O'Connor Simon: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Simon: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6742. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am pleased to speak to this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill in its first reading. I think for many of us there is a sense of déjà vu if you will that we are debating this again in the House. For me once again I oppose this bill. Its sentiments may be noble but I do not believe them to be correct for three reasons. One would be I would term practical one prudent and the third one philosophical.The first reason is practical and that is really in relation to what Governments have already done. We have had paid parental leave at 16 weeks and in the recent Budget of the Government we have extended this out a further 2 weeks to 18 weeks of paid parental leave which is beginning from 1 April next year. So practically speaking the Government is making steps and continues to make steps in this regard. We have also heard from others around how this Government reflects a National Party philosophy of not just doing a broad brushstroke for the sake of symbolic semblance and niceties but actually trying to target this more appropriately. We were very pleased in some of our changes to look at how we provide this paid parental leave not just to the birth parents but where situations require it—let me get the terms right here—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the member. Thank you.SIMON O’CONNOR: —to those who are Home for Life carers whāngai parents and grandparents importantly. I know in my own electorate that a number of grandparents are looking after children and there are those who are permanent guardians. I think it is important and it has been important practically to put those supports in place. Others have mentioned it too—I think it is very prudent around extending or providing an extension of paid parental leave for those whose babies are premature so those born under the date of 37 weeks. I think it is a small but practicable step. It is one that certainly sits logically in my mind and I will touch on that a little bit when I talk around the philosophical concerns that I have in and around all of this.The second issue I raised or hinted at was around the prudency of this. A Government’s responsibility is to all its citizens—young old middle aged—and I think it is prudent of the Government to approach this carefully because every new idea no matter whether it has merit or not has costs and we have to figure that out. The best cost that I have been given—and excuse me having to read this I cannot recall all the numbers—is that it is going to cost something like $378 million over the next 4 years with an ongoing cost of about $126 million. In terms of the Government’s books that is not a huge amount of money when one weighs it up but at the same time it is all about trying to make the balances and the choices that are required. It is very easy for members to come to the House and say: “Oh it’s just going to cost this much. It’s just going to cost that much.” We have to work that out again as a Government to be prudent. I think we have heard from Government Ministers in particular in other discussions that of course we will look to see whether we can extend this as time and prudency allows. I can see there has been a hashtag going around of the likes of “8 more weeks” and so forth and that is fine. One can argue that point but of course with the debates—or how we have heard the debate structured from the other side—there will always be a call for 8 more weeks.Finally for me I have got some I suppose philosophical concerns with this. I know that time is now short. One part of it is that having a child is generally not an accident or a mistake and so forth. It is something that is fairly normal. I am sure that there are plenty of exceptions that may just prove the rule but by and large a social responsible State steps in in those unusual circumstances. The other too is that we often hear—and it is from all sides of the House—that it is all about community. We hear that on this point—you know that it takes a community to raise a child. It seems that that is pulled out as an excuse when money is required but it is funny that in so many areas when the community wants to set its standards and ideals for how to raise a child we hear “Keep out of my life. Don’t bother me.” So I see a bit of inconsistency of thinking here: if it is truly a community raising a child then we as a community have a responsibility for more than just money to our children.