the Greens and New Zealand First is support those who are most vulnerable—support those who need it. On the one hand those members have continued to vote against everything this Government has done to grow the economy while on the other hand they have criticised us for letting people in their view fall through the cracks. I say that members cannot have it both ways. So the member Jacinda Ardern is quite correct. Things do change.For what it is worth putting a figure of a matter of weeks—the difference between National’s position of extending moderately paid parental leave and Labour’s position in this bill or the difference between having 14 weeks 16 weeks and 18 weeks and having 26 weeks—is not what we should be talking about because the reality is that children need their parents in their formative years. That is the case regardless of how many weeks of paid parental leave exist. Sometimes that means that parents must be prepared to make a sacrifice. The member Sue Moroney as a parent has I am sure done that. Every parent in this Chamber knows that sometimes sacrifices must be made. Sometimes that means surviving on one income not for 16 weeks 18 weeks or 26 weeks but often for 5 years or for longer because that is what children demand of good parents. That is what good parenting is about. It is ensuring that those formative years are spent with the child.So we can debate whether 16 weeks is where it should be or whether 26 weeks is where it should be. I think there is actually a bigger debate to be had here about the fact that New Zealand parents cannot expect that they can just go about their professional working lives and not invest their time in their children and then expect that they will get the same results than if they had been willing to make the sacrifice and spend that time at home with their children. Ultimately that is an important time for development in a child’s life and yes it is true that in spending that time with the children many parents will do it hard for a while. But in this modern era when we look at say this Government’s approach to supporting families even a $500 million package is substantial. When we look at what we would consider to be the more financially challenged or vulnerable families for a family with two children that is earning somewhere in the order of $50000 it is essentially tax-neutral. It will receive from the Government as much support as it will pay in tax.In fact actually what the member Jonathan Young has said is quite right—actually more so. That seems to me to be quite unprecedented. Certainly when I was bringing up young children I do not remember that to be the case. It is certainly the case that MMP creates an environment where we see Labour Governments come up with lolly-scramble ideas and once families become reliant or dependent on a degree of support it is very hard to actually withdraw that support. That is not to say that to some extent there was not some support needed in the first place but what it is fair to say is that once people are given an opportunity to have something that they do not necessarily need they will certainly want to hang on to that.I am not so sure that MMP has been a particularly good electoral system for our families because in many ways what it has done is create a default position of: “What is in it for me? What will the Government give me so that I can be a better parent?”. Well nothing. The Government cannot give anything to someone to be a better parent because being a better parent is not about defaulting to the Government. Being a better parent is about making decisions that are in the best interests of that child.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National):Sat sri akaal Mr Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity. We are debating clause 3 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill.I would like to start with the member opposite Jacinda Ardern who said that paid parental leave was increased from time to time. I would like to remind her that in 2007 the Families Commission gave a report to the Hon Ruth Dyson then Minister of Labour in which it recommended that the paid parental leave provision be increased to 13 months by 2015 including a month for fathers. Labour chose to do nothing at that time and the recommendations were just kept aside. The Government at that time was running in surplus which is a very important point that the Opposition keeps reminding us about—that it delivered nine Budgets in surplus. But did it consider these recommendations? No because Opposition members were not serious about them. They want to take all the credit for what they have done but what they have not done is think about the recommendations that were given by the Families Commission. They never thought about those.It is very important. We need to be responsible for our kids. I come from a culture where we are totally responsible for our children. For example I would like to share with this Committee that I have got two sons who are at the ages of 21 and 23—Hon Christopher Finlayson: Far too young to have children that old.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: No no they should not. They should wait for some time. They are still living with me and I am looking after them. It is not only me; it is me and my wife. Both of us—Hon Christopher Finlayson: Tell them to grow up.