Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Mr Speaker. I want to talk about the great gift of time for a newborn to be with both parents if there are two parents available. That is at the heart of this bill—and I emphasise the heart of this bill"—that has been put forward by my colleague and friend Nicola Willis. I find it bizarre and ridiculous that we are hearing arguments from the other side of the House that they will not support this bill which gives flexibility for different family arrangements and different circumstances in the way that we could have shared leave—as that phrase was used in the bill—to enable families to do what is right and what is best for themselves.So we have just to be clear a situation where Nicola Willis has proposed a scenario whereby a family can choose that the amount of leave that they are already accorded by way of parental leave be sliced and diced in different ways if that were to suit the family in different circumstances. So it might be for example that both parents—if again there are two parents and I accept that's not always the case—could take that leave both concurrently or in order one after the other. Or it could be that they choose of course for the primary parent—usually the mother but not necessarily again—to have all that time in one hit straight through—just that person alone. There are different circumstances that might suit different families according to their particular needs. Then we come therefore to the question of choice. We're not saying for example that a family should not have the ability to have that maximum length of time in the very one-dimensional way that the Labour Party seems to consider the matter. Actually it could be that the family does choose that. It might be that in a lot of situations that's the case. But where they might choose something different because they know best what is best for their family—not relying on being told that by speeches by Labour Party members in the first reading of this bill—then actually they should be able to choose that. If this is a thing that belongs to them and it's for their benefit then why on earth would a nanny State approach be taken that says that they can't take that in the way that best suits them? If you think about that phrase "nanny State" I mean traditionally we think about the nanny telling the kids what to do. In this case the Labour Party seems to want to tell the parents what to do as well which I find is a strange intrusion for them to be wanting to make.Let's deal with other potential objections to the bill. If we're thinking "Will this cost more to have two parents involved in taking the leave?" the answer is no of course because we're talking about again the same amount of leave that would be or could be split across two parents; we're not talking about any additional resources of the State. We've heard the Green Party making a pitch for extra time and I think we can all be sympathetic about that even as we weigh the different costs and benefits available. But in this case that need not be an objection because there is no additional time that's required; it would merely be that it could be taken in a different form and a different shape by the family again if they were to choose it. I find the idea strange that there needs to be more policy work done somehow. More policy work is not required by the Government; it should be a decision of the family. So too we must acknowledge that there are no additional resources that are needed in that way.I do want to talk about flexibility because that relates to the question of choice. This is why it's powerful that families would have the choice. In different circumstances it might be that the mental health needs of the primary parent or the first parent or the one who would ordinarily all things being equal be providing that care for the whole time—it might be that their mental health needs are best served by the second parent being available at the same time right at the start. It might be that the physical health needs dictate that. By way of example in the case of a caesarean-section birth it might well be the case that a second pair of hands are needed to lift to drive and to do various things that are important at any stage of life and goodness knows when one has a newborn child that's all the more important. I don't usually speak about my own family situation in this House for various reasons but suffice to say I'm aware of circumstances in which that would be very helpful. I think it's a real disappointment to put it mildly that there is such a lack of imagination across the other side of the House that they can't conceive of those scenarios in which that might be beneficial to families who are in that particular situation.For a first-time mother or new parents it might be the case that this is particularly valuable the proposal that Nicola Willis makes. It might be in the case of second and subsequent children particularly helpful because the extra pair of hands is needed to take care of those older kids depending on what they're up to and whether school or other care arrangements are needed. I can't understand the reason that the Labour Party's not supporting this—unless it's politics not policy. And I say to them the National Party—supported by anyone who also sees the common-sense arguments in favour of this bill—will pass it with or without you and if it be following the election rather than in this member's bill now in the name of Nicola Willis then so be it."