Robertson Grant: Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 15 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17971. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Thank you Mr Chair—very enthusiastic I am to take a call too. My colleague Carol Beaumont and others will no doubt be taking a number of calls on Part 1 of the Budget Measures (Financial Support for Newborn Children) Bill.Firstly I want to address a couple of questions to the Minister of Labour and in particular I want to just help him in many ways understand what is in Part 1 of the bill. People listening around New Zealand to the debate tonight could have gained the impression if they were as he described the woman who worked part-time processing in a fish factory and picking fruit that the legislation in front of us tonight here in Part 1 was going to bring them into paid parental leave—it was going to bring them into that. It does not. I do not understand why the Minister who apparently is responsible for this bill actually does not know what is in Part 1. Perhaps he has been kept out of the process—that is possible up to now—but I think that the Minister should probably get up take a call and say to all of those people whom he has just said are going to be brought into the paid parental leave regime by this legislation that they are not. They are actually not. So the Minister could get up and—David Shearer: Why did he say that Grant?GRANT ROBERTSON: Well that is a good point Mr Shearer. Why did Simon Bridges tell New Zealanders that this bill does something that it does not? [Interruption] Yes and do the costings that we have heard about today about paid parental leave actually include those? So there is a second question for Simon Bridges.I have got another question for him—and I know that three questions will be about as many as the Minister can handle at once so I will ask only three on this occasion—and it is this. We are here under urgency on a Thursday evening passing this legislation. The Labour Party agrees that paid parental leave is something that is important—David Bennett: Get on with it.GRANT ROBERTSON: —and is something that we want to see increase. Members on the other side of the Chamber say: “Get on with it.” All right then. Who was that? It was Mr Mitchell. All right then Mr Mitchell get on with it. How about bringing this in some time soon? How about bringing it in this year? How about bringing in 18 weeks next year? No 2016—Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not sure why Mr Robertson has chosen to bring me into the debate. I was busy doing my work. He has chosen to do that.Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to the point of order—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No no—[Interruption] Order! When I am standing there will be silence. [Interruption] I am standing. That was not a point of order all right?GRANT ROBERTSON: I apologise to Mr Mitchell particularly because it was Mr Bennett so I really do owe him an apology for that. If members on that side of the Chamber are telling us to get on with it how about National gets on with paid parental leave? How about it gets on with bringing in 16 weeks now and 18 weeks next year? How about it actually commits to 26 weeks? One thing we can say is that the Labour Party has been consistent about this. Sue Moroney’s bill came in—what year did it come in; 2012 was it?Sue Moroney: Oh no I think it was drawn in about 2013 actually.GRANT ROBERTSON: Since early 2013 that bill giving 26 weeks’ paid parental leave has been before the House. The Labour Party has said that. We have a policy of going to 1 year. From the beginning of last year we have said 26 weeks and National finally wakes up. It finally wakes up and under pressure from groups like 26 for Babies from Sue Moroney and from all the submitters on her bill says yes it is going to do paid parental leave—and then it says maybe not until 2016. So we are here tonight under urgency for something that is not going to happen until 2016.I would like the Minister to get on his feet apologise to all of those people he has misled about the fact that this legislation actually does nothing to bring them into the paid parental leave regime and then explain to New Zealanders why we are here under urgency for a bill whose Part 1 does not actually come into force properly until 2016. The thing here for the Government is that Simon Bridges and National are doing this under urgency tonight only to try to spike Sue Moroney’s member’s bill. That is it. It is pure politics. It is politics as usual from National—putting us under urgency to try to claim that there is something urgent about its commitment to paid parental leave. Well National’s commitment to paid parental leave is timid. National is late in coming to the party. That is National on paid parental leave. I believe that Part 1 of this bill should be supported because it is as good as it is going to get under National.Sue Moroney has an amendment on the Table to do the right thing today and that is to go to 26 weeks now in this bill by 2016—26 weeks. That is the right thing to do. We know it is affordable. Simon Bridges when he got on his feet to take his call earlier on said that National has done the work to do this. Well actually the reality is that it isLabour and the interest groups like 26 for Babies that have done the work that have been able to come up with the costings that are real—not the imagined costings that Bill English had in 2013 but the real costings which are affordable.We have heard from other speakers on the Opposition side during the first and second readings of this bill about why 26 weeks matters. It is because that is the minimum bonding time in terms of breastfeeding and the minimum time for creating the bond between mother and baby. It puts New Zealand just up into the bottom third of the OECD. Earlier on the National backbenchers were saying what an outrageous thing it would be to go to 26 weeks and how utterly unaffordable odd and unusual it would be. Well right now we are second to last in the OECD on paid parental leave. We are second to last. The only country behind us is the United States which has none. It has no paid parental leave. We are second to last. So this timid response from National crawls New Zealand up the OECD rankings in terms of paid parental leave but National members could be here tonight with a bill that would give 26 weeks by 2016.I want to challenge towards the end of this call other parties in the Chamber to support the amendment in Sue Moroney’s name because parties like United Future and the Māori Party have said they will support 26 weeks. I understand they have agreements with the Government but here on the Table is something that is not actually in the Budget legislation right now. We are on a separate piece of legislation. It is not the Budget debate. Here is the opportunity for Peter Dunne and the Māori Party to support Sue Moroney’s amendment on Part 1 of this bill to take it to 26 weeks and to do the right thing.What we have seen through this year is the politics as usual of the National Party. Every second Wednesday night National members are filibustering spinning out the debate making sure that we do not get to paid parental leave. They have made sure that Sue Moroney’s bill does not come up. Today National thinks paid parental leave is urgent. Two Wednesdays ago it wanted to stop a bill on it. That is not good enough. New Zealand families the parents and the children who will benefit from this need some decisive action. They need a Government that is actually prepared to stand on principle. That is what the Labour Party has done on paid parental leave going back to 2002. National opposed it in 2002. National has filibustered throughout this year to stop it and suddenly it is urgent to timidly step forward to 16 weeks and then to 18 weeks. Do the right thing I say to National members. Vote for the amendment. Peter Dunne and the Māori Party should vote to take this to 26 weeks.Today is a good day for parents around New Zealand because they will get an extension to paid parental leave and we should celebrate that extension timid as it is. But today could also be the day that members across the Chamber say that New Zealand parents deserve and need 26 weeks’ paid parental leave and those members should support Sue Moroney’s amendment.