Ardern Jacinda: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 25 May 2016. Volume:714;Page:11286. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I find it appalling that the Government would not only stand up and use the kinds of excuses that I have heard from that side of the House to oppose paid parental leave but that at the same time it dismisses the thousands of submissions that were made because in Alfred Ngaro’s eyes they were not important because they were built around a set of preformed ideas. The idea that someone who is perhaps a parent or a mother might not have as much time as someone else to construct an individualised submission does not seem to have occurred to that member. To cast out those thousands of submissions out of hand I thought was insulting. If form submissions are meaningless if form submissions do not count for something and are not paid attention to then I suggest that we send a form letter back to those thousands of submitters and in that form letter I suggest that we include the transcript of Alfred Ngaro’s speech. Let us see whether or not that form letter sparks a reaction from those submitters because I would wager that sharing his dismissive attitude with all of those individuals would get a response and rightly so.We have heard a lot from that side of the House around how this is a political bill that Sue Moroney and Labour are supporting this bill because it is political.David Seymour: Don’t lie Jacinda.JACINDA ARDERN: I would like to substitute the word “political” Mr Seymour with the word “values” because that is the reason this side of the House has chosen to support this bill because we see the importance based both on evidence and research but also on the moral arguments around paid parental leave of supporting it. To put up the argument that because half of new mothers miss out that is a reason not to support it—actually that is a reason to do something for them as well which is why we have already announced Best Start. We recognised that that was a problem we wanted to address too. We do not have to say that we are not able to do both when we can if you prioritise.On the issue of prioritisation another point I want to raise for Alfred Ngaro who tried to argue that we should not implement this bill because the fiscal headroom to do it was not available—that is wrong wrong wrong. Not only does the first phase of this bill cost half of what the Prime Minister spent on his flag referendum—you cannot tell me that was a higher priority than supporting new mothers and babies—but actually what is being proposed here costs 1.27 percent of what that Government will spend tomorrow in its Budget 1.27 percent. This is not about whether it is possible; it is about priorities. And on this side of the House we are prioritising children mothers families and yes fathers also. It is about priorities.In fact we have been so responsible in the phasing in of this and this is something that Sue Moroney has gone to great lengths over that she has proposed phasing—18 to 22 weeks from 1 April 2017 moving from 22 to 26 weeks in 2018. It is obviously not just about cost-benefit analysis but if that side of the House consistently wants to return simply to dollar value then I ask you this: what is the cost to society of a child with poor attachment? Well it could potentially lead if you listen to your own science advisers to issues around conduct disorder. What does conduct disorder cost us? A million dollars per child—a million dollars per child. What is the cost of a poor start in life? New Zealand currently pays $2 billion per annum for that.I could give you every single fiscal argument you could possibly want if you want to justify this bill. But here is what I want you to consider instead of just the fiscal value. My friend recently fell pregnant—a very exciting time for everyone. She is a small-business owner. It is paid parental leave or nothing for her. That is what this bill is really about. It is about the individuals. It is about the fact that those 8 additional weeks mean the difference between a mother starting to see her child verbalise little sounds that make sense—the ability to smile to move to solid foods. Look beyond the fiscal because this bill is about people it is about relationships between caregivers and their baby and it is about investing in the future.