Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Labour) : I move, That the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will move that the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for consideration, that the committee report the bill by 22 July 2008, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day when there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week when there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). I have been given an assurance that the members of the select committee have been supportive of that approach.

The Labour-led Government seeks to boost protections for vulnerable workers and breastfeeding mothers by legislating for minimum meal and rest breaks, and the protection of employees who wish to breastfeed their babies at work. The bill amends the Employment Relations Act 2000 to require employers to provide facilities and breaks for employees who wish to breastfeed or express breast milk either at work or during work time. The bill also amends the Act to provide employees with rest and meal breaks.

These amendments will create minimum standards for a modern workforce in respect of the protection and promotion of infant feeding and, I might say, in respect of what many of us had thought had been the case for 100 years, as far as the provision of rest and meal breaks is concerned. The amendments also support Government policy concerning the choices of employees, particularly when it comes to work-life balance and parenting responsibilities.

I acknowledge the hard work of Sue Moroney, whose member’s bill formed the basis for the rest and meal break provisions that are contained in this bill, and also Steve Chadwick, whose member’s bill on breastfeeding was the basis for the infant feeding provisions of the bill.

I think it would surprise many people that no statutory requirement for meal and rest breaks exists, but minimum entitlements to rest breaks and meal breaks during a working day are already in the vast majority of collective agreements. However, anecdotal evidence has suggested that some sectors—service and manufacturing sectors, in particular, and sectors where there are vulnerable workers—may be providing less than the breaks specified in this bill. Most New Zealanders would have thought, like me, that these sorts of minimum entitlements are already part of the law, and although many workers do enjoy these protections, the Government is making sure that there is absolutely no doubt that these basic entitlements must be provided for.

Breastfeeding is critical to providing the best start for New Zealand infants and it is important in both infant and maternal health. It also helps employers in their staff recruitment and retention by helping mothers return to paid work at a time of their choosing. Employees’ current access to breastfeeding breaks and facilities in the workplace is, however, mixed. This bill amends the Employment Relations Act to require that all employers provide appropriate facilities and breaks for employees who wish to breastfeed or express breast milk either at work or during work time, where it is reasonable and practicable. In deciding what is reasonable and practicable, employers will be able to take into account their operational environment and resources, and clearly the size of the workplace will be a factor. The breaks are unpaid unless the employee and the employer agree otherwise, and they are to be provided in addition to the rest and meal breaks. The rest and meal breaks can be used as breastfeeding breaks, however, where an employer and employee agree.

There will be a code of employment practice approved as soon as possible after the enactment of the legislation. This code will provide employers with guidance on how to uphold their obligations for the provision of breastfeeding breaks and facilities, and employers may be liable to penalties imposed by the Employment Relations Authority if they do not comply with these requirements. The authority will also have the power to order employers to comply with their obligations.

The bill also amends the Employment Relations Act to require employers to provide employees with paid rest breaks and unpaid meal breaks. Employees will be entitled to one 10-minute rest break if they have worked 4 hours or less, to one 10-minute rest break and one 30-minute break if they have worked between 4 and 6 hours, and to two 10-minute rest breaks and one 30-minute meal break if they have worked between 6 and 8 hours. These requirements will begin over again if an employee works more than 8 hours.

The rest and meal breaks must be provided in the middle of the work period, where reasonable and practicable. However, employees and employers may agree to vary the timing of the breaks. Employers and employees will also be able to enhance or to have additional entitlements to rest and meal breaks. These entitlements will not apply to employees who are already provided with them by other legislative or regulatory provisions, or by their employment agreements, where those other enactments are enhanced or additional to the entitlements in the bill. Again, employers may be liable to a penalty under the Employment Relations Act if they do not comply, and there will be an ability for the authority to have the power to order compliance on employers.

This bill reflects the Government’s commitment to the protection of our country’s more vulnerable workers, it reflects this Government’s commitment to the children of New Zealand, and it recognises that breastfeeding is critical to providing the best start in life for babies. I commend the bill to the House.

KATE WILKINSON (National) : As the Minister in charge of the bill, the Hon Trevor Mallard, has just outlined, this Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill has two main parts to it. Firstly, it requires employers to provide facilities and breaks for employees who wish to breastfeed, and the second part relates to rest breaks and meal breaks.

In the media releases following the announcement of this bill—which, incidentally, was on Easter Sunday—we note comments such as: “ ‘This is a very uncontroversial matter—in thousands of workplaces across the country employers and employees make sensible agreements in their mutual interests without having written rules’, … Inflexible rules advantaged unions, not employees or workplaces, … The Government should do research to see if a problem existed, … [We have] not seen any evidence that required a new law.” I was also interested to read the press release from the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, which stated: “The old Factories and Commercial Premises Act used to provide for breaks during the working day, but that went in 1992 … and there was nothing put in its place. The proposed new law marks another win by union members for every working New Zealander.” I would like to know why, if it is such an issue of fundamental fairness and healthy work practices, as the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union states, it has taken 9 years for such legislation to be introduced into the House. There have been ample opportunities, with all the various amendments to the Employment Relations Act under the watch of this Labour and union - led Government, yet there has not been one mention of meal breaks and breastfeeding facilities. How much effort have unions really made to get meal breaks and breastfeeding facilities enshrined in law, or is this perhaps more opportunistic election-year posturing?

The Minister has said categorically that new laws are needed, and “We wouldn’t be doing it if there wasn’t an issue”, and I would have to say that we are very interested in getting some evidence that there is an issue and that new laws are needed. Even the union acknowledges that nearly all unionised workers already have paid breaks and lunch hours written into their agreements. In fact, the explanatory note itself acknowledges that little is known about whether break provisions are included in the individual employment agreements that cover a majority of the workforce. One would have thought that some research would be done before the Government introduced this bill to the House to corroborate any need for the bill in the first place. This bill seems to have been drafted in the anticipation that there may be an issue, but there may not be an issue. Is there a problem, or is this merely a solution looking for a problem? National will be looking forward to seeing some objective research on this matter to ascertain whether there is a problem.

National will cautiously support this bill going to a select committee for scrutiny. By and large it codifies what is already happening in most workplaces. We need to be satisfied that there is a problem and that new laws are needed. We also need to be very careful that the bill does not impose additional costs on employers, and another set of processes and procedures to navigate through, that it does not restrict the freedom of employees without giving them appreciable benefits, and that it does not have unintended consequences, such as putting up a barrier to employing women. The bill uses the phrase “reasonable and practicable”—employers must ensure that “so far as reasonable and practicable in the circumstances” appropriate facilities are provided in the workplace for breastfeeding and appropriate breaks—and we will want to examine what that phrase actually and practically means for both the employer and the employee. I would ask what would be considered to be an appropriate breastfeeding break and what reasonable and practicable facilities are—for example, what breastfeeding facilities would be required for a breastfeeding travelling saleswoman? We support efforts to encourage New Zealand women to breastfeed. We appreciate that sensible workplaces should be making all reasonable attempts to attract and retain valuable female employees, but we also want to ensure that we are not creating a culture where breastfeeding mothers feel under pressure to return to work too quickly.

