Sabin Mike: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSabin Mike: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 25 June 2014. Volume:699;Page:18933. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):I am very pleased to take a call on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill and speak to some of the points that Jacinda Ardern has just raised. I can understand that the member has a passion about this particular bill as the member who introduced the bill has. Of course we all right across this House see absolute merit in giving every child the best start possible. It is right it is absolutely right that there will be passion in this debate but it is also right that the Government has the opportunity to and does enact changes that it believes are prudent and right for the time and that address need. Although in a perfect world every mother would be able to stay at home and have the Government support them to do that—I mean why stop at 26 weeks; the member Jacinda Ardern said 26 weeks—it is all about 26 weeks. When my children were growing up it was 5 years but there was no paid parental leave. There is actually nothing to say that the Government has to support parents to bring up their children well. That is not the case. It is not necessary. There are plenty of people—sorry what is the member saying?Carol Beaumont: Go on scrap Working for Families then.MIKE SABIN: Well you see there is something that that party has introduced. I personally actually believe that there is a balance to get in terms of where the individual’s responsibility to plan to take into account the costs that may be associated with having a child and to ensure that the requisite care support nurturing and so forth can be provided for.One of the interesting calls that has been made right from the get-go is around playing politics. There is a word beginning with “h” that I could probably pull out of the hat but I am not going to as I am sure members know it. There is a degree of irony about the fact that what we know is that for children who are living in vulnerability or families who are struggling one of the best things that can happen to them is they have an economy that is growing that is job-rich and that has well-paid jobs so that families have the opportunity to increase their income and therefore increase their freedom of choice and their ability to make choices that will be fit for purpose for them—for the needs of their family. When we talk about playing politics what we have seen from the Labour Party the Green Party and a plethora of mixtures on the Opposition benches is essentially parties that have consistently voted against the Government’s economic programme.I would challenge the member Sue Moroney to stand up and say—if she is so concerned about supporting families; often the ones who rely on support who are at the margins—why she opposes the efforts of the Government to grow the economy. Why is that? I would like the member to tell us. I suspect it is because what the Labour Party wants to see what the Opposition parties want to see is for the Government to fail so that they can get on to the Treasury benches. The cost of course of that is that ultimately when they are not voting to support measures that will help grow the economy they are actually hampering the very people whom they say they are there to support. If we are talking about playing politics then I would suggest that members might want to consider what they do at all times and not just when it suits them on a particular bill.That is the other interesting point because what we are doing around paid parental leave with the steps process to 18 weeks is what we believe to be fair and reasonable meets needs and is prudent in terms of the fiscal conditions. We have heard successive comments about Government debt about high Government debt. There is a certain member in this House who keeps going on about the worst economic record in 50 years. I cannot remember what his name is—Louise Upston: David Clark.MIKE SABIN: Of course. That is right—Mr Clark. The reason that debt exists is that this Government has ensured that for the most vulnerable people we have taken the sharp edges off the recession and the Canterbury earthquakes. Again I would put it that members cannot have it both ways. On the one hand they cannot say that you need to do more and it is about 26 weeks—it is about basically spending more because this matters—but then ignore the fact that that is exactly what the Government has done particularly since the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquakes. This Government has absolutely been prudent and responsible in ensuring that those most vulnerable people are well looked after. Let us not forget that people out there in the real world on $50000 with two children are tax-neutral. They pay as much in tax as they get back in support.