Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to take a call on Part 2 and I am going to continue the theme of the merits or otherwise as articulated by the Minister of Amy Adams' Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 3 which is an amendment to both Part 1 and Part 2. But the defence by the Minister of why this was too complicated is that it somehow intersects with section 17 of the Act which is a section in Part 2 of the Act. Now section 17 talks about the entitlement of the spouse or partner of the primary carer to the partner's leave and indeed the SOP by the Hon Amy Adams sets out the scenario by which section 17 in Part 2 actually enables that to occur. In the example on page 2 of her SOP she talks about Abby who is entitled to 22 weeks of primary carer leave. Abby transfers 6 weeks of her entitlement to a parental leave payment to her partner … under section 71E"—and indeed section 71E is relevant but so too are sections 17 to 19.Now in that scenario—there are three. One is that those six weeks of parental leave could be taken by Abby's partner after Abby takes her leave. That's what the Act prescribes right now. But equally the amendment could enable—and section 17 does not inhibit in any way under my reading of that section—the other two scenarios in the SOP. They are that there could be an overlapping period of time where the last two weeks of Abby's 16 weeks are taken by the partner and then the partner takes the next four weeks on his or her own or—and I think this is the most likely scenario for a couple with a newborn particularly if it's their first child—it is to take those six weeks together so that for the first six weeks of the child's life the child has both parents at home directly investing in and nurturing their loved one their new baby.Now as far as I can tell—and I'm very happy to hear from the Minister because he himself mentioned section 17 in Part 2 as a barrier to this occurring. Indeed if he can better articulate that I'm very happy to pen the SOP that would remove that barrier forthwith in order for the Government who have expressed an interest in the amendment but an opposition to it because somehow it's all a bit complex and a bit hard to get one's head around—I would be very happy to write a further SOP to clarify and correct any perceived impediments. But I have looked very hard at both section 17 and section 71E and I can find no such impediment to this SOP not only being passed but being given sensible effect to given that in the very scenario that the SOP describes it's already allowed under law for adjacent leave being taken by the primary carer and then the partner. But by an amendment that this makes—defining joint primary oversight care with both being primary carers—it could enable overlapping and/or simultaneous care.I think it would be a shame given that this is probably the only time in this Parliament that we will get an opportunity to amend this leave—because of course we're increasing it now in Part 2 from 22 weeks on 1 July 2019 to 26 weeks after that that it's almost inconceivable that this Act is going to be back before this House despite what the Hon Tracey Martin said. We have a unique opportunity to make the bill better despite the fact that it didn't go to select committee.I'm interested in the Minister's views about elaborating on why he believes section 17 is actually an impediment to this sensible change being made. Despite the scramble by the officials in Part 1 of this bill we didn't get an answer to my question about the combined effects of this SOP on section 7 in Part 1. So we wait with bated breath actually for a positive outcome—any sort of feedback—on whether I've actually misunderstood the legislation or the amendment because as far as I can tell the only reason that we've heard tonight is that they didn't think of it."