National will be looking at these newly announced provisions very carefully and very cautiously. Employers can work out the issues they address for themselves without having another set of prescriptive and inflexible processes and procedures to navigate through. If there is a problem, then we should be looking for a solution, but if there is a solution, should we be looking for the problem? We need to be prudent as to unintended consequences—as to what burden is being imposed on both employers and employees when perhaps common sense should prevail. We support choice, but we must be mindful that legislation attempting to support choice may, indeed, hinder that choice. National will be expecting the select committee officials and the ministry to show us why this law is needed, what the problem is, and the extent of the problem that this legislation is attempting to address.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Women’s Affairs) : I rise to speak in support of the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. I wish to thank the Minister of Labour for his unconditional support when approached by me and Sue Moroney to seek his support for the logic of the need for statutory protection for rests and meal breaks in the workplace. This Labour-led Government is committed to ensuring that mothers are given a real choice to return to work when they and their family are ready to do so. That choice must, therefore, be achievable in practice. We are also committed to seeing that children get the best possible start in life, and this bill supports our ongoing efforts in that regard. I like the reserved position of the Opposition, and I think the women of the country will notice that with some pleasure, really.

As an Associate Minister of Health and the Minister of Women’s Affairs, I believe thatthis bill marks an incredibly important step in the ongoing effort to protect and promote infant feeding choices for New Zealand families. This is not a cynical election-year bribe; this work goes back to the year 2000, when the United Nations special agency the International Labour Organization updated its Maternity Protection Convention. Article 10 included the right for working mothers to be given time to breastfeed their children—a United Nations convention. We took note of that and began our work.

Our work was also strengthened by the courage of Elizabeth Weatherly, who between 2002 and 2003, before the Opposition spokesperson’s time in the House, presented a petition to Parliament with 9,000 signatures from women calling for greater protection of breastfeeding women and their children. It was seen as a fundamental human rights issue for children to be fed when they required nutrition. The petition was considered by the Health Committee, which I chaired at that time. In 2005 the committee reported back to Parliament with a raft of recommendations on that petition. Those included support for a Department of Labour code of practice designed to help employers to accommodate breastfeeding in the workplace.

So we began that work not this year, as the Opposition has said, but in 2005. We began to develop the code of practice, and we hoped to see employers take it up as a natural work provision to provide family-friendly work environments. Then in 2007 I developed a member’s bill that required a code of practice to be developed under the Employment Relations Act of 2000 to provide guidelines on what was needed to facilitate breastfeeding in the workplace. We did not define in the guidelines how that should be done; we left that up to workplaces. That bill languished in the ballot, as is the fate of many fine members’ bills.

Today this bill builds on that work. It requires all employers to provide appropriate facilities and breaks for workers who wish to breastfeed or express milk and for it to be stored safely in the workplace—probably not in the staff lunch fridge with all the rest of the clobber that sits in those fridges, but in a little fridge so it is kept nice and clean, which is reasonably practical. We are taking an entirely practical approach.

As a midwife and a mother I have been a long-time advocate of the importance of breastfeeding for mothers and their children; as the saying goes, “Breast is best”. We know that breastfeeding is really important for babies’ growth, development, and health. It provides optimum nutrition and assists physical development and emotional attachment. We are worried about family violence, so we have to do everything we can, as members of this House, to make sure we support mothers to be able to feed their babies for as long as possible. Breastfeeding also protects against infectious disease, and it can reduce the risk of chronic diseases such as obesity—a very practical, not nanny State approach to addressing obesity. Breastfeeding is also incredibly important for mothers’ health.

This bill builds on a range of initiatives that we have led as a Government that support breastfeeding: the Healthy Eating - Healthy Action plan, which supports breastfeeding for at least 6 months and puts those supports beside women and their families in order to achieve that; and the baby-friendly hospital initiative, which aims to increase awareness and understanding of the benefits of breastfeeding amongst health workers in hospitals. Forty primary hospitals, 18 secondary hospitals, and four tertiary units in the country have now achieved baby-friendly accreditation. We have introduced paid parental leave, which reduces the pressure on women to have to return to work immediately after giving birth; and we have introduced a plan of action for breastfeeding that aims to improve breastfeeding rates at a really well-coordinated local, community, and national level, with a well-trained and an effective workforce.

A mother’s ability to continue to breastfeed her child will add to her ability to remain at work and contribute to productivity if that is her choice. Some critics will say this bill is unnecessary, but it does protect vulnerable workers and, indirectly, their children. This bill will make a huge difference for many women. The Human Rights Commission has previously investigated many claims of discrimination against breastfeeding mothers under the Human Rights Act, as we learnt from considering the petition of Elizabeth Weatherly. In one instance the commission heard of a working mother—a registered nurse in a public hospital—who had great difficulty in being able to express her milk while on the job. She ended up feeling exhausted after her long shifts, because other than having to stop and express milk three to four times daily she could not take any time for any other breaks. She had to express milk while sitting on a toilet seat lid because there was no other suitable place provided for her in that hospital.

This House of Parliament, actually, was no different from that hospital. When we investigated the situation here, we found many parliamentary staff had to go into a toilet cubicle to express milk, and had to just save it in a staff refrigerator. That was appalling, and the Labour women of our caucus set up a breastfeeding space where women could attend to their needs while they were at work if they wanted to continue breastfeeding their babies.

The passage of this bill means that such indignities will become a thing of the past. I commend it to the House.

PAULA BENNETT (National) : It is great to be here and have the opportunity to talk about the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. I take the opportunity to particularly speak about women, their maternity issues, breastfeeding, and what that certainly means for them.

Breastfeeding and that time after having a baby is, without a doubt, often a traumatic time for women. It can also be the best time of their lives, and they certainly deserve every bit of support that we can give them. So many issues impact on one’s ability to breastfeed that I suppose I take some caution when I hear people extolling the virtues of breastfeeding, which we certainly do not disagree with, because I have sympathy for those women who, for whatever reason, cannot breastfeed. I know that as well as suffering from everything else that happens after having a new baby, feeling that guilt of actually not being able to breastfeed can have an effect on women. I just wanted to comment slightly on that; I know it is a little off the subject, but it is important for those women.

If one asked women who have had their babies and are looking for some sort of assistance what they actually want, they would say that post-maternity care is what is absolutely important to them. They would talk about the opportunity to stay more than just one night in hospital to have that ongoing care. They would talk about having more regular visits from their initial primary carers—usually their midwives—who, in every case that I know of, do the best job they possibly can but are often stretched to such an extent that they cannot visit mothers and new babies in homes to help them with breastfeeding as much as they would like. Those women would talk about their visits from Plunket, how often they happen, and the effects that has on them raising their babies, particularly in the first 3 months. In those early times those women certainly do not raise work issues, although we can understand that once they return to work and wish to continue breastfeeding there needs to be some acknowledgment for that.

If this Labour Government was truly serious about helping those very women who find themselves with new babies, it would be addressing some of those issues that are so important. Through mothers repeatedly coming to us in our offices, and through speaking daily with people, we know what is most important.

At this stage I take my hat off to the malls. I do not know whether many people in this House have had new babies in the last couple of years, but—being a woman who likes to shop, myself—I can tell members that the malls have stepped up and are providing some pretty impressive facilities for mothers with newborn babies. Not only workplaces but other areas that women often frequent are catching up. At least they have come up with private spaces—and I heard the member talking previously about women sitting on toilet seats and trying to express milk or breastfeed their babies. I think that society is catching up. That is where I would like to press it and say that since society and workplaces are catching up, do we need to legislate? Should we not be saying educate, do not legislate?