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: I will talk to you about that later on. It is very important that parents be responsible for their children. I am not saying that the Government should not look after kids. Vulnerable kids should be taken care of by the Government but the bulk of the responsibility should be on the parents. Parents have to take that responsibility. They have to grow up and make sure they provide the best facilities for their kids. There are cases where families are vulnerable and the kids are vulnerable. The Government should come and pitch in with whatever they want to do. It should help the families that cannot afford that.It is a bit rich for Labour to take a stand on this now that it is in Opposition when it had 9 years in Government to implement changes before the global economic crisis hit the world. This Government has gone through tremendous financial constraints and I think that the leadership of the National Government has done very well. Now that it will be affordable the finance Minister is giving a 2-week increase in paid parental leave in the coming year and a 2-week increase later on. As the financial situation improves for this economy I think you will see further increases in these paid parental leave subsidies to families. With these words I conclude my contribution.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana):I move That the question be now put.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore):I rise to speak on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill in the name of Sue Moroney. As we look at the principal Act which is the purpose of course of clause 3 we wonder really why we are here debating this one. The Budget that we handed down in May has already dealt with all of this so you are wasting the time of the House. We have already moved into this space and taken ownership of it. Really what we are looking at is the unaffordability of what has been proposed by the member who is sponsoring this bill. In the very first reading—I remember it well—Ms Moroney did indicate that she would like it expanded out from 26 weeks to over a year. You will not stop at 26 weeks and we cannot afford that as a country at this time. It is not possible. She is nodding and smiling. So it goes on. We go into a dark hole of indebtedness over a very expensive vote-buying element that you are trying to indulge in. That is not in the best interests of the economy and of this nation. We have already covered it.I think there has been some kind of research through the archives and looking back in Hansard on what other people have said and how apparently they have changed their minds. The time is now better economically for us to be able to afford what we proposed. The legislation that has been changed in the Budget does allow for paid parental leave. We have extended it out in a prudent and moderate fashion which is all we can afford at this stage. We cannot continue to borrow large sums of money to fund unaffordable election-grabbing things such as what this piece of legislation represents. It really is not on. It has already been defeated. The Government Administration Committee could not agree on it. There has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing around things that might or might not be included in this bill. But really one wonders why it is still before the House.When we look at the principal Act of something like this bill it is supposed to amend the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 but that has already been done. We have already covered that off. Really you need to move on. This may be the last members’ day of the 50th Parliament. There will be a lot that I can speak about when we come to the fourth part of this. When we look at what this Government has provided by extending the current 14 weeks out to 16 weeks—and that will be as of 1 April 2015—and then to 18 weeks as of 1 April 2016 then we are getting into territory that is affordable it is gradual it is helping parents it is helping children and it is helping families which is what this John Key National-led Government is all about.We put families at the centre of our policies which is why we spent $10.5 billion on health. It is why we continue to invest in education and reach targets for early childhood education. We are moving successfully to a stage where the economy can provide families with the ability to get off the benefit. Something like 1000 New Zealanders a week are going off the benefit. They will be able to put their families their children their households into a better state into a better place and remove them from poverty.Hon Member: More jobs.MAGGIE BARRY: More jobs of course as my colleague has pointed out. That is also what we are providing with the economy. It is incredibly important that we stay on track. Bill English is a classic Minister of Finance with short arms and long pockets. He has delivered two Budgets that have not thrown money wildly around. We are not about that. This is not what this Government does. But what we do is we target the money that is needed to the people that require it. The under-6s’ free general practitioner visits was an important development. It worked so well that we have spent a further $90 million and covered it off—Tracey Martin: New Zealand First policy.MAGGIE BARRY: Is there something wrong with the plumbing in the House? There seems to be an inordinate squeaking noise. Perhaps there are chihuahuas loose in the Chamber? It certainly sounds a bit like it. There is a funny squeaking noise which of course is unintelligible. Even if we could hear it it would not make any sense.As far as we are concerned when we look at the Budget and the changes that we have made we are providing funding to enable more pre-schoolers to attend quality early childhood education. That is giving the best possible start in life. It is something that is helping New Zealand’s most vulnerable. It is helping New Zealand children across the board and helping New Zealand families. We are rolling out eight more Children’s Teams around the country to help protect our most vulnerable children from abuse. The money that has been allocated in the Budget to sort out these historical sexual abuse claims—those sorts of things—is really going to make a difference and send a clear message to people who continue to perpetrate violence against women and children and families. We are not about to let that happen. Judith Collins has done very good work in this area. All of the entities the ministries of Government are working closely together. That is another characteristic of this Government. We are able to work together with the departments.SUE MORONEY (Labour):The member who has just resumed her seat Maggie Barry asked a few questions so I thought I would answer them. She asked the question: “Why are we debating this?”