Bradford Sue: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bradford Sue: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13358] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I never dreamt I would hear such a humorous speech in the first reading of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill and I thank Mr Brown. The Green Party welcomes the introduction of the bill to the House tonight and intends to support it through all its stages. There is no question that we have a serious long-term commitment to do everything we can to support the rights and welfare of all working mothers and fathers and of their children—no matter who their parents are. This bill marks another small step on the long journey towards the full recognition of the essential role that adults who are selfless enough to have children play in our society. Unlike the National Party the Green Party does not see paid parental leave as a pitiful welfare crumb that is either not needed by the very rich or insulting to the poor. Rather we support it as a long overdue first step towards enabling at least some working mothers to have some time at home with their baby or babies after they give birth or adopt. I say “babies” because I had twins the first time around. 
When the first paid parental leave legislation went through Parliament in 2002 we thought it was a good start but felt very much that there was still a long way to go before New Zealand could truly pride itself as being on a par with other developed countries in its treatment of working parents and their children. One of the key reasons for our misgivings was the fact that the first bill gave workers an entitlement to 12 weeks’ paid leave rather than the minimum of 14 weeks’ called for under ILO Convention 183 Concerning the Revision of the Maternity Protection Convention. Even though New Zealand has not ratified that convention we felt that a Labour Government with the support at that time of the Alliance and the Green parties should have been able to see its way clear to legislate for at least the bare minimum required. We therefore put forward at that time an amendment during the Committee stage of the bill seeking to extend the amount of paid parental leave from 12 to 14 weeks. Of course it failed to go through but at least it is some vindication now to see that the Government has reached the point where it does feel able following its own evaluation of the scheme to give employees an entitlement of 13 weeks’ leave from December this year and 14 weeks from December 2005. While it is a pity that this extension will be staggered and is taking years to occur at least it will happen. 
As for those critics among Opposition parties and business who say it is unthinkable to have any paid parental leave at all much less this shockingly huge amount of 14 weeks I say that some of us who were on the recent Speaker’s tour to certain European countries were amazed—and in my case delighted—to find that paid parental leave of up to 1 year or more is becoming the norm in a number of countries as Governments realise that they have to do a lot more to encourage their citizens to have children and also the ability to nurture them well in their infancy. In New Zealand we are still a very long way behind the times and it is entirely possible that with the high student loan burden a low-wage economy ever-lowering birth rates and decreased inward migration we may before long find ourselves in a position similar to that of some of the other developed countries that are positively panicking about how older generations will survive without a younger working-age population to support them. 
Adequate paid parental leave is just one strand of what needs to be done to support and respect those who choose to have children but it is a critical one in a society where the adults in many one-parent and two-parent families find themselves forced into the workforce through economic necessity and societal pressure. As a side note I hope that the Budget tomorrow afternoon will provide enough financial relief so that at least some primary caregivers of young children will have a chance to stay home while their babies are young rather than heading out on that weary forced march back to work after a mere 12 or 14 weeks. I speak of this with some passion as a mother of five who with my last two babies went back to full-time work when they were only 2-weeks-old in one case and 1-week-old in the other. As all the many mothers who have been or who are in this situation will know it is quite a heart-wrenching business to leave a newborn baby behind and set out with a smile for another day at work. I do not think any truly humane society should allow this to continue as the norm. 
This brings me to the second major improvement brought forward by the bill before us today whereby some employees currently not eligible for paid parental leave will become so from 1 December this year. This new bill will provide that a woman worker who has been with the same employer for at least an average of 10 hours a week for between 6 and 12 months before her baby is due will now be eligible for both maternity and paid leave for the period of paid parental leave only. Partners who have worked for the same employer for 6 to 12 months will also be offered leave for the first time. Both these new entitlements will be at lower rates—the mother will not be eligible for extended leave and the male partner will get only 1 week’s leave rather than 2—but at least this is a big improvement on the current situation in which people who have worked for the same employer for less than a year are entitled to nothing unless it is negotiated completely separately from legislation. 
Again this was an issue that we raised during the course of the paid parental leave legislation in 2001 and 2002. I am glad the Government is gradually extending coverage to those many workers who have not completed a full year with one employer even though they may have been accumulating student loan debt for years or may have been gainfully employed over an extended period but with a whole lot of different employers. 
Although the Green Party is more than happy to give its support to the advances contained in this bill we remain concerned about the failure of either the original bill or this one to address the question of self-employed parents. I acknowledge that other parties here tonight have raised this as well. Many people from both the farming and urban small-business sectors made submissions to us during the select committee process on the original bill about the problems faced by self-employed people when they come to have their children. Indeed in some ways they are in an even more difficult position than those in regular employment. I know this is a difficult issue and I believe that the Government has been doing work on it over time but I certainly hope that by next year we will see some progress in this area. If we can provide accident compensation cover for people who are self-employed and assess them for tax benefit and student allowance purposes I cannot understand why a fair system cannot be devised that would in the end bring equity between employed and self-employed parents. 
In conclusion I commend the Government and officials for taking the evaluation of the original paid parental leave scheme seriously enough not only to carry out a substantive consultation but also to extend the scheme as much as they feel fiscally able. Although it is a pity the improvements could not have gone further particularly in relation to self-employed people at least we will finally meet the ILO minimum of 14 weeks’ paid parental leave and coverage will be widened to include the pool of around 7000 employees who fit the 6 to 12 month tenure requirement. This bill is a small but significant stepping stone on the journey towards ending structural discrimination against women in the paid workforce and I look forward to its being enacted in time for its December 2004 provisions to take effect.