It seems that if it moves, this Government needs to legislate for it. I reckon that Heather Simpson was sitting in her office with Helen Clark and said: “Oh my goodness! The polls are bad, we’re not making it, and we’re losing the women’s vote to National. What we’d better do is look back at some of the legislation that we looked at 8 years ago, which we dismissed because we thought it would be a waste of Parliament’s time. We had better start thinking of something that we can announce in an election year, because we’re looking tired and like we have no new ideas. We had better come up with something.” So Labour members ruffled around in those dusty old boxes—because goodness knows it has been nearly 9 long, long years—and in there somewhere they found a piece of paper on which someone had written that he or she had met a couple of people who did not get their tea breaks, and those members thought that maybe they could do something about breastfeeding women, as well, because that’s always good and cuddly and no one can disagree with it.

Then they wondered how they would get this legislation out there. Goodness knows it is not that important, but it will cost a lot of money to put through a select committee with officials, reports, and all that sort of stuff. Labour decided to do it on Easter Sunday when everyone is desperate for some sort of news, and its members announced it like it was the biggest announcement of the year. Labour thought it needed to bring in babies, women, and the most vulnerable workers, and it thought that this is perfect legislation for that. Those members thought: “If those nasty Nats start speaking against this, we’ve got them! We’ll be able to stand up and say that they don’t care about women and babies and that they don’t support this legislation. We’ve got the nasty Nats by the shorts.” I tell members that that is ridiculous. We should educate, not legislate. Labour is clutching in desperation to find some legislation to bring out this year. Goodness knows select committees have not got enough work. The Education and Science Committee did not even sit today because there is not enough legislation going through.

Yet again, we say that of course we support infant feeding. It is without a doubt that we support women breastfeeding. My colleagues spoke earlier of our societal concerns and about a culture of women going back to work and at times feeling that pressure to go back too early. We talk to women these days who are embarrassed of being stay-at-home mums. They should raise their heads proudly, because there is no job that could be more worthwhile for anyone. In support of women, I say “Good on you.” To Labour, I say “Desperate times, desperate decisions, and I suppose you had to give it a go.”

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : I was interested in that speech made by Paula Bennett. I thought she started off quite well, but then she said we should educate not legislate. If that is the official stance of the National Party, then I ask those members why they are supporting the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. Why do they not stand by their own convictions and say “Let’s educate and not legislate. We will support the bill because what it states makes sense to us.”?

Maybe the member should read the bill. Under the subheading “Infant feeding” of the explanatory note it states “This Bill amends the Employment Relations Act to require employers to provide appropriate facilities and breaks for employees who wish to breastfeed (including expressing breast milk), as far as is reasonable and practicable.” What is wrong with that? It is quite fair-minded.

The bill tells us why it is necessary to give this consideration. Later in the bill, under the subheading “Infant feeding”, it states “Breastfeeding is key to providing the best start for New Zealand infants, and important for both infant and maternal health. This was most recently reiterated in the Government Response to the Inquiry into Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes.” It goes on to state “Breastfeeding is a key indicator for Health Target 8 of the Health Targets 2007/08 to improve nutrition, increase physical activity, and reduce obesity. A number of government initiatives are underway to protect, promote, and support breastfeeding.”

The bill then lists six areas of concern. I will read the following paragraph because I think it is important: “The main barriers to maintaining breastfeeding for New Zealand women are lack of community support and acceptance of breastfeeding in public, and women returning to work.” That is why we are getting this legislation. That is why New Zealand First is supporting it. We do not believe that we can educate and guarantee to solve the problem.

Kate Wilkinson: You don’t believe in education?

Paula Bennett: You don’t believe in educating?

PETER BROWN: I tell those two ladies over there to be strong in their own convictions. If they want to oppose this bill then they should do the decent thing and say that they oppose it and that it is not necessary. They should not give all the waffle and say that they will support it but really they do not believe in it, just so they do not look like “nasty Nats”, as Paula Bennett referred to.

The second part of the bill—and I am not going to take too long—deals with meal breaks and what I call, and probably what most of us call, smoko breaks. We are talking about the same thing, are we not? [Interruption] Oh, are we not allowed to call them smoko breaks? I am politically incorrect again.

To be honest, I did not know that those breaks were not in the law. I always thought that people were entitled to a 10-minute break. I suggest that in many contracts the breaks are longer than 10 minutes. This is sensible legislation. I know that some small employers are concerned about the 10-minute breaks, which are paid for. It is true that they have been in contact with at least some of my colleagues. We think that the bill is quite reasonable, because there is a lot of flexibility on when breaks can and cannot be taken. The bill states “Employees and employers, however, may agree to vary the timing of the breaks.”

This bill is simply the vehicle to providing a law so that people will get 10-minute breaks in a 4-hour work period, plus a 30-minute non-paid meal break. That is eminently sensible and fair. New Zealand First will support the bill going to select committee. We would like to hear what New Zealanders have to say about this matter, and we will make up our minds on whether we support the bill’s proceeding after that. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : I do not think it will come as a surprise to anyone here that the Green Party is delighted to be supporting this latest amendment to the Employment Relations Act. I was present at the Blackball Workingmen’s Club a couple of weeks ago, along with some other MPs, when the Hon Maryan Street announced these changes. It was very appropriately the occasion of the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the 1908 miners’ strike, which was in part about achieving the right to a half-hour rather than 15 minutes crib-time or lunch break. It is quite ironic that 100 years later, in what one would usually imagine is the much more enlightened year of 2008, the Government feels obliged to put forward a law that aims to achieve exactly the same thing.

This bill before us today amends the Employment Relations Act to make sure that all employees who work 4 hours or less get a 10-minute rest break, employees who work between 4 and 6 hours get a 10-minute rest break and a half-hour meal break, and if they are on the job for between 6 and 8 hours they are entitled to two 10-minute rest breaks and one 30-minute meal break. After 8 hours on the job, it appears that the whole process starts again.

I know that there are some people around this country who will question why on earth this law change is needed. There is a reasonably common perception out there that this is just common sense and that all employers are of course allowing their staff to take at least this minimum level of rest and meal breaks. However, sadly, this is not the case. Although 93 percent of collective agreements allow for such breaks, there is actually nothing in law that makes it mandatory for them to be provided. A large percentage of the New Zealand workforce, sadly, remains non-unionised, particularly in the private sector. Of course a lot of these non-unionised workers are not covered by collective agreements. Although I am sure the majority of employers, including those whose workers have only individual contracts, do in fact let their staff take at least these minimum break times, some do not, which is why this law is unfortunately necessary.

The Green Party believes that when it comes to industrial relations matters, it is the role of Government to prioritise, above all, the needs of those who are most vulnerable. We want to see minimum conditions applied to all workers, including those who face the biggest disadvantages on the job—people like migrant, part-time, casual, low-skilled, and low-educated workers, who are least able to bargain for themselves or perhaps to have ready access to union coverage. We are therefore pleased that this bill will provide these minimum breaks by law, and see this as a long-overdue measure whose time has finally come.

As Andrew Little from the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union pointed out when the bill was first announced, at the moment around 350,000 workers are covered by collective agreements, and about 1.7 million workers are not. It is those among the 1.7 million who are missing out on a fair go in the workplace who will benefit from the protection that this new law will provide—and it is about time too.

