Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): I'm liking the elevation; thank you Madam Chair. I'm pleased to be able to take a short call in this debate tonight and to acknowledge the previous Labour member Sue Moroney who so valiantly spent hours and hours and hours trying to progress this legislation. I've been listening to the speeches from that side of the House tonight and I've got to say it's hurting a little bit because I sat through those hundreds of hours of submissions and debates within the select committee and it was a very very protracted process—twice. Was I hearing the National Party arguing for that shared care through that process? I don't remember it. So it's not like they just didn't do it. It's like when they had the chance to have the discussion and see whether we could explore this did they take up that chance? No they did not.I do want to say—they're arguing the point around the technicalities of whether this is a technical change or not. Actually so many of the submissions we heard were about the six months. It was about the value and the importance of the six months. So what is being proposed in terms of shared care—and the changes to this may sound like it's a good thing and I absolutely support provision and increased provision and for me almost a requirement of parental leave for the other parent. But does it fit with this legislation and the requirement for six months and the benefits of that? Would that deliver the benefits of the six months the way that it's being proposed? No. It would undermine those benefits.For that side of the House which I typically hear being characterised as the champion for business I would have thought actually they would want to go back to business and ask business whether what they are proposing would be helpful for business because we heard very clearly in select committee that business felt that six months was easier to manage than the lower level of parental leave as it was at the moment.I'm speaking very much to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that has been brought up around the shared care. So actually what is being proposed through that SOP undermines what business was telling us they wanted. They felt that six months—the 26 weeks that this will bring in—was easier for business to manage. We also heard from multiple—around 3000—submitters not all on the point about the value of attachment to the baby that kicks in at six months the 26 weeks that this legislation will bring in.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! I'm sorry; I know the member is trying but actually we're on Part 1 which is an extension from 18 to 22 weeks. It's not about a previous select committee process. I have tried to signal that so if the member could come back to Part 1 of the bill.David Seymour: Learn the rules Jan.JAN LOGIE: I'll try and play by the rules Mr Seymour. I will do my best. The importance of this legislation; this is the realisation. We've heard the argument: why do this under urgency? To me the obvious answer is that we've done it already except that the previous Government vetoed it. We had the support of this House and now we are just getting it finally across that line because it should've been—and in fact it did get—across the line earlier.I have got to say that for me in the first week of consideration of legislation—the symbolism of this House committing to supporting families and babies and workplaces to support them is a thing to be proud of. It is not something to be messing with and to be contesting. In the Green Party we are stoked to be able to support this.