Better deal for parents

Politics is tribal and it’s hard for one tribe to accept an enemy tribe’s idea. It’s particularly hard when the enemy tribe is being hypocritical in advancing it. That is what has happened with Labour’s refusal to accept a change to the parental leave legislation. National thinks the parents of the new baby should be able to share the extended parental leave that flows from Labour’s reform.

Labour has predictably rejected the idea because its reform is a flagship one and it doesn’t want National getting in on the act. And this is understandable.

National now plays the caring protector of parents while not long ago it not only rejected the idea of the extension of parental leave to 26 weeks. It even twice vetoed the move on the grounds that it was unaffordable.

But Labour should still adopt National’s idea, because it is a good one.

The people best placed to decide what is best for them and their child are the parents themselves. It is not for any government to tell them that they are wrong.

National’s claims to be promoting ‘‘choice’’ are often merely ideology dressed up as freedom. But in this case, the choice word is meaningful and the choice really should belong to the parents.

They should be able to decide whether to share the leave and halve its length – that is, to opt for 13 weeks of shared leave together instead of 26 weeks’ leave for one parent – or any other permutation. They should be able to share part of the leave, for instance, or none of it. Only a very small minority of fathers now take parental leave. Changing that would be good for everyone.

Labour is clearly tempted by this greater flexibility and knows beneath the bluster that it is sensible. Otherwise it would not have accepted a separate National amendment that increases the ‘‘keeping in touch’’ hours available to one parent who wants to return to work for a few hours a week during the leave period.

Anything which allows the parents to bond with the baby and with each other, while meeting their other responsibilities, is clearly desirable. The state has an interest in making sure that families get off to a good start.

Labour’s Iain Lees-Galloway argues that the National amendment could lessen the time available to the primary carer (usually the mother) to bond. But it’s not for the state to play the paterfamilias here.

Labour is still smarting over its humiliation last week at National’s hands over select committee hours. But it has already conceded that it might adopt the shared-parental leave idea ‘‘later’’. So its refusal to adopt the idea seems purely political.

National, of course, is trying to have its cake and eat it. Its about-turn on parental leave and its sudden ‘‘caring’’ attitude will not impress many voters. They can still remember, after all, what National did when it was in power.

So Labour can afford politically to take the longer view and also do the right thing.

Labour should accept National's shared parental leave proposal.