The second major purpose of this bill is the requirement that employers provide appropriate facilities and breaks for staff who wish to breastfeed or express breast milk, as far as is reasonable and practicable in the particular circumstances pertaining to that workplace. I am really pleased to hear parties like National and New Zealand First supporting this provision—or at least tentatively supporting, in National’s case. Again, the Green Party welcomes this proposal as part of its overall commitment to furthering breastfeeding as a key component of best health outcomes both for babies and for their mothers. With so many mothers now part of our regular workforce it is critical that we do everything we can to support their ability to keep breastfeeding once they are back at work after having a baby or babies. I say “babies” because there are a lot of mothers these days who have twins. As a mother of twins myself I can say that trying to breastfeed twins and go back to work is even more difficult than going back to work after having one baby.

The World Health Organization advocates support for breastfeeding, including encouraging Governments to put in place laws that safeguard the rights of working mothers to breastfeed. This is backed by ILO Convention 183 on maternity protection, which states that women should have the right not only to take one or more breaks during the working day to feed their infant but also that these breaks should count as time worked. Although the bill allows for paid breastfeeding breaks if employer and employee agree, the bill itself does not provide a right to this. I imagine that submissions in favour of the latter will be heard during the select committee process. The Green Party will certainly support any amendment or improvement that can be achieved in this area.

The other part of the bill that relates to breastfeeding in effect requires employers, where they reasonably can, to make sure that appropriate facilities are available for breastfeeding mothers. This may sound ridiculously onerous to some, but in fact the evaluation of parental leave carried out in 2005-06 found that space for breastfeeding was actually offered by 69 percent of small employers—remarkably—and 41 percent of large employers. Given that there is already such substantial practical implementation and support for this and that our larger employers are in fact those surely most able to afford to supply even a small space for affected employees, I cannot see that there should be too much opposition to this provision, even from the most traditionally hard-hearted of employer organisations.

There has been some comment in the media that at a time when the economy is slowing and we begin to face up to the possibility of a recession at some point in the nearish future, the Government should not be further regulating the workplace in regard to things like the requirement for minimum breaks and access to breastfeeding facilities where practicable. This is the old argument that in hard times we need greater labour market flexibility and fewer universal protections. Well, in fact, the Green Party argues the reverse. This time of comparative prosperity in which we are also all, I think, recognising the possibility of a looming downturn is exactly the time when we should be maximising protections like those before us today.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. I know that the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill is not just about breastfeeding as such, but having five children myself I think I am quite a good authority on some of these issues, at least at an observer level.

I have always held the quiet belief that tangata whenua are at the cutting edge of some of the most innovative and enterprising initiatives in our world. I think that this bill provides a pretty good opportunity for us to recognise that. Almost a century ago, as a 1909 publication put forward by Dr Māui Pōmare reveals, Māori were suggesting that the longer a baby could be breastfed the better. Ngā Kohungahunga Me Ngā Kai Ma Ratou was written by Dr Māui Pōmare when he was a native health officer, and was initially published by Te Aute Society. The booklet recommended that babies ought to be breastfed, as it was both beneficial to the child and health-giving to the mother. Māui Pōmare explained: “Ko te ū o te whaea te mea tika, ā, ko te Atua hoki tēnā i hōmai ai hei ngote mā ngā pēpi.” The mother’s breast, which was given by God for babies to suck on, is so right.

So here we are, a century later, finally requiring facilities and breaks to be provided for employees who wish to breastfeed in the workplace or during work periods, as well as requiring employees to be provided with rest breaks and meal breaks. Dr Pōmare may well have wondered why it took so long, particularly when we consider that around three-quarters of mothers with children under 1 year of age are now in paid employment. I think it is all to do with attitude. I recall the late Irihāpeti Ramsden presented research that revealed that while Sir Māui was writing his guidelines there was evidence of social attitudes that actually frowned on breastfeeding in public. That attitude seemingly is still prevalent, as reported in the 2006 study Infant Feeding and Work developed by Dr Debbie Payne, a director of the Auckland University of Technology Centre for Midwifery and Women’s Health Research. The study—New Zealand’s first qualitative study of breastfeeding mothers at work—identified that many women were put off breastfeeding in the workplace after observing the treatment of other employees trying to feed their babies. Some of the women had to feed in a shower cubicle. Some of the members tonight have referred to some of these particular issues. Other women received feedback from their peers that implied mothers feeding were simply slacking off at work.

This bill today attempts to directly impact on those concerns. It responds to the problems reported in the study that women who breastfeed in the workplace are often discouraged by a lack of facilities and the attitude of their employers and colleagues. One of the issues that wāhine Māori have commented on in the past, from what I have heard, is the acute discomfort they have experienced in being led to spaces to breastfeed that may be linked to a toilet. We all understand breast milk is kai, and the question that inevitably arises is whether anyone in the House would be happy to have their lunch in the toilet—hopefully not. As such, we hope the bill will ensure that appropriate facilities are to be provided for breastfeeding and expressing breast milk, as well as for storage of expressed breast milk.

Breastfeeding has often been a stumbling point for mothers with babies returning to work; they are faced with the choice of stopping breastfeeding or not being in paid work. We hope that through the leadership demonstrated by this bill that difficulty can be somewhat alleviated. The issue of breastfeeding and paid work also raises the question of whether we should consider extending paid parental leave to a period of 12 months. Although this bill seeks to provide for some very significant rights and health benefits, the reality is that many women will just not be able to arrange for their babies to be brought into the workplace or for milk to be collected at times when the baby really needs it. The ability of women to have a real choice about whether to stay at home with their babies while breastfeeding is hugely dependent on the kind of financial support that paid parental leave can offer. The current choice, along with the negative attitudes to breastfeeding in public, are significant barriers, and, as such, act directly against the Government’s intention to protect, promote, and support breastfeeding as a key health target.

We in the Māori Party have also thought that the strategy to promote and protect breastfeeding through the creation of minimum standards should, at the very least, consider some ways of communicating the message that employers and workplaces are being required to become more family-friendly and that the wellness of children and mothers is an employment priority. A recent study of Māori women’s decision-making around breastfeeding by Marewa Glover, Harangai Manaena-Biddle, and John Waldon revealed that whānau are central and that whānau should be mobilised to support healthy choices. The women’s partners, mothers, sisters, and aunties were cited most often as having a role in the decision to breastfeed and in supporting breastfeeding. For workers, then, we see the developments in this bill as a real gain for whānau well-being.

The other key amendments in this bill require employers to provide employees with paid rest breaks and unpaid meal breaks. As a result of this legislation, rest and meal breaks are required to be provided at 2-hourly intervals where reasonable and practical. As the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions has pointed out, I believe, these changes are long overdue. People have taken it for granted that rest and meal breaks are already provided for in law. We have taken it for granted because before the Employment Contracts Act 1991, breaks had been provided for. Yet some 17 years later we are now informed that the question of breaks is a frequently raised issue in the collective bargaining in newly unionised workplaces, even though, more rightly, they should be guaranteed by law. Rest and meal breaks are not included in the minimum codes in the present legislation, which provide for minimum wages, paid parental leave, holidays, and health and safety. Yet one would surely assume that having breaks is critical for health and safety and well-being.

