The worker’s didn’t. During the relevant period, she worked for an Australian company, was paid in Australian dollars into an Australian bank account, and paid tax in Australia. On paper, the connection to New Zealand simply was not there.
But surely the military angle changed things?
The worker pointed to a 2016 amendment to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987. That provision – section 71AB – was inserted to make sure armed forces members counted as employees for the purposes of the paid parental leave scheme. She argued it was illogical for Parliament to have protected deployed military personnel while leaving their officially recognised partners out in the cold.
The Authority was not persuaded.
Section 71AB, it found, was narrowly drawn. It confirmed that armed forces members are employed by the Chief of Defence Force – and therefore connected to New Zealand – but it went no further than that. The provision was not inserted because overseas deployment made military personnel ineligible. It was inserted because they technically fell outside the definition of “employee” in the Act. A 2015 Cabinet paper that recommended the amendment confirmed as much.
Nothing in the Act, the Authority found, provided for extending the parental leave scheme to partners of defence personnel – no matter how officially recognised.