Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Madam Chair Williams. First of all Madam Chair can I just acknowledge you both as a parliamentary colleague but also as a fellow Cook Islander on your appointment. I think it's a great thing that many of us will be very proud of and I just want to acknowledge the opportunity that you have and also your role in the House as well.Can I also too just acknowledge Sue Moroney who's in the gallery. The truth is that when Sue Moroney put the bill forward we did not actually contest the intent. In fact if anything it was the process and it was the time framing of how that would happen. If you look through the debates that was what the process was—so the intent.I do want to acknowledge Sue and I just want to say that it's her tenacity—in fact the word that the Hon Tracey Martin used in the House actually was tenacity". Do you remember that? You actually said that in your speech. You talked about the fact of her tenacity and I want to acknowledge Sue Moroney in that.I suppose the point of my contribution to this is particularly in regard to the flexibility that we talk about. Also as a father of four children and two grandchildren I know the importance of the flexibility that that could have. In fact in that flexibility—I just want to quote because I do remember that speech. I was in the House when Tracey Martin made the speech. It was in regard to paid parental leave. The Hon Tracey Martin you do remember that when you talked about this you talked about the importance of the role of fathers—The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Excuse me I would remind the member not to bring me into the debate.Hon ALFRED NGARO: Apologies Madam Chair. The point I want to make is that the Hon Tracey Martin talked about the role of fathers in her speech—Hon Tracey Martin: Very important.Hon ALFRED NGARO: —and it was really important. So that's the point I suppose of this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that was put forward by the Hon Amy Adams. It was the ability to say "Let the people let the families themselves choose." Let them have the flexibility to say "Look maybe we can alter that."I know that the Minister has talked about the fact that it would remove the ability for the primary caregiver to have that full allocated period of time. But in actual fact what the SOP was designed to do was to say "Let there be some flexibility." There are some mothers that may choose that they would like to go back to work and so forth.The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Could I ask the member to come back to the title and commencement.Hon ALFRED NGARO: Yes so the intent of what I'm trying to say is this. This title is the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill but inside that title what I would also add is: but where are the dads? Where are the fathers? Where is the flexibility that would allow dads to have their place? The honourable member over there said it in her speech. Tenacity is not just for one; it is for all. Flexibility does allow for that. If this title's going to be true to its intent parental means two OK? It's the two parents that are there—not singular not one. It's not just for the mother; actually it's for two parents. In fact in these modern days we have many fathers—and I have been a stay-at-home dad to one of my children. I know the power that it has—the transformation.So in this title can we truly say it's parental leave? Or should we say it's for one parent? One-parent leave potentially for mothers. I know that Tracey Martin would also be a bit aware of this title and that it doesn't truly reflect the true sense of parents. She said it in her speech. She knows the importance of that. We think that's really important.You know there is something in a title and in a name. It says parents. It says the parental aspect of being able to have that choice. That's what the SOP was about. If the title is to truly reflect its intent for all parents then why wouldn't we allow that through the flexibility of the SOP by the Hon Amy Adams—to allow for parents to choose?I know that for instance I've received an email from Bob McCroskie who's been talking about the whole thing around fathers and the roles that fathers should play. As they've surveyed out and throughout our communities mums and dads which make parents also want to have a choice. Fathers want to be acknowledged that they are just as much a part of their children's lives as their mothers. So what they're trying to say here and what Bob McCroskie and others out there are trying to say—Kiwi dads that are out there and all those organisations—is "Give us a voice. Give us a chance."If this title is to say "Parental" as in the plural two OK and maybe even more then why could the Minister not—and I'd like the Minister maybe to answer the question why he could not see it within himself. It's not a big change. It's not actually something that's going to make some sort of catastrophic change. All it is—it will add flexibility. If it doesn't then I would beg to say that maybe we need to think about this title. Maybe it just shouldn't say "Parental".Hon Simon Bridges: We need to do more than think about it; we need to change it.Hon ALFRED NGARO: It should change and I think that's really important to reflect the duality of two parents the mother and the father or two mums that are together or two dads. There is a multiplicity of ways but parental means parental."