Although it seems bizarre for these times and conditions, it is apparent that there is no explicit legal requirement for employees to have rest and meal breaks. Although almost 93 percent of active collective agreements provide for them, there are some sectors where the provision of breaks is inadequate, and it is hoped that this bill will do much to bring in the changes necessary to enhance the overall workplace environment. The Service and Food Workers Union, for example, reported that the largest number of calls and queries they field are from employees asking about their rest and meal break entitlements. Most of these employees are in small workplaces across the hospitality sector, which are not covered by collective agreements. These rights are human rights. They are health and safety rights. They are basic employment provisions, and the Māori Party is happy to support them, as is consistent with our position that workplace environments be worker-friendly.

We believe also that this bill is entirely consistent with Māori Party policies on health, and with the well-being of tamariki and whānau. We are therefore very pleased to be able to support this bill, and we look forward to the subsequent stages of the bill and to hearing the voices and views of all the parties involved.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : I am delighted that the Green member Sue Bradford mentioned the Blackball Workingmen’s Club, because on Easter Sunday I was there with Mr Auchinvole for the seminar that was held as part of the weekend commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Blackball strike. What happened was that Mr Auchinvole asked me whether I would like to attend, and being open-minded, liberal in spirit, and a student of history I accepted with alacrity. It helps that Blackball is one of my favourite towns and the coast is my favourite part of New Zealand.

I am sure Ms Bradford would confirm that it was a most enjoyable day. Indeed, Mr Auchinvole and I were made very welcome by the good people of Blackball, by the trade unionists, and by most of the other attendees, including, I am pleased to say, Sue Bradford, who is always pleasant, and the Hon Lianne Dalziel. However, a couple of Labour MPs were typically rude and unfriendly!

Just before lunch we were told that the Hon Maryan Street would make an announcement. I have to say she was very pleasant, too. She acknowledged her colleagues and Sue Bradford by their parties. She mentioned Mr Auchinvole and me, but she could not bring herself to say the dreaded word “National”. Anyway, she made an announcement about breaks and breastfeeding, and she announced the introduction of the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. As Ms Wilkinson said, we will support the bill’s referral to the select committee so the committee can have a good look at it. It is interesting that this legislation was announced at Blackball, where Chris Trotter said the Labour Party did not belong because it was formed about 13 years after the Blackball incident.

I became very interested in the issue of meal breaks, given the lecture that had been given before lunch by an excellent Dunedin historian and by Chief Judge Graeme Colgan of the Employment Court. I think it is worth recounting what happened and what gave rise to the Blackball strike, which, of course, has culminated in this legislation today.

Chris Auchinvole: What did happen?

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well, there was a fellow called Pat Hickey. As the name suggests he was a good Irishman. He was born, I think, on the outskirts of Nelson in the Waimea Plains, and he went overseas and joined the Wobblies. I am sure that the member for Christchurch Central would not know what a Wobbly was, but those of us who are interested in industrial history do know these things—it was an American union. Pat came back to New Zealand and he had been radicalised.

After spending some time in Denniston, he decided—I think everyone in Denniston decided, as well—that it would be in the interests of all concerned if he went off to Blackball. That is what he did, and he was employed in one of the mines in Blackball. It seems that the manager of one of the mines was a Mr Leach, and I have to say that he did not sound to me to be a particularly pleasant man. One day he stood over Mr Hickey and demanded that Mr Hickey get back to work. Pat said he wanted to finish his pie, and the said Mr Leach stood over him—it could have been with a stopwatch or a watch—and ordered him back to work, saying that his 15-minute crib-time was over. That gave rise to the strike, because Pat thought he was entitled to proper crib-time. So it was a very antagonistic setting. I think I said to Mr Auchinvole on that day that if I had been Pat Hickey and had been spoken to like that by Mr Leach, Mr Leach would have received my pie in a certain part of his face.

It seems, however, that an important fact had been overlooked. The unions had had 30 minutes’ crib-time made available to them as a result of negotiations with the company but had voluntarily given up that crib-time and reduced it to 15 minutes because they wanted to get out of the mines 15 minutes earlier—and who can blame them? So it seems that notwithstanding my immediate sympathy for Pat Hickey, the unionists got the wrong end of the stick. The strike occurred because poor old Pat Hickey got his facts wrong, and it seems to me that that often happens with trade unionists. So those were the facts—

Sue Moroney: No, no.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —and if the member had been there—[Interruption] Oh, was the member there? Then she should have been listening. Judge Colgan was asked what he would have done if he had been the judge dealing with those matters on the basis of the facts as were shown to be the case, and he said he would have applied the law accordingly.

So they are important facts, and it is worth saying that this matter, which so excited the Labour MPs and Mr Auchinvole and me that we went to Blackball on Easter Sunday, concerns a strike that proceeded on the basis of an error of fact. It is important to recount this interesting history for the benefit of the House. I certainly found it interesting.

I was interested in the Minister’s announcement, and I hope the select committee has a good look at the legislation, because it raises some important issues. I am particularly interested in the purpose clause, which talks about time being provided to employees for rest breaks and meal breaks. It seems to me that it is very much a classic case of Labour saying one thing and doing another. Last Thursday in Auckland, for example, members of the Justice and Electoral Committee were suffering under the chairmanship of Lynne Pillay, who, perhaps, is Labour’s answer to Mr Leach. We went for 8 hours without a break, notwithstanding my numerous requests for crib-time. Pat Hickey got 15 minutes of crib-time, but how much time did we get? We got nothing. Lynne Pillay is a tough customer. I just hope that the Justice and Electoral Committee will take a good look at crib-time for members of Parliament when Lynne Pillay is chair of that select committee. Jokes aside, this legislation raises important issues. I was delighted to be at Blackball to hear the announcement, and I will be delighted to see the progress of the bill in the coming weeks.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) : It is my very great pleasure to rise and speak to the first reading of the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill, which seeks to amend the Employment Relations Act. It sure beats depending on the ballot for a member’s bill to be drawn. I say that because one part of this legislation was the subject of a member’s bill that I put into the ballot towards the end of last year.

I am very pleased to have gained the support of my colleagues, and I thank my colleagues, and the Minister of Labour in particular, for taking up the issue in a Government bill, which has come into the House today for its first reading. I also congratulate Steve Chadwick on the infant feeding part of this bill, because that was the subject of a member’s bill that she lodged, and we all know that this particular issue is dear to her heart. I also thank my colleague Charles Chauvel who, when this was a lowly ranked member’s bill, actually helped me with its drafting to ensure that it did come within the legal context—so my thank you to Charles.

It was appropriate that the announcement was made by the Minister Maryan Street during the Easter weekend centenary commemoration of the 1908 crib-time dispute at Blackball. As some members have alluded to, the miners took industrial action to ensure they could get adequate time for rest and sustenance before undertaking their jobs. We all know how dangerous the job of mining is, how physically demanding it is, and the importance of those miners undertaking collective action to bring the matter to the attention of their employers—which leads us to be addressing this issue in law a century later. Many members have asked how come it is not in the law already. I have a potted history here to inform the members of the House and any listeners as to how that occurred.

