Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I think we saw in that speech everything that is wrong with the Opposition parties' argument on this bill. I oppose this bill on behalf of the ACT Party—because if Jan Logie had done an ounce of research the first thing she would know is that babies generally crawl between 7 and 10 months so 6 months of paid parental leave is not going to achieve what she thinks it is going to achieve. That is the fundamental problem between members on that side of the House who live in a la-la land of ideology and members on this side of the House who live in the real world.I listened to the speech of Iain Lees-Galloway and he betrayed another flaw in the argument that the Opposition makes on this bill. For the Labour Party paid parental leave has always been an exercise in political branding with taxpayer money. Let us have a look at the history. In 2002 paid parental leave for 12 weeks was introduced with a $9 billion surplus in an election year. When was paid parental leave next extended again with a $6 billion surplus? It was in 2004 when the polls dramatically changed and the National Party gained 20 points on Labour. That is when the Labour Government next extended it: when it was politically expedient. What do we hear from Sue Moroney when she is asked? Well Ms Moroney if it is so important to have paid parental leave why do you not make it say 1 year instead of 6 months? She says: Because this is what is politically possible right now." This has always been nothing but an exercise in political branding paid for by the taxpayer on behalf of the Labour Party.If it was really so critical and essential that people could not bring up their children without an extra 6 or 4 or 10 weeks of paid parental leave then you just have to ask yourself what the Labour Party's attitude is towards the majority of those who will have children in New Zealand this year who will not take up paid parental leave. Let me say that again: for the majority of the 60000 children born in each year their parents do not take up paid parental leave for a variety of reasons. Even if it was the case that in real life parents could not bring up children without paid parental leave then what do we make of the many developmental stages that children go through over 20 years? Because on this side of the House where we live in the real practical world and where we know that babies crawl between 7 to 10 months and not between 4 months and 6 months we know that bringing up children is a 20-year enterprise. The idea that the only block between children growing up healthy and well-adjusted in New Zealand is simply the problem that parents do not have funding for an extra 6 weeks while their children are very small is simply not true.Those members can howl and howl and howl but the reality is that the Opposition has been found out. This has been an exercise in collecting emails from petitions of trying to brand the Labour Party as the party that cares more. Did that not come out in Iain Lees-Galloway's speech? Iain Lees-Galloway's speech—if people want to go back to watch it—was 90 percent about the Labour Party and 10 percent about the children whom he purports his speech to be about. You only have to look at the way that Iain Lees-Galloway spent his time during his speech to see that really it was not about the children or the policy whatsoever.In conclusion I am actually proud to oppose this bill because I am in favour of sound public policy and using taxpayer money to the maximum value to make New Zealanders' lives better—not the kind of political grandstanding and showboating that the Labour Party has used paid parental leave as for 14 years and counting. Thank you."