. Well it is for two reasons. I know they are not reasons that she likes but one is that this bill the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months' Paid Leave) Amendment Bill has a parliamentary majority. This bill defeats the Government. That is why we are here debating it. The majority of parliamentarians in this precinct believe and know this is the right thing to do. They know that it is indeed affordable. It is affordable because this is an investment in our children. There is no better investment that any Government can make than investing in our children.Maggie Barry: We’re already doing it.SUE MORONEY: That is reason one Ms Barry that we are here debating this. Reason No. 2 is the National Government for about a year now has been trying to stop the passage of the bill. It has been trying to stop it by doing exactly what people can see its members doing tonight: filibustering and speaking on the bill for no other reason than they want to stop it from passing. So those Ms Barry are the reasons why we are here debating the bill. It is about democracy. The majority of parliamentarians—Maggie Barry: You’ve been overtaken by events. It is no longer needed.SUE MORONEY: Can I remind Ms Barry that support partners of the Government support this bill. It is clearly not unaffordable. The previous Minister of Revenue for this Government supports this bill. It is clearly not unaffordable. That is just a weak and lame excuse for the National members who cannot bring themselves to support children and support families in this way. They are completely wrong. They should be ashamed of what they are doing this evening.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth):I think what we want to probably make clear is that things are a matter of balance and when the sponsor of the bill says that this Government does not support children or does not support families that is incorrect. We know and she knows that this Government introduced with the Budget and passed through all stages into law on 16 May legislation that increases the number of weeks of paid parental leave from the current 14 weeks to 16 weeks as of 1 April 2015 and to 18 weeks as of 1 April 2016.I think that the member she was referring to made a comment around affordability. When I talk about balance and affordability what we have to understand is that this Government spends its money out of essentially a single bucket. So money we spend in one area cannot be spent in another and so we have issues. Last week for example the Hon Tony Ryall sent out a press release regarding people who need kidney transplants. There are 600 on the waiting list in New Zealand and we do a hundred a year. So he has increased funding—Andrew Little: What’s this got to do with paid parental leave?JONATHAN YOUNG: Yes it does have something to do with paid parental leave because it has to do with the balance of funding that we seek to spread over the needs of New Zealanders. We need to understand that when we say that some areas take too much it is not because there is a lack of concern; it is because there is also concern for other areas where money needs to be spent. I think that is the rationale that we need to understand when it comes to spending the Government’s resources or the taxpayers’ funds.So when the sponsor of the bill says that this Government does not care I refute that. What we are essentially saying is that her bill though well intentioned goes too far and costs too much because it takes away money that needs to be spent in other areas of desperate need for New Zealanders. So it is a matter of finding the balance. I think what Mike Sabin has talked about and what I spoke about not long ago is that the balance also around parental responsibility needs to be considered because as much as we would like to make everything easy we have got to understand that there is balance needed.I remember when parental leave legislation first went through—going back to the principal Act in 1987. I do not know about you but I remember hearing Richard Prebble speaking on the radio. I am not sure whether it was around this point in time but he said something about parenting that stuck with me all of these years. [Interruption] And he is one of them by the way. You know that. He said: “When it comes to having children and you can’t afford it”—because that can be a relative thing for a start—“love your kids and enjoy them even though there is going to be financial pressure.” What he was saying I think was that there is joy that comes with every child. I think that we forget some of those great values.I talked before about when I was brought up as a kid in South Taranaki on the farm and out in the rural areas before I became a townie at the age of 10. There were a lot of things that we could not afford but we had a great life. You know you think that you can have a great life only if you have got all the support that comes from the Government and we do not believe in that. We believe that it is appropriate to give support where it is needed and where it is affordable but sometimes when you go too far you create other things that happen. Some of those things that happen are a lack of community support and a lack of wider family support.We have gone through our society with 14 weeks’ leave and we have done that to assist families who need to have a transition period when they can make decisions about how they are going to manage financially—perhaps go back to work or if not then make adjustments so their budget can cope. We have done all that. But now to extend it out from 14 to 26 weeks—DARIEN FENTON (Labour):I move That the question be now put.