Martin Tracey: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — Recommittal Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — Recommittal Third Reading[Sitting date: 25 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1943. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker and thank you very much. First of all can I commend Sue Moroney and can I just say that she has gone above and beyond the call of duty really—and I am referring particularly to a breakfast this morning—to support New Zealand families. But I also want to say that New Zealand First is not suggesting that the Government has not supported New Zealand families. The reality is that this Government in the last Budget did exactly what Mr Ngaro said. It has extended paid parental leave. It is a thrill actually to hear Mr Woodhouse—and I am going to see about subbing-in on that select committee actually on this bill that is going to be brought to the House in June with all these other manipulations and mutations of paid parental leave that might better assist New Zealand families.Hon Jo Goodhew: They will.TRACEY MARTIN: It is great. I am really looking forward to it Ms Goodhew. I am really looking forward to it. I think there is a wider conversation that needs to happen—the fact that it is actually going to start to take in the concept of whāngai which I mentioned when I spoke at the first reading of Ms Moroney’s bill. Let us hope that there might be a conversation about a requirement for fathers to take some of this paid parental leave because what we know is that with all the efforts we have made in trying to get pay equity inside the workforce those countries that have been successful in doing it have actually made parents equal at home. It also removes the stigma for those fathers who want to stay at home and take paid parental leave. Perhaps if we actually start looking at and talking about that part inside the bill that this Government is going to introduce in June I think it was—we will all be looking forward to that.Could I just send a message to Mr Seymour—it is time to pull on your “big boy” pants. It is time to actually stand up in your own right. If you believed this morning that it is important that you support this bill then do not allow any other member of this House to bully you. I think that if you are bullied there is a sign up by your photocopier saying that you can gain support. You need to read that sign Mr Seymour call for support pull on your “big boy” pants and cast your vote as you believe it should be cast. That is what the people of New Zealand expect of us.I also want to explain to the listeners and the viewers of New Zealand that the reason why the conversation in this House has got so snarky is not that there is not recognition that at Budget time—Jami-Lee Ross: It’s not snarky.TRACEY MARTIN: Mr Ross says it is not snarky and yet his contribution was the most disgusting contribution that I have heard in this House in the 51st Parliament. It became personal and it was beneath him. If he wants to continue and still be considered to be a valuable member of the community and highly respected I suggest he goes back and changes the way he attacks other people in this House. Ms Moroney’s comments were robust but they were about policy and they were about a party and about a Government. Mr Ross’ comments were personalised and they were insulting. [Interruption] It hardly adds to the debate Mr Ross—it hardly adds to the debate—but perhaps after a few years and a bit of wisdom we might see a better politician.So if I can just go back to the point I was trying to make the reason this conversation has got quite snarky is not that there is no recognition that the Government has not made movements. It is actually because there was a betrayal of an amount of trust that was brought into that select committee process and Mr Ross possibly got so snarky because he was one of the people who were pivotal in the loss of that trust.What I want the New Zealand public to understand is that Ms Moroney believed in this to such a point that she took Government members inside the select committee—and I believe that the backbenchers need to listen to this. I believe that the backbenchers went out of the select committee with goodwill with a true commitment. They understood the people who came in and submitted to them and the importance of this bill. They took all of that information all that support all that voter information back into their caucus and their executive decided they had another way to do that. The executive decided: “We’re going to make sure that Sue Moroney doesn’t get any credit for this. We’re going to make sure that we can use this against the Labour Party at the next election and gain those votes from those voters.” And they did it very well. They have done it several times actually usually in chunks of about $10 million. So if the voters of New Zealand would like to go back and have a look at what happens when an issue starts to get traction this Government rather than withdraw—mind you there have been a couple of times: class size Novopay those sorts of things—tends to find $10 million of your money and dumps it there just to keep that little lid on that little pot.So the reason why this conversation got so snarky was that Ms Moroney absolutely tried to participate in a cross-party conversation. The backbenchers on that select committee—in good faith we believe—walked out of there and took that information back to their caucus and then the National caucus decided to pull the rug out from under Ms Moroney. The caucus decided to betray the very thing it consistently asks for when it decides to send troops overseas or when it decides to send anything else out of the way—it asks the Opposition to work cross-party; it asks the Opposition to work collaboratively.The Ministers say when we ask an interesting question that they are more than happy for the member to come and work with them but “why would you?” would be the question. Why would any member of this House do that after this example—and new members look and learn. Why would any member of this House go and take the word of any Minister or any member of the Government after what just happened there? So New Zealand that is actually what happened to this bill.Nobody is denying that the Government has moved forward. Nobody is denying that historically the movement inside paid parental leave that Labour made could equally be matched by what has recently happened with National. Nobody is denying that Mr Woodhouse is probably—keep your eye on it though once the pressure goes off—going to bring a bill here in June which will then go to select committee. Maybe it will take 10 years to get through the select committee though because National members will need so much conversation around it. It is going to have so many little paddles and angles to it that if the will is not there it might never end up back in this House.But the point as to why this has got so snarky the reason this has got so vicious is that there was a massive betrayal of trust by this Government when this bill was at select committee and there is nothing it can do to take that back.