Ardern Jacinda: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 25 June 2014. Volume:699;Page:18932. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):I see from the number of members that are jumping up on that side of the Committee that they have suddenly felt a rush of interest in the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. It is a level and degree of interest that I do not recall having seen until now.Mike Sabin: We’ve got a good story to tell.JACINDA ARDERN: And the member claims they have a good story to tell. I assume by that he means the story that was created by the National Government only in response to the excellent story that Labour wanted to tell. But actually if we are taking an analogy of paid parental leave being a story of some description what the National Government has written is the preface and what Labour has written is the actual story and conclusion because National has not gone far enough. It has not actually gone beyond the tokenism of acknowledging that yes we need a lift in paid parental leave but all of the evidence suggests that we need it to go far beyond the 18 weeks that National has proposed.Chris Auchinvole: When we can afford it.JACINDA ARDERN: When we can afford it. If what the member just said then were the case why would the National Government not introduce a stepped plan for the introduction of paid parental leave to 26 weeks? If the true story is that it is not about the principle of going to 6 months but the affordability of it why did the National Government not set out a staged plan for reaching that goal? Because—Chris Auchinvole: We have.JACINDA ARDERN: You have not. Your policy is not 26 weeks. Unfortunately National does not seem to understand what it has actually proposed which was a tokenistic 4-week increase staged over time. That is the National policy. I am sorry that I have to remind you of that. You are obviously disappointed by it but it was Labour that has actually said that we believe that 26 weeks is possible. We have set out a timetable to do it. We have staged it. But ultimately—Mike Sabin: Of course you do because you’ve got great form for spending taxpayers’ money haven’t you?JACINDA ARDERN: Mike Sabin seems to think that it is affordable to go 4 weeks but anything beyond—is 19 weeks unaffordable and a reckless spend of the taxpayers’ money? What about an extra 14 days? Where does the line sit Mr Sabin between reckless and fiscally prudent? Wherever National decides the line sits that is where it is. That is why this was never a policy of principle for National; it was a policy of politics. That is exactly what National has done because if it was a policy based on principle those members would have read the research by the World Health Organization which does not say 18 weeks. It does not say that bonding and attachment can be achieved in 18 weeks. It does not say that you will improve health outcomes at 18 weeks. It all points to 26 weeks. I would be generous enough to say that I believe the National Party members in the Chamber tonight know that and they know that they have made an unnecessary trade-off.On this side of the Chamber you might see that we were taking more succinct calls and that is ultimately because there were 3809 submissions on this bill—overwhelming. Of those 3794—over 99 percent—were in favour.Chris Auchinvole: Well that’s natural.JACINDA ARDERN: It is natural because it is the right thing to do which is why the majority of MPs in this House are in favour of this bill passing.I would just use the time that I have available to me to make a plea to the National Government—a plea. We have gone through a rigorous process. We have set out a timetable that is eminently affordable. The only thing standing in the way of this bill passing is National’s veto. It is not a vote and it is not another member an MP; it is National’s veto. Be it on those members’ conscience if they deny the democratic right of this Parliament to pass a bill that an overwhelming number of New Zealanders are in favour of. That is the plea that I make to those members tonight. Do not veto something that this Parliament has a majority of support for because that reflects entirely badly not just on the National Government but on the democratic process of this House to start with. In doing so tonight it is not just about voting in favour of what the evidence says what the research says and what is best for children best for families and ultimately best for babies; it is also about maintaining the faith that people have in the democracy of this place and the people have strongly sent a message to this place to pass this bill. All I ask is to let the votes stand for themselves and that is the plea I make.