Mahuta Nanaia: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMahuta Nanaia: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1098. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato):Having heard that thoughtful contribution from the member Kevin Hague it compelled me to take a call. I have not taken a call on this bill for the duration of its debate but I too am concerned about how the Government Administration Committee considered the most vulnerable children and why it would not extend paid parental leave to 22 weeks. But more important the definition that most compels me to stand is the one related to those whose pregnancy results in a live birth before 37 weeks of gestation. Having had some experience in this area I can say it is medically possible to keep a child alive from 23 weeks with medical intervention. The greatest prospect of risk at that point in time is actually the development of the lungs. If you count the fact that it is a reality that it can be possible for children to live at 23 weeks factoring in 16 weeks of paid parental leave may mean that parents are still in hospital with their child. I just want to get some sense from the member as to what extent the select committee heard submissions around this. There is obvious hardship when parents are in the neonatal intensive care unit with their young children because of medical intervention.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I just remind the member that as the previous presiding officer said it is a very narrow debate. The provisions have been voted down already. This is about the consequential amendments as identified in new clause 7. I say to the member that we cannot get into a wide debate on this. It is on the regulations that are amended in new clause 7. That is where we need to focus. I say to future speakers that it is a very narrow debate.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I will bring the debate back to new clause 7 and into alignment with the regulations. It would be I think in line with the previous speaker seeking some advice from the member in the chair regarding the issues of cost—whether some factual information and evidence were provided to the member around how many children would be affected by limiting the definition in the way that you have recommended—and how this might better aid and support the real numbers of families that are provided for because I suspect when you put that into context it is actually a very narrow number of families. It was important to ensure that there was a thorough and robust debate at the select committee level when you were considering the regulations on how very real support is required for families who are meeting the challenges especially as new parents of multiple births and of children who are severely affected and need medical intervention from an early age. They may not have the multiplicity of their disabilities recognised until much later in life. The regulations are somewhat technical and align to the greater proposition of the bill but they really go to the nub of the issue that is trying to be met.I want to acknowledge that the member has tried to make some practical changes to the bill in light of the political discussions that have preceded them and it still remains not evident certainly to me and members on this side of the Chamber why these practical changes would not have been adopted. The scope has been limited. The number of children affected—and therefore parents—would have been limited but the very real needs and challenges I think are so important to address. There have been a couple of questions put to Sue Moroney as the proposer of the bill. I think she has conceded quite a bit in so far as the regulations are concerned. It would be useful from a technical point of view to see whether there was actually a great deal of debate in this part or whether the substantial debate was preceding this part of the bill.One last comment I would like to make is that for families who are struggling with children who have required significant medical intervention and require staying in hospital for a long period of time extending paid parental leave to 22 weeks may have better benefited them.