Mitchell Clayton: Employment Standards Legislation Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMitchell Clayton: Employment Standards Legislation Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 March 2016. Volume:711;Page:9456. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in the Committee of the whole House on the Employment Standards Legislation Bill talking about Part 1 and specifically the paid parental leave aspect. Look I was not here last week when we had the second reading but I did watch with great intent the speeches in the House that day and saw the solidarity that I thought that all parties had with regard to certain sections of this bill—namely Part 1 to do with that paid parental leave.I do not think there is a single person in this Chamber or around New Zealand who would not like to see this go through the House so New Zealand First does support Part 1 with the extension of paid parental leave from 16 weeks to 18 weeks. I think also around this country we would like to see a change in the breakdown and the disconnect that has been slowly coming into families because of families being forced back to work early and because of people needing to get themselves employed—gainfully obviously—and working to get some money in for their families. We would love to see them spend more time bonding and connecting with their family which this bill does go towards doing. I do not think it goes quite far enough but it is a step in the right direction and New Zealand First certainly supports that.There are a number of things in Part 1 that I think are also very commendable. Despite the fact that there is a lot of support in what has been said already I believe and New Zealand First believes that the keeping-in-touch hours is a fantastic methodology to enable career mums or dads or primary caregivers to ensure that they can fulfil the requirements in their roles whether they be professional or otherwise. It is not an onerous amount of time for a family—we are talking about 40 hours spread out over that 18-week period—and for those premature babies the keeping-in-touch hours are unavailable after the 28 days or the first month of that baby being born. So this bill actually enables the connection between the mother or the primary caregiver and her child which is absolutely essential. Certainly I just go back to saying that we need to be doing more to ensure that one income is enough to sustain a family so that we do not have this disconnect and this breakdown through society that is endemic and is the start of a pandemic if we do not address that issue but I digress.The second part which I think is also very good is the clarity and the discretion that is given around the definition of “primary carer”. This I think has tidied up some areas that have been a little bit ambiguous. It is allowing the parent whether it be the birth mother or father or whether it be a nominated person to be the primary caregiver for that child. I think it just gives some freedom for some of the different family nucleuses if you like that do not have the standard situation of what we would consider to be a normal family model. So giving clarity to “primary carer” here certainly does tidy that up and it gives some determination around it.The introduction of the premature baby allowance is I think a great step in the right direction. It is acknowledging the fact that the parents are under some stress when it comes to babies who come early unexpectedly and that some changes need to be made in their everyday lives to adjust for this baby who has popped out and said: “Hello I’m ready.” So to enable those parents to be given the pre-term baby payments as well as allowing them to spend some more time at home without that encroaching on to that 18-week paid parental leave is I think a very very good thing in this bill as well.The paid parental leave is great when it comes to including seasonal and casual workers. There is a need for casual employment agreements—and we are going to get to that as we get to Part 2 and Part 3. We have certainly got some Supplementary Order Papers and some amendments to put forward and we hope that they get supported. We would hope that we can get this bill 100 percent supported by New Zealand First and as it progresses through the Committee of the whole House stage we will certainly be having some discussions about that.I now get to an area that I have some concerns about. We are talking about clause 34 which inserts new Part 3A in the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act which is about when it comes to negotiated carer leave. This is a final point that I am going to make with regard to primary carer leave and negotiated carer leave. When it comes to new section 30E “Grounds for refusal of request by employer” it sort of jumps out at me. It says here that “(1) An employer may refuse a request for negotiated carer leave only if the employer determines that the request cannot be accommodated on 1 or more of the grounds specified in subsection (2).” and the list in subsection (2) is: “(a) inability to reorganise work among existing staff: (b) inability to recruit additional staff: (c) detrimental impact on quality: (d) detrimental impact on performance: (e) planned structural changes: (f) burden of additional costs: (g) detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand.”I think that would just about cover every single excuse that an employer could give to not allow the negotiated carer leave to take place. You have pretty much written a piece of legislation here it has been put in front of us and the employer has been given every single opportunity to say: “I’m sorry that leave is not going to be given.” I think that needs to be looked at.I look forward to taking further calls as the debate in the Committee of the whole House goes forward. New Zealand First does support the paid parental leave aspects in Part 1. Thank you.