Foster-Bell Paul: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionFoster-Bell Paul: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11835. Text is subject to correction.]PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Thank you for the opportunity to take a further call on this. There has been quite a lot of wide-ranging debate since I made my last contribution but I actually intend to pick up where I finished off on the question of 26 weeks. Actually I think that in this Committee we are not debating whether paid parental leave is a good thing. We are not debating the benefits. We are debating the duration when it comes to this particular part of the bill—26 weeks. The member who is sponsoring this bill Sue Moroney told us when she made her introductory comments to this part of the Committee of the whole House debate that these are not arbitrary figures that they are not random figures and that it is not her 26 weeks that she came up with. This was the World Health Organization’s mandated recommended research figure. Well is it not a bit suspicious that 26 weeks is also half a year? It seems like a very rounded-off amount of time to come to. Is the member quite sure that it was not 24 weeks or that it was not 25.7 weeks? It does seem to me a little bit suspicious.But also the World Health Organization’s members are not the only people with an opinion on this matter. I back the United Nations system but we do have to acknowledge that the World Health Organization is an inherently political organisation. It is a committee of the UN with representatives elected from a range of countries who get themselves on to the various committees. So I think the member needs to look closely at that source for her suggestion of 26 weeks. It is not the be-all and end-all. As I have said there are other organisations in this country including the Child Poverty Action Group which made a very cogent coherent and I think persuasive submission that as good as parental leave is there are other priorities that any other Government has to consider.Tracey Martin: Oh my goodness. They’re going to really dislike you.PAUL FOSTER-BELL: It is a little bit rich actually from Mrs Martin I have to say—it is a little bit rich to be lectured from across the aisles by Mrs Martin because Mrs Martin does not have to consider the other priorities that Governments do have to consider. This is the very reason that a financial veto exists Mrs Martin. You make some interesting allegations but of course the previous Labour Government exercised its financial veto 31 times during—David Seymour: No!PAUL FOSTER-BELL: Yeah actually—31 times. So I think we on this side of the House should not be lectured. But we are not even at that stage yet; that is pre-empting business that is yet to come. We are yet—Tracey Martin: It’s because your finance Minister said it in the paper. I do apologise! I won’t take his word for it.PAUL FOSTER-BELL: —to see how the cards fall in this part and in this Committee at the end of this Committee stage and at the third reading when that is even a consideration Mrs Martin. I think the member is getting a little bit ahead of herself at this stage.But look there was so much. Actually I am going to agree with some of the things that the member Catherine Delahunty said about this part of the bill—the 26 weeks not being one of them but many of the benefits of paid parental leave are. I actually do want to commend Sue Moroney. There will be some people who say that this is a highly political bill and that she is playing politics with quite an emotive issue and who will accuse her of cynicism but I actually want to commend her for what I think is a well-intentioned attempt to raise this issue twice in 2 years. Well done Ms Moroney on the luck of having it drawn I suppose.But I do agree with some of the things Catherine Delahunty was saying. The bonding between a parent and child that happens in the first few weeks months and even years of life is very important. I think it is a little bit arbitrary though that we have settled on 26 weeks in spite of inconclusive evidence from the breastfeeding experts particularly in the New Zealand context as to the ideal time to be given for leave to encourage breastfeeding. A point that I think has been made earlier but which I want to emphasise is that suggesting and allowing this idea to get out there that the only way a mother can exclusively breastfeed—or in fact breastfeed in part or breastfeed her child in any way—is if she is on leave from the workforce completely is sending the wrong message to employers. Employers in this country should be aware that they do have a responsibility to make facilities available for mothers so that they are able to appropriately breastfeed their children.I also back up the comments made by my colleague Mark Mitchell who I think very sensibly pointed out the important role of fathers here. It is not entirely about the role of mothers—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No it is about the 26 weeks.PAUL FOSTER-BELL: I think we have to think of both parents in the arrangement and actually 26 weeks in my view—Kris Faafoi: Well done.PAUL FOSTER-BELL: —is not the right balance. It is wonderful to see Mr Faafoi is going to make a contribution—