Mitchell Mark: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionMitchell Mark: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11829. Text is subject to correction.]MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is my pleasure to take a call on Part 2 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill and to talk about the proposed 26 weeks of paid parental leave. I was a bit worried about Mr Prosser because a burst blood vessel is actually really bad for your health Richard. I want to acknowledge Clayton Mitchell and the contribution he has made. I would invite him to get up and make another one.Iain Lees-Galloway: It’s not the Academy Awards. Just talk about Part 2.MARK MITCHELL: I just want to—oh Mr Lees-Galloway is getting excited over there again.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): So here we go.MARK MITCHELL: Sorry Mr Chair you are right. What I would like to do is just address some comments that the sponsor of the bill Sue Moroney made in her speech and that was around the third time tonight that I have heard her talk about the announcement that was made today about the defence white paper—and if you will bear with me Mr Chairman these comments were made by the sponsor of the bill—and the fact that the Government has committed $20 billion over the next 15 years to invest back into our New Zealand Defence Force. But I just want to highlight the fact that in actual fact in terms of spend in New Zealand we commit about 1.1 percent of our GDP annually to our New Zealand Defence Force and if we compare that to say the US which—Richard Prosser: That’s not the net figure though is it? Take off depreciation and take off the capital charge it’s about 0.87. More disingenuity from National.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order!MARK MITCHELL: I have not fact-checked this—I am concerned about the blood pressure as well Mr Chair—but I have not fact-checked this and I think the US is about 3.4—Denise Roche: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. In the previous parts we have had lots of instruction to keep our comments to within the part in the bill that we are discussing and I really think that the speaker on that side has gone off point.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Well thank you for your guidance. Relevancy is a matter for the person in the Chair at the time. I had the privilege of listening to that debate on the radio as I was driving down—which says more about me than anything—but I invite the member who has the call Mark Mitchell to continue and make his point succinctly.MARK MITCHELL: Thank you Mr Chair. So if we look at Australia—and again I think the Minister of Defence commented today at his press conference—it is about 2.1—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Yes OK. You are not doing it so move on.MARK MITCHELL: —and Canada is pretty close to us. But I want to make reference to the fact that the sponsor of the bill highlighted the investment into the New Zealand Defence Force as if to say that if we can make that type of investment as a country then we should be able to take that money and allocate it to paid parental leave; but they are two totally different separate issues. Actually if you are talking about the health and well-being of our children the security of our country and our economic zone is actually pretty important to the health and well-being of our children. I watched with great interest the debate in the House of Commons in the UK towards the end of last year when the chairman of the Defence Committee got up and made a very compelling argument for increased spending actually in the UK’s defence forces because the threats and the security situation—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! The member has been given as much latitude as he is going to get. He either gets to Part 2 or he sits down. I notice he is currently sitting down.Hon Members: He’s coming in to land.MARK MITCHELL: I am coming in to land—I am coming in to land.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No he cannot come to it eventually;he has got to come to it now.MARK MITCHELL: Thank you Mr Chair. So my point is that I cannot make the link between saying that the Government has committed to an additional $20 billion of funding over 15 years for our New Zealand Defence Force and money that we are talking about now over the next 4 years for paid parental leave because the reality of the matter is that—and we spoke about it earlier in the night—when this Government came into office we were facing deficits for a decade. The Minister of Finance and our economic team in Cabinet and caucus have been fiscally disciplined around making sure that we get the country back into surplus which is what we have done. It might be a thin one but it is growing every year. That will provide opportunities and that will provide in the coming years decisions for the Government to make about where that additional money and funding will be spent. Of course the decision will always be whether we will continue to pay down debt because if we are talking about kids the last thing I want is our children or our grandchildren inheriting a debt that we have built up over time because we have been irresponsible in the way that we have spent the money that comes in.I think that the argument that the Opposition whip put up around tax cuts is—let us understand one thing. If we make a tax cut—Iain Lees-Galloway: I’m not a whip. I am just sitting here.MARK MITCHELL: Well he is pretending. Maybe he is the pretend whip—I do not know. He seems to be a lot more vocal than the whip tonight—I will put it that way. But the point that I would make is that if the Government decides to make a tax cut—