Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3683
trying, by a change of employer, to take away the current entitlements of the pregnant
women of Auckland. Having Judith Collins as the Minister in the chair is the most
massive irony, because a woman from Auckland is taking from her sisters the right to
paid parental leave.
There are women who quite carefully and properly have timed their pregnancies in
order to get paid parental leave. It is something that thousands of women, including
hundreds—
Hon Tau Henare: How do you do that?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Tau Henare wants to know how one times a
pregnancy. I plead guilty to not having a lot of expertise in it myself, but I want to make
the point—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It appears as though
there are no copies of new Part 12 on the Table at the moment. I am sorry to interrupt
the member; no doubt he got his copy from his research unit, which we do not have
access to. I cannot see it; there are none on this side of the Table. [Interruption]
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Please, members. The floor is the Hon
Gerry Brownlee’s.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: They are not here. I cannot see them on this side of the Table.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): If the member’s complaint is that there
are no amendments from Steve Chadwick on the Table, I think that is a legitimate
complaint. Members should have access to the paperwork, and I ask the Clerk’s Office
to do the necessary work to bring the paperwork to the Table for them. But that should
not in any way interrupt, stymie, or stop the flow of the debate.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: This is a relatively simple matter. Under the paid
parental leave legislation, a woman has to work for a particular period of time—6
months—before she is entitled to paid parental leave. She has to be with an employer
for that length of time. It is one of the debatable points of the legislation. Labour, when
last in Government, considered whether that period should be reduced or whether it
should be there at all. But it is clear that an entitlement is triggered by employment with
a particular employer.
The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill changes the employer
without a proper transitional provision to carry forward the entitlement, with the effect
of taking away the entitlements of women in Auckland who are employed by any of the
eight councils—the seven territorial local authorities and the one regional authority. I
say to members I had some doubts about this provision. I was not sure when I first saw
this provision. I said surely it would not be true, and surely the right would be there. But
then it was pointed out to me that, firstly, the provision binds the Crown, and,
secondly—and even more interestingly—the KiwiSaver legislation has a transitional
provision with regard to the employer. Why is people’s entitlement to KiwiSaver
maintained with a change of employer, but a woman who is pregnant does not have an
entitlement to paid parental leave? It is a disgrace—an absolute disgrace—and it is
shameful.
I make it clear that this is yet another reason why this bill should go to a select
committee. It should go to a select committee so that this cock-up—the one where John
Banks can put in Sam’s replacement—can be fixed. It is a relatively simple matter of
fairness. I am informed by my colleague Annette King that 50 percent of women’s
pregnancies are planned, so why should a woman employed by one of those councils
who has planned her pregnancy around her entitlement to paid parental leave have that
entitlement expunged? Why should she have that money taken from her as a result of
this legislation? It might be all right for rich Tories.