Dyson Ruth: Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 15 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17960. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It is pretty unusual for a member of the Opposition to contribute in the Budget debate in support of legislation but I have to say that I am very pleased that I am able to do that. The Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill is a good bill. It has not got the snappiest title. It could have been called the “Paid Parental Leave Extension and Parental Tax Credit Extension Bill” which probably would have been less snappy but the content of it is something that should be supported.The bill does not go nearly as far as we would like. It does not go nearly as far as the bill that Sue Moroney has had before this Parliament for a long time which has been to a select committee been through an extensive consultation process and in fact had 3809 submissions. There were 3809 submissions on Sue Moroney’s extension to paid parental leave bill which was drawn out of the members’ bill ballot. Of those 3809 submissions 99.6 percent agreed in total with Sue Moroney’s bill. That is not a bad record and that is why I cannot work out why we are getting this half-hearted “Labour-lite” “we’d better do something because we’re clearly in bother” “fudge-it Budget” bill. Why did National not just support a decent bill when 99.6 percent of 3809 submitters supported it?I was very interested in the contribution not actually from Mr Sabin particularly—although it was a robust contribution and I am sure that he believes everything that he said—but from his colleague Louise Upston who stood in this House and said: “This is not an ideological debate. There’s nothing ideological about paid parental leave. We’ve always supported paid parental leave.” I am a bit concerned about the member’s memory. It is quite early on a Thursday night and she has totally forgotten the voting history of her party since 2002 when we were in Budget surplus.When Labour introduced the first-ever paid parental leave provisions into legislation in New Zealand National voted against it—100 percent of National members voted against it; 100 percent of Labour members voted for it—and National members said some very unusual things during that debate. So for the senior whip of the National Party to come into this House and go shock horror: “This is not an ideological debate. We’ve always supported paid parental leave.” beggars belief because it is just not true. It is not credible.In fact I think the most credible thing that could be added to the debate is to revisit some of the quotes that were made during that original 2002 debate and consider them and the fact that here on 15 May we are only a few months away from the 2014 election. One of the interesting contributors to that debate was Judith Collins who said during the paid parental leave debate: “It is another example of the Government using taxpayers’ money to try to win some votes. Who would have thought that a Government that Government would try to use taxpayers’ money to win some votes?”.I have not heard Minister Collins—I think she is still a Minister. I have not heard the Hon Judith Collins take a call yet in this debate but I would like to hear her and see whether we can measure her contribution during the earlier paid parental leave debate which was introduced by a Labour-led Government with a surplus in our Budget when it was opposed by the National Party for all sorts of strange reasons.I would much prefer the rigorous process that the Government Administration Committee went through with actually some excellent contributions from the National members—I must admit on the public record now that I think they have contributed very well—and the rigorous attention to the money asking how much is it going to cost what can we afford when should it come in and who might be impacted best and worst out of the people who are currently entitled to receive paid parental leave.And then we looked at the broader social impacts of extending paid parental leave. We looked at the impacts on the education system on early childhood and on the health system. There was nowhere that we looked where Sue Moroney’s bill did not stack up to be a smart idea. That bill should have been reported back to this House some time ago and I think it would have got a majority of the support of this House. In fact it still might. It is a darned sight better than this bill.Why was it that the Government did not support us reporting that bill back on time having gone through a proper process with 3809 submissions a large number of which we heard and 99.6 percent of which supported Sue Moroney’s extension to paid parental leave? Why did the Government not support us getting the bill back at the right time yet weeks and weeks and weeks later here we are under urgency passing a bill that does half of it? This is like a “Labour-lite” excuse. Not only does it not do the proper job it does not do it nearly as well as the comprehensive package that Sue Moroney proposed. It introduces—what is it; just 2 weeks—a 2-week extension on April Fool’s Day next year. Why is this bill being rammed through under urgency? Why is it necessary to do it under urgency when it does not come into effect until April next year and we have already done all the work at the select committee? We would be happy to pick it up and do a decent job of it.I get really frustrated when there is no need for urgency and the public who are actually the people who are the beneficiaries of this additional support are being denied their right to have a say. What is the Government scared of that it will not put this bill through even a truncated select committee process? Some people Minister Bridges might come along and say they support it. I think the Minister of Labour should welcome the chance to have one thing that he has initiated during his entire term as a Minister being supported by members of the public. If I were that Minister I would jump at that chance.Hon Trevor Mallard: Other than Christine Rankin.Hon Simon Bridges: She might be in Parliament later this year.Hon RUTH DYSON: She might be. Simon’s eyes light up at the prospect that he has just outlined. I do not actually think it is likely.I do not understand why members of the public are not being given an opportunity to have a say on this bill. There is nothing urgent about it. It is not like the old-fashioned Budget urgency provisions that would come into effect at midnight. Remember Mr Sabin? You might be too young but your grandparents may have told you about the olden days when people used to wait for Budget day and then they would go down to the petrol station and fill their car up with petrol in case the Government put the price of petrol up that night. That was real urgency not like this measure which has no need for urgency at all. It is straight cutting the public out and I think that is a shame.I just want to quickly quote another couple of National members because I think it is worthwhile putting on the record what they really think about paid parental leave. Anne Tolley said when it was first introduced: “Paid parental leave 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.” Then she said: “This is about paid parental leave that we are extending under the National Government under urgency.” She said: “This is bad legislation. It is a travesty.” Well Mr Bridges welcome to the radical feminist era of the 1960s and 1970s which you are supporting. I do not think Mr Bridges was born then. I do not think he was even born then.Nick Smith said in 2002 and I would not be surprised if Minister Smith repeated this during this debate: “I say that if a member went out of their way to draft a dumb bill this would have to be it.” I am sure the Hon Nick Smith would be happy to repeat that allegation in the House today.I think this bill is a good step forward. It is half-hearted and it is not as good as the bill we proposed but I am glad the Government has finally come to its senses on at least one issue.