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes57New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West):I just want to point out to anybody who may be listening that it is not the Government’s intention to drag out this particular clause clause 3 but Mr Chair you did just accept a closure motion when only four members had spoken on this side of the Chamber and there were other members seeking the call.Andrew Little: Nothing genuine about this speech!TIM MACINDOE: I can assure Mr Little that this is going to be very genuine and I am happy to tell him why if he would like to stop sounding like a foghorn and listen. A number of Opposition claims have been made. He is clearly not interested in listening. He is just going to filibuster from that side by preventing me from speaking.First of all I would like to acknowledge Sue Moroney’s husband Shane who is in the gallery. I am sure it is a pleasure for her to have her husband here tonight. I do also want to acknowledge that Sue has been incredibly lucky with members’ bills because I think she has had several drawn out in her time as a member. In my time here I have never had a single one drawn out. People who are listening may wonder. It is a little bit like parliamentary lotto. If you get lucky they get drawn out of the ballot.I think there is an important point that does need to be made and that is that the members’ bills of the Opposition cannot be used to derail a Government’s Budget. It is very important to remind everybody who is listening that notwithstanding the very narrow support for the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill in the current Parliament of members with the composition of parties that are here this bill has never been voted on by the New Zealand public. It has never been taken to the public for a mandate and therefore it is a little bit rich for the members opposite to claim the moral high ground on behalf of the 60 members of this Parliament tonight who are voting for it when 4.4 million New Zealanders have not yet had a chance to vote on it. As I say members’ bills of the Opposition cannot derail a Government’s Budget because a Government has to have the ability to budget for the long term to plan its fiscal strategy and to work out how revenue and Government spending can be organised in a responsible way to ensure that New Zealand taxpayers—who after all will have to pay for anything that a Parliament commits expenditure to—can afford it and that it has been factored in. This clearly had not been.Even more important it is worth nothing that in this year’s Budget there was $500 million of new spending for New Zealand families.Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: How much?TIM MACINDOE: There was $500 million and that did include an extension to paid parental leave and I was proud to support that. So I reject utterly any suggestion that members on this side are not in favour of paid parental leave. We are and we demonstrated that with our Budget. We also broadened the scope with the extension of the parental tax credit which meant that more people qualify. Again that is very important particularly for those at the bottom end of the scale who most need support. Thirdly—and it is allied to this—we have extended the opportunity for families in New Zealand to access free doctors visits for children. Again that is an important measure that I am very proud of. So this is a family-friendly Government and that was a family-friendly Budget but this particular measure that we are debating tonight has not had the endorsement of the New Zealand people.I also just want to make a point about the accusation of filibustering because boy that is rich. In my 6 years here I have listened to the Opposition filibuster on the Auckland governance bill to the point where there were 30000 amendments tabled most of which wanted to change the date of commencement—30000—and we had to sit here all day on a Saturday listening to that nonsense. I heard the member whose name this bill is in filibustering on the Royal Society bill which was totally uncontroversial. She had nothing of any value to say nor did any of her colleagues. I also heard them do the same thing on the Parana Park bill. If they would like me to talk about the Parana Park bill which was a wonderful little local measure for Hamilton I am happy to do so but it would not be relevant. That is the sort of thing that they did—talk irrelevantly. I point out that every member of the Government who has spoken tonight has dealt with the substantive nature of this bill. They have dealt with the issues that arise from it they have dealt with their responsibility to the taxpayer and that is the way it should be. That is not filibustering. That is responsible parliamentary debate and I am proud of my colleagues this evening.TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First):Kia ora Mr Chair. Can I just compliment Mr Macindoe on his contribution. Mr Macindoe is right and Mr Macindoe is wrong. Mr Macindoe is right that the Government has the ability to veto this bill because the budget of it has not been worked out inside the Budget that those members placed in front of the country. We know that. I think that what is most interesting and probably what the New Zealand public needs to understand is that some of the frustration of the Opposition is that we know that Mr Macindoe. Your Government has that ability. Use it. Do not continue this argument. Use the veto—use the veto. Do