Foster-Bell Paul: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFoster-Bell Paul: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11814. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Kia ora e Te Kaiwhakahaere. In the earlier stages of this debate I posed a number of questions to the member in the chair Sue Moroney and I am disappointed they have not actually been addressed and responded to. A few more have come to mind during the subsequent course of this debate. It has been focused solely on Part 1 which deals with the first tranche of expansion in the weeks of paid parental leave. One of the assertions made by the member during her speech at the very start of this debate was that it would have a positive effect on the breastfeeding of New Zealand children. This is a topic that I never dreamt for a moment that I would be addressing here in our House of Representatives but it is something that actually is very pertinent if you are interested in the health and well-being of New Zealand children—our mokopuna young New Zealanders. It actually has a lifelong effect on the health the well-being and actually the other social outcomes for young New Zealanders if they have the maximum opportunity to have exclusive breastfeeding—that is to be fed only human breast milk for as long as possible in their childhood.Of course we on this side being scientifically minded and a Government that is based on rationality and logic accept the research in that area but what has yet to be I think demonstrated completely—and certainly to the level where I am totally convinced you can claim an extension in paid parental leave to the 22 weeks provided for in the first tranche of this bill as per Part 1—is that it will have I think the transformative effects that the member was alluding to particularly among some of the more vulnerable communities in New Zealand.We saw statistics that came from empirical studies in other countries. We saw studies conducted in Norway that were providing arguments in favour. We saw studies from the United Kingdom and America—very different cultural contexts. When the Ministry of Health came in to talk to the New Zealand example which is very different to those Nordic Scandinavian North American or European examples the evidence was a little bit less clear. So the questions I suppose I have for the member are about what weighting she puts on the figures that actually show that Māori and Pasifika people do have a significantly lower rate of breastfeeding—particularly exclusive breastfeeding—and how she thinks the extension of paid parental leave to 22 weeks will have a significant or transformative effect on those communities where there is a major underrepresentation of exclusive breastfeeding.Similarly I would also like to know whether she thinks that there might be I guess in some ways negative consequences by saying that you have to stay at home—you have to be on paid parental leave—to be able to breastfeed or to be able to exclusively breastfeed. This is actually sending a negative signal out there to say that this is something that should not be encouraged in companies. Even in this place when I first started working for the National Party I actually worked for Katherine Rich who was a very fine list MP based in Dunedin at the time and she was one of the few members who actually had a baby while she was in Parliament. She was one of the pioneers I suppose in that regard and was provided with a room near the Chamber so that she was able to—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! It is interesting but Part 1 is about 22 weeks. So tie it back to 22 weeks.PAUL FOSTER-BELL: I guess the point I am making is that breastfeeding is a fundamental premise of why the member is arguing for an extension to 22 weeks. The evidence was significant but not entirely conclusive that extending paid parental leave to 22 weeks would have that transformative effect on the levels of exclusive breastfeeding and whether there would be a knock-on effect particularly to private companies but also the Public Service where we are saying you actually have to go home—you have to be on leave to be able to do this. It is a natural function but it is also very important for the health of children. It gives them that immunological nutritional—every advantage in health even educationally and going on into rates of offending.We did have a significant range of evidence. I want to commend the members of the Government Administration Committee who looked at it very closely and scrutinised that. I want to commend our tenacious committee clerk who did a wonderful job of ensuring that we followed up with officials to get access to the evidence we needed. But is the member convinced that that evidence is as clear as she seems to want to have the House believe?