Ardern Jacinda: Employment Standards Legislation Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Employment Standards Legislation Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 March 2016. Volume:711;Page:9452. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is a pleasure to follow on from Sue Moroney and her contribution on this bill because I think it is widely acknowledged that the huge amount of debate and discussion on paid parental leave that we are rightly having in this Parliament has in a large part been driven by Sue Moroney and the Labour Party which has supported her in that campaign. Even though we have been unable to reach consensus on elements of paid parental leave—most notably the Labour Party still believes obviously that 26 weeks is ideal. Actually to a certain extent I believe that National probably agrees that it is ideal—probably; maybe I am being a touch generous—but it has continued to argue that in its mind the cost-benefit analysis does not add up. Well that is where we have a definite difference in opinion.On this side of theHouse we believe that it is one of those investing-to-save things when it comes to investing in mums and babies and that we all benefit from that investment as a society. So as much as we are very pleased to see some of these amendments today I think it is still important to use the opportunity to say look we would have been happy if Part 1 had an extension of time and if we were at that ultimate ideal of 26 weeks because it is what the international evidence and advice suggests to us that we should be pursuing. As a party—Sue Moroney: And we have an amendment that does exactly that.JACINDA ARDERN: And of course because we fundamentally believe in that we will still be pushing amendments that make that point—you never know perhaps David Seymour might like to support that again—and perhaps also amendments on multiple births as well which is an issue that we still have concerns around.This is the point where I always pay tribute to my nana who had not just one multiple birth but two multiple births within a period of 4 years. I challenge anyone not to grimace at the idea of having four children of that age—two multiple births—and to keep your sanity at the same time. So there are obvious reasons why we continue to push. Although we have acknowledged again the need for support for those pre-term babies that is where we would like to see those extra provisions go in terms of 26 weeks as well.I want to come to some of the amendments. I am not a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee but in reading some of the amendments that it has made you can tell that a lot of good work has been done by this select committee. There was a huge number of submissions—12260 submissions—on this bill. A number of those of course would have related to the zero-hour contract elements of the bill which we will come to but Part 1 does not cover that. Part 1 is focused on parental leave and payment entitlements. You can see by that work that there has been thorough consideration.I want to come first of all to clause 16 in Part 1 where the select committee has considered the fact that this bill broadens out eligibility to include the term “primary carer”. Of course before this the test under the law has had some constraints in terms of who is able to access parental leave provisions—biological mothers spouses partners and formal adoptive parents. But the term “primary carer” does broaden the eligibility to individuals who assume primary non-temporary responsibility for raising a child. I think we have to acknowledge that in New Zealand now in our modern family structures we do often have a range of arrangements when it comes to the care of a child and we do need to make sure that those who are in that primary care role are able to access paid parental leave provisions. I can think of some constituency cases where children have been whāngai-ed. It may not have been a formal arrangement but it makes sense for that individual for instance to be eligible for these provisions.In fact the research now tells us that although biological parents have a significant role—obviously and by default—actually the most important thing for a newborn is the ability to form a bond with a consistent primary carer in their life and the label of that carer is not the relevant part in terms of the relationship that that child is able to form with that primary carer. So I do think that the select committee was right to broaden out that term. We would not want to exclude individuals but we have to make sure that we are careful that it does not become so broad that we are including people who are for instance home-care providers. For instance the PORSE Networks of this world would not want to be eligible in that regard. So I think probably making sure that that is not the case is certainly advisable. It is those who have that permanent carer role.I want to come to the additional entitlement for primary carers of pre-term babies. Of course as Sue Moroney has already laid out the additional leave payment entitlement for primary carers of premature babies born before the end of the 36th week of gestation is a welcome amendment to this bill for all of the reasons that she outlined. Of course that was at the point where we realised we were not going to achieve 26 weeks. At that point it was about trying to have the maximum effect for those who needed it most. So it really was the politics of Opposition—recognising that there was a difference that could still be made for those who really needed it even if we were not going to reach our goal.Just I think for the sake of clarity it is worth pointing out the way that the select committee determined that entitlement that should be accessed which is set out in new section 71DA in clause 56 and then consequential amendments. The way that that is structured will “allow primary carers one week of pre-term baby payment for each week that their child was born prematurely (to a maximum of 13 weeks). The payment would end when the primary carer returned to work or at the end of the week that would have been the 36th week of gestation (whichever comes first).”I think it is really important to note that a parent who has a premature baby is much more likely of course to experience longer periods with that child in hospital. I had a friend not that long ago who experienced that exact situation and the absolute chaos that then ensued for that family—it was extraordinarily difficult to balance both caring and being present for that baby while it was in hospital with care arrangements for the remainder of the family who were at home. Under usual terms that would eat into the ability of that parent to then have that longer period post-birth with the usual paid parental leave provisions.This is a practical measure that can be taken to assist those families who are not experiencing the same start in life for their family and their new baby as those that are going full term. It acknowledges that those babies are at greater risk and that there is that additional pressure for those families. So I think it is an excellent amendment that we are seeing and once again I pay tribute to Sue Moroney in particular and acknowledge that the role of MMP sometimes—well not sometimes; it should be all the time in this House. It is the ability of individual smaller parties to recognise when there is something—regardless of the coalition or relationship they might have with the governing party—that deserves support on the merits of amendments that are put forward in this House regardless of which party produces them.It would have been helpful if that could have just been done at the time that the bill came forward in the name of the member that it came forward with. Putting those politics aside if that individual member thinks that it is a good idea it should be backed. Putting that aside we are now in a situation where we have the ability to support that collectively. I would not want to add up the number of families who have missed out because of that little bit of politics though because ultimately there will be a number who will not receive the assistance that this bill offers them because a party who has been named chose not to support it at the time that it came up but to wait. So that is a shame.But ultimately we celebrate the progress that has been made whilst continuing to advocate for what the international evidence supports—that is 26 weeks for babies. Twenty-six weeks for babies because they are the ultimate ones who will benefit from the ability of that primary carer to be there with that child. Ultimately we alwayssupport the idea of that being mum of course for breastfeeding reasons. That is why we have always pushed for 26 weeks but we acknowledge the range of circumstances that come into play such as whāngai adoption. So we are very supportive of those amendments.