not be so afraid with regard to the election that is coming and the backlash that your party may receive from the New Zealand people.Where Mr Macindoe is wrong is that he said that there is no mandate from the New Zealand people for this bill and yet Mr Macindoe knows that like every other member’s bill it goes before a select committee and that the New Zealand public have just as much opportunity—and many many took this opportunity on this bill; many more than on other members’ bills that have been out there—to put their voice into the consultation process. Mr Macindoe knows that so he knows that the New Zealand public has had an opportunity to discuss this bill. Submission after submission after submission was in favour of this bill.Mr Macindoe and his party often use the fact that they have a mandate because they are elected representatives of the country. They argue against having a binding citizens initiated referendum on that basis so they bring their voice just as United Future brings its voice. One might not like the deal they have now done with United Future because it brought a vote to this House on the back of a deal with their Government which it chooses to use independently when the Government might not have wanted it to. It might not suit Government members that the Māori Party which they also did a deal with to try to keep their Government going chose to use its votes independently to support this bill. But that does stand as a mandate under the arguments that National has used before.Mr Macindoe is an eloquent speaker—there is no doubt about it—and Mr Macindoe is a good honest decent man who loves his family and supports his electorate and who actually believes in parents and children.Mike Sabin: So do I.TRACEY MARTIN: And Mr Sabin is not so bad either. But let us get real. What has been happening here is that the Opposition understands the position it is in. It understands that the Government has the power of veto. Get on with it. If you are going to veto the bill veto it and let the people of New Zealand see that and make their decision when they go to the polls on the fact that you vetoed a bill that almost 100 percent of the submitters actually supported.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore):When we look at the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill and at the purpose of this bill we are really reminded that this is not really fit for purpose. I have mentioned that at other times in my previous call and I would like to draw attention to what this Government has been doing instead in this space which is a tremendous thing. The work that we are doing in this space of allowing workers who have been with their employer for more than 6 months but for less than a year to be entitled to some form of unpaid leave is something that we are proud of.I think it is important that we consult and that we are seen to be looking carefully at what this country really needs: primary carers who provide permanent foster care akin to adoption such as Home for Life parents. People who have permanent guardianship—that is biological fathers and grandparents caring for grandchildren—need to be eligible as well as long as they meet the work test criteria of course. A number of proposals that we are putting together to modernise parental leave which allow changes to allow greater access and increased flexibility are also available. We are taking submissions on this through until about 25 August and then we aim to have those in place by 1 April. There are—Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Excuse me but I am just not sure what relevance the current speaker’s comments are having to the clause that we are debating.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is a point well made. I urge the member to refer to clause 3 because that is what we are actually debating at the present stage.MAGGIE BARRY: Sure. Having said enough on clause 3 I will wait until clause 4 and devote my comments in more detail to that. Thank you very much.A party votewas called for on the questionThat clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes60New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand National 59.Clause 3 agreed to.Clause 4 PurposeSUE MORONEY (Labour):I want to make a contribution on clause 4 because it is the purpose clause of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill that we are about to debate and I hope that members will stick to that. Also I want to take a call because I think that those watching may be a little tired of the moralising and the judgmental-type calls that are coming from the National Party members about what good parenting is and what good parenting is not. I think I would rather bring the debate back to making sure that there are choices for all families. Opportunity and choice—Mike Sabin: Rights and responsibilities—where does the measure lie?SUE MORONEY: —are what this bill is about Mr Sabin. It is actually about choices for families. It is not about requiring families to take paid parental leave. It is not requiring families to have one of the parents in paid employment.But the reality is that for most families these days unless they are very very wealthy there is a need for both parents to be in paid employment. There is a range of other things that we need to maybe address in our society. We need higher wages for example. That would be a good outcome would it not if we actually got the National Party members to agree that higher wages were something that would be good to resolve this issue? But no they are actually spending their time making judgmental-type contributions about parenting and what makes good parenting and what does not.This bill is about choices. It is about choices for families. It is about the ability for this country as a collective society to actually say that