Ngaro Alfred: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNgaro Alfred: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 25 May 2016. Volume:714;Page:11284. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call on this bill the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill in its second reading. I just note the comments that were made by David Seymour the previous speaker. The figure is that annually it is about 26000. So he is absolutely right. It is even lower than that—lower than the 30000. He is absolutely right that on average per year that is the number that actually applied for paid parental leave.But I want to start my remarks by taking up a point that my colleague and friend Mark Mitchell got up and talked about in his speech which is the importance of the role of fathers. It is just as important. I know that Denise Roche spoke about that and called it mansplaining. Clayton Mitchell then went on and started bandying on about this and saying that she was absolutely correct. I have to say that that really does take away the essence of what Parliament is actually about which is the equity of all to have an opportunity to debate this issue. I think that that is really important—Sue Moroney: That’s why it’s called parental leave.ALFRED NGARO: —just as it is for Mrs Sue Moroney to be able to do that and I respect that. I just think that there needs to be a little bit of respect that he had a view he was not mocking anyone and he was giving his explanation and I think that is just as important.I will just say straight out that along with the Government we do oppose this bill but we do support the intent of the member. I absolutely agree with what the member is saying around paid parental leave but it is not about the aspect of—because paid parental leave is an opportunity. It is a tool that is used by the Government to provide support where it is most needed at that point in time. The member has shared her own story that when she was raising children the provision was not available then so I think that in 2002 when it did come in I would have supported it and I believe that that was actually the right thing to do. The workforce had evolved changes had happened and so therefore the needs and the demands on families were at the point where in most cases and even today mums and dads were both having to work. Caregivers have to get into a situation where they need to provide for their family such is the consumer society we live in and those are some of the demands.So the intent is what I actually do support. I think it is absolutely right to give the support that we can give. I am not one of those who say that well just because we did not have that provision others should not have it. I actually support the member in her comments that as time moves on changes happen and for our own children and for our grandchildren we hope that they will evolve to meet the demands and the needs that are there. I think that is absolutely correct as well.I would like to just make some comments about that because I think it is right. Look people talk about finances and they say that it is all about the money but the reality is that in all of the families that we come from budgeting is something that we do every single day. We make choices as mums and dads in our homes. With the work that we are part of and the income that we bring into our homes we make a choice as to the types of food that we buy the type of accommodation that we have the vehicles we have the things we do on holiday and the types of clothes and shoes we have. We make decisions as families every single day on the budget that we have.It is disingenuous for the other side to say: “You don’t care because you don’t want to give the money.” Well if it was the case in everyday homes that children would turn round and say “We need to have the latest shoes. We need the latest technology.” then I tell you what they could have the debate and say that it is disingenuous. This Government is being cautious and careful. It has not disagreed with the intent of the member but it is saying this: as we budget for what is appropriate we budget appropriately. This Government has done that.Sue Moroney: You’ve got $1 billion extra that you’re spending tomorrow.ALFRED NGARO: It has gone—and let us just see where it went. The Hon Ruth Dyson is here and we know that in 2007 she was also faced with a report that came from the Families Commission on which she had to make a decision. I know that she is a wise person who had to make a decision with the constraints that were before her and she realised that in actual fact the Families Commission wanted to extend it all the way through to 13 months—13 weeks. So to 13—or was it? To 13 yes. So anyway it was an extension—I will find it here. But the member was correct—here it is 13 months. That is right it was 13 months. [Interruption] I need to get it correct. It was 13 months. But the honourable member as the then Minister by—let us see what was that—by 2015.Sue Moroney: Yes.ALFRED NGARO: By 2015 right? So let us talk about 13 months right? Let us talk about this point: the honourable member made a decision on the basis of what was affordable at that point in time even though I know that the member over here Mr David Seymour talked about the fact that the Government had a surplus. It had the ability to extend when it had the opportunity but it did not. Why? Because it made a calculated and a rational decision. So for the member to turn round and say to this Government when we do not have the excess of that surplus that we should make that decision—we are making the same decision as that member made when she was the Minister. She made a rational decision to go by incremental steps.Let us look at those incremental steps. In 2002 it was 12 weeks in 2004 it was 13 weeks and in 2005 it was 14 weeks—14 weeks. So let us just take that into consideration. It means that the member knew that by incremental by learning by developing and by knowing what is affordable we should make our decisions. So for those who are listening on the outside who would try to take the comments from the member and criticise this Government saying that it does not care it cares just as much as that member did in 2007 right the way to 2009 when it made the decisions that were appropriate being fiscally responsible as Sue Moroney thought was appropriate as well. That is very important.Here is another bit of information because the member has also talked about the nation speaking. In fact Mr Iain Lees-Galloway talked about the fact that New Zealand is on our side. He talked about the weight of submissions. The member said we had doubled the number of submissions since 2013. This comes from the departmental report page 4 and here is what it says in the top paragraph “Overview of submissions”: 6755 submissions. But out of that 5129 were form submissions. In other words they were generated off the 26 websites that were set up there. That takes us down to 1626. That seems to be substantive does it not—1626? So we have gone from 6755 down to 1626 but then the report goes on further to say that out of that those other individual submissions had little bits added to the sentences that made them slightly different. So how many were classed as individual submissions? Sixty-six—66 submissions.Carmel Sepuloni: Oh my gosh Alfred.ALFRED NGARO: I am just reading from the report.Sue Moroney: So you think the people that filled in the form did not care?ALFRED NGARO: I was not in the select committee I have to say; I did not hear them. But when one reads from the report it has to be factual. The report says there were only 66 submissions that could be classified as individual. Let us break it down a bit.Carmel Sepuloni: What!ALFRED NGARO: Well it is in the report. Let us break it down. Sixty-two submitters expressed support for the bill two submitters opposed the bill but then alongside that there were also another two. But here is what gets interesting: one of those submitters was the Child Poverty Action Group. The Child Poverty Action Group neither supported nor opposed the bill.Sue Moroney: Right.ALFRED NGARO: Yes that is right. I am being factual—from the report. But this is what they said: until there was enough evidence they were taking into account the adequate recognition of the needs of all new-borns. So to turn around and say that there is the weight of 6755 submissions all the organisational support—you just have to say that that may not be quite true when it got down to 66 when it got down to 62. And what was interesting was that the Child Poverty Action Group actually neither opposed nor supported this. You have to question whether there is anything in this.In my few remaining comments I just want to deal with the facts—I just want to deal with the facts. The member then talked about the fact that even the businesses support this. But I am reading from another report and it is from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill. It is the officials’ report and surprise surprise we have comments here from Business New Zealand which opposes the bill—and also the New Zealand Retailers Association—not the bill as a whole. What it wanted to do was talk about the different parts that it feels are not appropriate. So the bill as a whole the intent it supports. But the parts of this bill that extend the leave to 26 weeks are not what it would not support. There are parts around employment protection that it thinks are absolutely important. I want to put that on record because some of the comments that have been made have not been quite factual. On behalf of the Government we do oppose this bill.