In 1908 and thereabouts the right for meal breaks was put into law for various sectors of the workforce. Of course, in those days the legislation was done industry by industry, and that remained so for quite a period of time. However, in 1981, under a National Government, all these various industrial parts of the law were collapsed into one piece of legislation called the Factories and Commercial Premises Act. In 1981 the parts of those various pieces of legislation that were dropped out by that amalgamated Act of Parliament were the legal entitlements to meal breaks and rest periods. In 1981 that did not trouble anyone too much, because all working people in New Zealand were covered by national awards, which prescribed the meal breaks and the rest periods. So when the Factories and Commercial Premises Act was brought in and it did not include those breaks and rest periods, it did not have an impact on anyone because everyone was covered by a national award.

However, in 1991, when the Employment Contracts Act was enacted—again by a National Government—a lot of workers were exposed to no longer having their legal entitlement to meal breaks and rest breaks, because that legislation demolished the national award system. That meant that a whole range of workers did not have an automatic legal entitlement to meal breaks and rest periods. So that is the history; that is how we got to the point where we are now addressing this issue and bringing it back into the law so that it is the entitlement of all working people in New Zealand—and so it should be.

Last year when I submitted my member’s bill on this subject into the member’s ballot I had a launch of the subject at the University of Waikato. I thank the Centre for Labour and Trade Union Studies at the University of Waikato for participating in the launch of the bill at the time. They were very interested in it from the perspective of an issue that they called “donated time”. Many people in that department are concerned about what they call the ongoing creep of time that belongs to employees actually being taken over by employers with no further compensation. However, I come to this legislation from a slightly different perspective. I come at it from the perspective that it is a basic human right for people to have regular and proper breaks at work, from a health and safety perspective, and from the perspective that this is good for work-life balance. It is about how we are able to operate at work, how refreshed we are when we get home, and how we are able to interact with our families.

I want to refer just briefly to the health and safety aspects of this bill so that people are very clear about how meal breaks and rest periods at work fit into the health and safety category. In 2007 the Department of Labour did some research into the causative factors associated with summertime workplace fatalities. I was very pleased to work with the then Minister of Labour, Ruth Dyson, on the terms of reference for the research to be undertaken. It was carried out primarily to look at the blip that we seem to have every year in this country in relation to summertime holiday fatalities in the workplace.

However, the research inadvertently discovered that there are two peak times when work-related fatal incidents are most likely to occur. One is late morning, between 10.30 a.m. and 12.30 p.m., and the other is mid-afternoon, between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m., which is roughly about the time when people ought to be taking breaks. So although some further research needs to be undertaken, the researchers suspect that when they delve further into this they may well find that these accidents and fatalities occurred because people had not had proper breaks throughout the day, they were fatigued, and they may have become dehydrated and not been able to focus on their jobs as well as they may have if they had had proper sustenance and rest breaks. So perhaps that is a major contributing cause to many of these fatalities.

During the course of this debate some questions were raised as to whether legislation is necessary or whether there is just a need for a little bit of education. One of the reasons I saw fit to prepare a member’s bill on this issue was the examples I had brought to me about workers who were not getting access to meal breaks and rest periods in their workplace. I want to share a few of those examples with the House.

Probably the example that shocked me the most was one that occurred last year in Hamilton to a young 17-year-old woman in her first job. She was working for a very large retail company in Hamilton. She was new to the workplace and did not know the rules very well, but she decided to go and have morning tea at about the same time as her colleagues did. She was rather surprised when she was called into the office, disciplined, and given an employment warning for daring to take a morning-tea break. When she asked how it was that other people in the workplace were taking their meal breaks and were not getting disciplined for it, her employer said to her: “That’s because it’s in their collective employment agreement. It is not in your individual employment agreement.” Sure enough, when she looked at the individual employment agreement she had signed, it was silent on the issue of rest periods and meal breaks. The moral to this story is that she very quickly joined the union and became party to the collective employment agreement.

That story, from just last year, demonstrates that, sadly, this issue is alive and kicking in our workplaces, and it is not just in small workplaces or in places where, perhaps, under Paula Bennett’s analogy, employers might not know about health and safety. Such employers may not have access to health and human resources, but this company was a large employer that ought to have known better, yet that is what was occurring. I have also had examples from people working in the petrol service station industry who have come to me saying that they cannot get meal breaks. I have had bus drivers coming to me to say that they are trying to negotiate into their collective employment agreements—literally as we speak—decent rest breaks at work, and they are getting a solid no from their employers. So this issue is very much alive this year.

This is an issue that people right across the political spectrum respond to. People think it is unfair that all workers do not have the rights to these breaks. I know that because in the 3 weeks leading up to the announcement I collected a petition in support of getting these breaks put into law, and people readily signed that petition. They were quite shocked to discover that that right was not in the law, and they readily agreed that it ought to be.

I conclude by saying I wish the select committee luck in listening to the submissions on this bill. I hope to come to the committee and listen to some of those submissions myself. I feel I am grieving a little bit for not being on that select committee at the moment. I commend the bill to the House.

I seek leave to table the petition of the people who support the meal breaks and rest periods going into law.

• Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) : I rise to speak on behalf of ACT New Zealand to the first reading of the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. The bill is about two things. It is about making legislative provision, first of all, for the promotion and protection of infant feeding through breastfeeding and, second of all, for rest and meal breaks. ACT will be opposing this bill, and I will come to the reasons for that shortly.

As a mother who breastfed each and every one of her five children, I think I have some authority on this subject. [Interruption] Actually, there are three of us sitting in very close proximity who have five children.

Peter Brown: Is that all?

HEATHER ROY: This is a great thing, because it is important that we have proper representation of parents in this House. I am not sure how many children Mr Brown has. I do not think he has five children, but maybe he has fifteen—I do not know.

Large parts of the background information provided in the explanatory note of this bill make a good deal of sense. I am looking, as I say that, at page 6 where there is a section about infant feeding. It makes a good deal of sense and I agree with all of the statements there. It states: “Breastfeeding is key to providing the best start for New Zealand infants, and important for both infant and maternal health.” Certainly, there is no argument there. Page 6 also refers to the recent select committee inquiry into obesity and type 2 diabetes and the advantages for both mothers and children of breastfeeding. Certainly, as the bill says, “Breastfeeding is a key indicator for Health Target 8 of the Health Targets 2007/08 to improve nutrition, increase physical activity, and reduce obesity.” I wholeheartedly support that.

ACT is also supporting Sue Bradford’s member’s bill to allow mothers in prison to have their children with them for longer, primarily because breastfeeding is very important and the bonds that are established in those first weeks and months of life are very important. We will continue to support Sue’s bill; I commend her for putting it forward. However, I do not think that this bill will actually change anything, and that is the reason ACT is opposing it.

As I say, there are two parts to the bill: the breastfeeding provisions and the provisions for rest and meal breaks. I think the Government has put this bill forward very quickly. I will come to the quite clear reason why that happened. I suggest—and this is just an indication—that as we are in election year, yet again this Labour Government, worried about where its votes will come from, has had to put forward its sop to the unions, and this is it. The suggestion that this bill is necessary to provide all these extra provisions is based on the premise that employers are selfish and extraordinarily evil. It is sad that all the former trade unionists sitting on the other side of the House have had such terrible experiences. Despite undertaking a large number of different roles in the workforce, both in the private and public sector, what I have experienced is very different from that. Here we have yet another bill to tackle the evil employer, because employers and employees, of course, are totally incapable of getting together and sorting out provisions for themselves. The best solutions occur when employers and employees are left to determine optimal circumstances that suit both parties. Given that most people are reasonable, when people go with reasonable requests and expectations to their employers very often better outcomes are reached because they are able to put forward their own case rather than having to rely on cases that are put forward just in general.