we want to invest in the future of our society that investing in children is a priority and certainly within the Labour Party that is what we believe—that investing in children is a priority. We want the best well-rounded citizens of this country because we know that will actually give the brighter future that the National Party members used to talk about. They have stopped it now but they once talked about a brighter future. This bill is a practical measure to bring about that brighter future that the National Party once believed in.It is very sad to hear the National members’ speeches because I think that people will hear them protesting far too loudly—far too loudly—that they do really actually quite like children. Of course they like children! But if they really wanted to prioritise families and children then they would be supporting this bill; they would not be speaking to try to stop it from having its votes. I agree with Tracey Martin that if the Government really was going to be honest and authentic in its debate about this bill it would stop this silly nonsense of the filibuster and would let the bill pass and then use its financial veto. If Government members really believe they have a justified case for saying it was unaffordable then I ask them to use the financial veto. That is what it is there for. I firmly believe that the Government has done this and gone through all these twists and turns to not use the financial veto because it knows that there is not the financial justification for using it. The Government members know that in their heart of hearts and that is why they will not go down that track.I want to remind some of the speakers who have spoken on the previous clauses that the bill does have public support. I say to Mr Macindoe that we know that because 96.4 percent of the submitters on this bill—and there were 3800 of them—Tim Macindoe: That is not a mandate.SUE MORONEY: “It’s not a mandate.” says Mr Macindoe. He is just running down the whole system of democracy in this country. The select committee process brought forward about 3809 submitters I think and 96.4 percent of them agreed with this bill as did a poll. The poll was not done by a political party. It was done I think by one of the TV channels. It was of 1000 people and it showed that even when the question was put to them that it was going to cost $500 million which it is not by the way—even then with that amount of money being put into that loaded question 63 percent of New Zealanders said they wanted it. So this bill—and I know the National Party does not want to hear this—does have wide public support in New Zealand. It has parliamentary support. The only thing standing between families and 26 weeks’ paid parental leave is the National Party.Dr JIAN YANG (National):Ni hao xiexie. I rise to take a call on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. As a father of two I understand the importance of any support for families. Happy stable families are particularly important to the functioning of our society and to the quality of life. Supporting families is a fundamental service that any Government should provide. However on the other hand it is equally important that we manage our finances responsibly and make sure that the Government does not overspend. In this context this bill is not balanced and it goes too far.The National Government is committed to providing better services to New Zealand families including giving children the best possible start in life. That is exactly why our Budget 2014 invests almost $500 million more in the well-being of New Zealand’s children and families. Budget 2014 provides a comprehensive package of practical measures focused on young families and those vulnerable children who most need our care and protection—for example free general practitioner visits and free prescriptions for children under 13; 4 weeks’ extra paid parental leave and extended to caregivers other than parents; and an increase in the parental tax credit by $70 a week to $220 a week and extended by 2 weeks to 10 weeks. The total fiscal cost of both the extension of paid parental leave and the changes to the parental tax credit is more than $183 million over 4 years.Additionally we will be spending a further $30 million to increase paid parental leave eligibility following a consultation process. Just this week this Government has announced that parental leave payments will increase from 1 July 2014 to reflect the 3.3 percent increase in the average weekly wage over the past year. The maximum payment for eligible employees and self-employed persons will increase from $488.17 a week to $504.10 gross a week. The minimum parental leave payments for self-employed people will also increase from $137.50 a week to $142.50 gross a week. The Government has always said that it was prepared to extend paid parental leave but in a way that is affordable. When we could afford more we would do more. That is exactly what we did in Budget 2014. But Labour’s 26 weeks’ paid parental leave goes too far and it costs too much.National is focused on reasonably managing the Government’s finances. It is important we get back to surplus and get that under control. Countries with longer paid parental leave entitlements than New Zealand’s include Portugal Italy Greece and Spain. We know what happened to those countries during the global financial crisis. There is a real danger of running up huge deficits through unaffordable Government spending. This bill is also poorly targeted. Bear in mind that only around 40 percent of families with newborns get paid parental leave. Labour’s policy is not targeted on need. Twenty-six weeks’ paid parental leave does not help a lot of the most vulnerable children in New Zealand who would benefit from much more targeted support and services.Progress reported.Report adopted.