Dyson Ruth: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 05 November 2014. Volume:701;Page:689. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills):I am very pleased to speak to new clause 6 and I want to commend and congratulate you on the consistency of your rulings in relation to relevancy. New clause 6 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill is outlined in two places. One is in Supplementary Order Paper 15 and another is in Supplementary Order Paper 472. The one in Supplementary Order Paper 15 proposes new clause 6 and it says in subclause (1) that the term “16 weeks” should be replaced with “22 weeks” in respect of a person who has given birth to two or more children as a result of one pregnancy—so just to be clear about that we are talking about a person who has had a multiple birth. That is a good thing to talk about this week because the House has already had a discussion on the fact that this is actually Multiple Birth Awareness Week and we are debating that very point. The person as outlined in this new clause has to assume or intend to assume the care of those children.The second provision is where one or more children is born before 37 weeks of gestation—so a premature birth—and where the child or children survive the birth for the duration of the parental leave payment.The third provision in this new clause 6 is where a child is born with an impairment and that impairment would entitle the child or the carer to a Government-funded disability support service. That is the first part of new clause 6—that is part one.The second part is in subclause (2) which replaces the 22 weeks’ paid parental leave provision with 26 weeks. Again it links those criteria in the same way as subclause (1) with multiple births a premature birth or a disabled child who is entitled to Government-funded disability support services.The difference between subclauses (1) and (2) is the length of time. In the first one subclause (1) we have replaced the 16-week provision with a 22-week provision and in subclause (2) we are replacing 22 weeks with 26 weeks. That would then of course be the path of the progressive extension of our current paid parental leave provisions to the outcome that is intended as the primary purpose of this bill which is to have New Zealand parents who are entitled to receive paid parental leave be in receipt of 26 weeks. So that is the point of subclauses (1) and (2). In this same amendment subclauses (3) and (4) are deleted.There is another amendment in Supplementary Order Paper 472 also relating to clause 6 and they are all consequential amendments. I am confident that no prior decisions of the Committee have ruled out any of those consequential amendments. I am not sure whether you would like to tell us that before you put the vote or whether you are going to allow for debate. I am assuming that you would not allow debate on clauses that have been—The CHAIRPERSON (Trevor Mallard): I probably should not offer you—are you inviting me to rule it out?Hon RUTH DYSON: Well actually what I was inviting you to do is just give us a hint as to whether you were going to tell us or not not actually ruling on it. It is quite an interesting situation that the Committee would find itself in where we would be debating presumably for some time because there are how many—if we go from paragraphs (a) to (k) in subclause (1) then we go from paragraphs (a) to (k) in subclause (2) and then there are subclauses (3) (4) and (5) all with different amendments. So I am assuming we can debate these until we in fact get the opportunity to vote in which case you might say that because of prior decisions of the Committee that particular amendment is ruled out.The CHAIRPERSON (Trevor Mallard): No it is not my intention to do that although it would be a bit of a nonsense to pass it having made the previous decision.Hon RUTH DYSON: Do I have to sit down when you are making a contribution like that? I was not quite sure whether you were interrupting or just having a—The CHAIRPERSON (Trevor Mallard): No I am an old-fashioned member—back and forth in the Committee is all right.Hon RUTH DYSON: I am really encouraging of this open style of debating. I will go back to Supplementary Order Paper 472 which is new clause 6. What it does in subclauses (1) and (2) is replace the term “16 weeks” with “22 weeks” in each of section 1A(c) section 9(1) and (3) section 19A(3) section 19B(2)(a) section 26(2) section 27(2)(c) section 32(d)(i) section 45(4)(a) and (c)(i) section 71A section 71L and section 71LA(1)(a). Those sections are sections of the primary Act which as we know is not a paid parental leave and employment protection Act. They are in fact sections of the 1987 Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act. I want to just briefly draw the attention of the Committee to that point because many members have assumed that we have had paid parental leave in New Zealand for a long time and when they have noted that this is legislation affecting the principal Act—for example the sections referred to in subclause (1) which I have just been through are all consequential amendments to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987. That was not legislation that gave New Zealand’s new parents entitlement to any payment. It was for employment protection only. That is the point of the primary legislation which clause 6(1) in paragraphs (a) though to (k) amends.I will now go on—again in Supplementary Order Paper 472—to subclause (2) paragraphs (a) through to (k). In paragraph (a) we have a replacement of words in section 1A(c). In paragraph (b) we have a replacement of words in sections 9(1) and (3). In paragraph (c) we have a replacement of words in section 19A(3). In paragraph (d) we have a replacement of words in section 19B(2)(a). In paragraph (e) we have a replacement of words in section 26(2). In paragraph (f) we have a replacement of words in section 27(2)(c). In paragraph (g) we have a replacement of words in section 32(d)(i). In paragraph (h) we have a replacement of words in sections 45(4)(a) and (c)(i). In paragraph (i) we have a replacement of words in section 71A. In paragraph (j) we have a replacement of words in section 71L. And as in subclause (1) paragraph (k) we have a replacement of words in section 71LA(l)(a) in paragraph (k) of subclause (2). In subclause (2) paragraphs (a) through to (k) the phrase “22 weeks” is replaced with “26 weeks”. And that would be the celebration. That would be when we move our legislation to what is accepted best practice by the World Health Organization and by 99.6 percent of the submitters to the committee on this legislation. They would move paid parental leave to 26 weeks.There are three further subclauses in this new clause 6. One is subclause (3) which replaces the words “10 weeks” with “16 weeks” in section 9(2) of the original legislation. Subclause (4) of this new clause 6 replaces in section 9(2) again the words “16 weeks” with “20 weeks”. Subclause (5) has a replacement of an entire part Part 2 in schedule 1AA. I assume that other colleagues are going to talk to that because it is actually quite substantial in that it covers all the transitional provisions.Part of the rigour of a Committee consideration is looking not just at the point of the legislation not just at the social financial or whatever impact it might have on citizens or communities but at the actual detail. We all know that the devil of legislation is in the detail and in this legislation there is quite a substantial amount. This bill has been around for a long time it has had a lot of changes and it is a member’s bill which means that the member has had to do a lot of this work on her own. When you are looking at three-quarters of a page of quite detailed and specific amendments inserting an entire new clause to the original legislation then it is my view that it is the responsibility of this Committee whether members are voting for or against the legislation in the end to make sure that the bill receives proper scrutiny and that all those details are correct.The final point that I would like to make is to seek the indulgence of the member in whose name this bill is to ask her to explain exactly where the previous date changes were made whether they were made in the Committee discussion prior to the House. Was it earlier this evening? I have not been able to find the Supplementary Order Paper on the Table and I am keen to make sure that before we reach the end of this debate that if those details have not been covered off—