Here we have another bill forcing extra compliance on employers. I suggest that this bill probably not only will achieve nothing but will be counter-productive. The history that we heard from the Labour member Sue Moroney was all very well and interesting, but in fact things have moved on. We are in 2008 and things are very different from those days that she was describing. Thank goodness things are very different. They are very different, and we cannot be making legislation based on what might or might not have happened a very long time ago.

The breastfeeding provisions in this bill are particularly interesting. I suggest that these provisions have been written perhaps by a man—who is obviously not able to breastfeed—or a woman who has not breastfed, because they allow two lots of 10 minutes. If we are talking about expressing milk, those who actually know something about this and have some practical experience will know that 10 minutes is neither here nor there and in that time one is likely to achieve very little in the way of what is meant to be achieved. But that is by the way, and given that this bill will go through to select committee, I suppose there will be submissions in this regard. We will have all sorts of people coming forward saying that to express milk effectively—and I suggest they would be right—probably something like 30 minutes is a more adequate time. Are we going to extend the provision to 30 minutes? What obligations and red tape will then be forced on employers in that regard? It is much better to leave the negotiating between an employee and an employer for the short period of time that we are talking about here.

I want to raise a very different issue, but one that should be taken very seriously in respect of this bill. I refer to page 5 of the explanatory note around the regulatory impact statement and the adequacy statement. I read from the adequacy statement: “A regulatory impact statement (RIS) was not submitted at the time approval for the policy relating to the Bill was sought from Cabinet, due to the time frame allowed for the preparation of that paper. The Regulatory Impact Analysis Unit has therefore not reviewed the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) or RIS for adequacy as required for proposals that meet the economically significant criteria, as decisions have already been made.” I come back to the fact that here we have guidelines for legislation that the Hon Lianne Dalziel stands up and defends rigidly in this Parliament—and I agree with her; she should—saying that these are important so that we know that the financial considerations have been taken into account, as have all the other considerations that rightly should be.

This bill has been introduced very quickly because it is election year. It has come before the House without having the adequate background work done. We have no idea what the cost of this bill will be, either to employers or to other groups, yet we are forcing it through Parliament before the background work can be done. This is just wrong, quite honestly, and should not be happening. If this is such important legislation, a few more weeks should have been taken before it was introduced into the House. The background work should have been done thoroughly so that the select committee, when it is looking at this bill, is able to make proper decisions with the proper background information.

Not everybody in this House is in favour of legislation being rushed through. ACT is not. In that very vein we have before the Commerce Committee at the moment the Regulatory Responsibility Bill in the name of Rodney Hide. It talks explicitly—

Hon Mark Gosche: Where is he?

HEATHER ROY: Oh, did Mr Gosche miss the member’s very important question at question time? Perhaps he was asleep. The Regulatory Responsibility Bill is currently before the Commerce Committee and it looks at all sorts of very important questions. It would take a very dim view of this situation. Most of the members on that committee, including the Labour members—although Mr Gosche is not one of them, so he probably would not have any knowledge of this—know that it is extraordinarily important that the right questions are asked before legislation comes before Parliament. They could be questions about what this bill will do, what it will achieve, what might the side effects be, and what the unintended consequences are. This House has often rushed legislation through, only to see unintended consequences emerge, as had been predicted. Before we know it, we have an amendment bill back in the House and we are going over the issue yet again.

Are there any alternatives? What makes this bill the best option? When I look further into the explanatory note at page 9, I see under the heading “Alternative options” a pretty bold statement: “No alternative options were considered.” They were not considered, because this Labour Government knows best and trade unionists know best. They think they know what is best for the public and the private sector in all of these things and that nothing else needs to be looked at. In medicine, the area I come from, there is a thing called “differential diagnosis”. We look at all the options, so that we can get to the right diagnosis and then formulate the best treatment. The option of an alternative is being run over roughshod in this bill. I ask whether the regulation follows the principles of responsible regulatory management. That is one of the questions that would have to be asked of all legislation in terms of the Regulatory Responsibility Bill. That is the basis on which our lawmaking should be founded on. When will the regulation next be reviewed? There is no mention of that in this bill.

ACT will oppose this bill, for those reasons. The bill will go to a select committee and we will follow its progress with interest, but I suggest that this bill will achieve nothing. It ignores the principles that good lawmaking is founded upon.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) : It is interesting to follow Heather Roy’s speech. I suggest that the ACT party will vote one for, one against the bill, because the so-called leader of that party has been on a rest break for most of the last year or two, and hardly ever attends Parliament. I think he is confused. He thinks we work for 30 minutes and have the rest of the day off. That is not what the bill proposes, but I suppose the previous speaker at least appears in the House and in select committee from time to time, so she would have to vote against the bill in due conscience.

The bill is interesting because it follows on from some important moves by this Government last week—the increase in the minimum adult wage to $12 an hour, and the change in the youth rates so that we now have a new entrant rate whereby, after 200 hours, young people will move on to the minimum adult wage of $12. The bill comes also the week after the contribution to KiwiSaver for employees by their employer. It comes about a year after people received the extra week’s leave.

Also, the bill follows other important changes to industrial law, like the vulnerable workers legislation that we put through as an amendment to the Employment Relations Act, which, fortunately, is there at a time when some of those people out there—not imaginary people as the ACT party would have it, but real employers—are doing terrible things to workers in our hospitals. Spotless Healthcare Services is the company I am talking about on this occasion. It cannot honour a deal to pay workers $14.25 an hour to work in our hospitals to clean, cook, and do orderlies’ duties. Although that ACT member down the back of the Chamber speaks with some honesty in saying she is against unions and workers having rights, that is the sort of thing that is happening out there, and it is not imaginary. Those workers were locked out by their employer for 9 days last year. They are due a pay increase that has been funded by the Government, but their employer is still to pay up. Their employer is still refusing to give those workers what they are due, and the ACT party wonders why we have to have legislation that would give minimum rights to workers to have a break during their working day for a meal, and a break in-between to have a cup of tea or a rest. It is just common sense. It is just sensible to have minimum codes within employment to make sure that those bad employers—and, sadly, there are some, of which Spotless would be one of the worst out there—actually know there is a law and if they break it, there will be some penalties for breaking it.

My colleague Sue Moroney talked of such matters, and I congratulate her and the Hon Steve Chadwick on the work they put in to make sure that this type of legislation comes into place. There are examples out there, every day of the week, coming to the attention of MPs and unions, which represent a percentage of the workforce, but certainly not the majority of it, where employers either knowingly or unknowingly refuse to allow people to take a break. Those breaks are necessary for health and safety purposes. Also, as we have a shortage of labour in this country, it is necessary that employers offer proper working conditions to members of the workforce if they want to retain them.

We are very familiar with the arguments that some industries have about workers having a break of this sort. The bus industry, as an example, has argued long and hard not only against this type of legislation but against driving hours legislation, which was put into place in transport legislation to ensure the safety of the person who is driving and the other people on the road. It is not an imagined problem. It is not something that occurs just because it is election year, as members opposite have said it does. This bill has been thought about and put together over a very long period of time. It actually became a Government bill because it had not made it through the ballot process of members’ bills. It is also a manifesto promise made by the Labour Party, and we deliver on them. We do not break those promises. We do not ignore them; we take them seriously.

In terms of the bill providing facilities and breaks for employees who wish to breastfeed or express milk, I recall, before I came into Parliament if my memory serves me right, in Samoa in the mid-1990s the Samoan Government had a very large overseas company coming in to set up manufacturing and it saw fit to say that one of the conditions the company would have to comply with was the ability for employees to have proper facilities and time for breastfeeding. A country like Samoa, which, in terms of development, is a long way down the track before it catches up to New Zealand, saw fit to do that. It was not that there was a shortage of labour and therefore it had to do this to make sure that people would work; far from it. Its health Minister at the time told me he saw this as a hugely important aspect for the health of babies in Samoa. So if it is good enough for Samoans, certainly it is good enough for New Zealand workers, for New Zealand babies, and for New Zealand families.

Again, this bill is about this Government looking to the future for our families. We are now very much a country that relies on both parents working. Once upon a time, in my days of growing up in New Zealand, one could almost guarantee that dad was out at work, mum was at home, and the question of breastfeeding babies was irrelevant in that respect. Nowadays in the community that I represent there is a huge number of women who have their babies and very shortly afterwards go back to work—for all sorts of reasons. For many of them in low-paid work, it is economic reality, economic necessity. If we want to have those women’s children and families brought up properly with the best possible outcomes in terms of health, it just makes sense that these types of minimum requirements are placed in the law.

I am looking forward to the ACT party putting forward an amendment that says that 10 minutes is not long enough. We will see whether ACT actually is serious with its words, because it has the opportunity to do that; if not on the select committee, it could get one of its mates to make a submission along those lines. If its members cannot even be bothered doing that, then when the bill is reported back and also in the Committee of the whole House they can get up and make an impassioned speech to say that 10 minutes is not long enough and that it should be 30 minutes, because that is what I heard the ACT member say.

This bill is about making sure that the gaps in the law that were created by the previous National Government, back in those days in 1981 and 1991 when it ripped out the legislation that put these things in place, are being restored. There has been ample time for employers to say they would take a voluntarist approach to this issue. Nobody has stopped them putting it into their individual contracts, which the vast majority of New Zealand workers are employed under. Who said they could not? Why have they not done that? Education and voluntarism are things that I know we will hear a lot about on the select committee from employer organisations, and, no doubt, from Opposition members. My question is this. If in 1991 the law was changed and people have been able to have these things in their collective or employment agreements ever since then, why have they not done that? If it is good common sense, why have they not done it?

I have seen far too many young people come to me and show me their contracts of employment. I have looked through those contracts, and there is no mention of rest breaks or meal breaks. Employers have been given 8, 9, or, in this case, many more years than that, because it is 2008 and it is a long time since 1991 or 1981 when the laws were changed, the award system was taken away, and the Factories and Commercial Premises Act, which previously allowed for breaks, was taken away. It is a very long time for the voluntarist approach to have worked. It has not worked in many, many cases so we have put into law a minimum code that will give workers a condition that most New Zealanders would say is proper and very few people would be against. I see no harm at all in having those provisions in a law as this bill proposes.

KATRINA SHANKS (National) : It is my pleasure to speak to the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill today. It is interesting that we have two mothers of five children in this House. Being the competitive person I am, I thought I was up there, but I myself have breastfed only three children. We have the winners at one end—those with five children—and I am not quite as experienced with three children. But maybe I make up for it in that I am the second-most-recent person in Parliament to have breastfed, I believe—in the not too distant past. I looked at this legislation with a lot of interest, because it is quite relevant to where I have been and where I could be again, come to think about it—not that I am! [Interruption] No fear, I say to the whip.

The first thing that came to mind when I looked at this legislation was to ask what current evidence there is that the existing provision is not working in the workplace. What evidence is there that employers are not allowing women to breastfeed in the workplace? As an MP, I have not had one woman come to me to say that she had an issue with it. As a woman with many friends still breastfeeding and working, I can say that none of them have an issue with breastfeeding or expressing milk in the workplace. On looking into this bill a bit more, I think the select committee has a lot of work to do in proving that we need it.

Not only that; it also has a lot of work to do on the detail of the legislation. As a mother who has breastfed three children, I can tell members right now that a period of 10 minutes does not cut the mustard, at all, and neither does the proposed number of breaks. A mother’s milk does not come in in a break; it can come in at any time, depending on how much the mother has had to drink, how tired she is, how stressed she is, and when she last fed her baby. Babies change routines all the time, so just because a mother breastfeeds at 9 one morning does not mean she will breastfeed at 9 the next morning. A mother is not on a strict timetable. Her employer cannot tell her that her breastfeeding break is at 10.30, because she may not have enough milk then, or she may have way too much milk at 9 o’clock.

If women will have to wait until 10.30 to breastfeed, many of them will ask whether their employers are going to supply them with cabbage leaves. We were talking about this before, and wondering whether employers would be asked to provide ordinary cabbage leaves or frozen cabbage leaves for women who have to wait for their break.

Heather Roy: You need frozen.

KATRINA SHANKS: The mother of five children agrees that the cabbage leaves should be frozen. Employers would need to provide frozen cabbage leaves, in case a mother’s milk supply comes in too early or too late. How do we actually legislate for something as personal to a woman as breastfeeding, and get it to work, and have conformity across the workplace? I think the select committee has a lot of work to do on how it will actually—

Darien Fenton: Chester is supporting it.

KATRINA SHANKS: I am sorry but I am actually talking to the bill here, and I have a really important issue. This provision is all about babies and mothers and milk; that is what it is about. I tell members that if we do not get it right before mothers get back to the workplace, if we do not ensure that women are breastfeeding properly when they leave hospital and go home, there will not be an issue. If women are being pushed out of hospital within 6 hours of the birth, as the Capital and Coast District Health Board does, how are they going to learn to breastfeed? They will be going back to work not having breastfed their children. They need support at the beginning, in hospital and when they get home, but they are not getting it.

We need lactation consultants. We need midwives who can give mothers the full visits that, under section 88, they deserve but are not getting now. In some district health boards, midwives are handing over mothers to Well Child 2 weeks after the birth. If they are doing that, how can the mothers get support from the midwives to ensure that they are breastfeeding properly? In fact, if we do not get it right at the very beginning, when women are coming out of hospital with new babies, this legislation is irrelevant; they will not be breastfeeding their babies in the workplace, because they will not be breastfeeding their babies.

We need to fix the matter up front, and this current Government has absolutely no answers for that. There is a crisis in midwifery, there is a crisis in maternity services right now, and women need support at the front end, but this Government has not been able to deliver it to them. If members ask any women out there what is most likely to keep them in hospital, the answer will be the ability to breastfeed. That is what keeps them there; they want to learn to breastfeed. But they are not getting the support they need. This legislation may be totally irrelevant, because we already know that 6 weeks after the birth there is a huge drop-off in the number of women who are breastfeeding. Women who are at home for the first 3 months are not breastfeeding when they go back into the workforce.

We have major issues to address. I am taking just a short call today, and will end on the note that I think the select committee has a huge amount of work to do, particularly on how practical this legislation is. When legislation like this is being rushed through, especially in election year, I think we have to consider how valid it is.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) on behalf of the Minister of Labour: I move, That the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for consideration, that the committee report the bill by 22 July, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c).

• Motion agreed to.