Smith Nick; Williams PotoHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you Madam Chair Williams and can I join with colleagues in congratulating you on your Assistant Speaker role and wish you well as I take this call on clauses 1 2 3 and 4 of this bill.Can I firstly come to the issue of the short title. The issue here is whether the title fairly reflects the content of the bill.Hon Simon Bridges: Well it doesn't.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My point and I agree with my learned colleague Simon Bridges is that actually—having heard the committee debate—this bill takes a very Victorian view of the New Zealand family. We've just had a week in which—actually I can remember as early as colleagues like Ruth Richardson and Katherine Rich; it's actually been a long time that we've celebrated in this Parliament the greater diversity the number of women and even babies in the Chamber. Equally I am supportive of the greater role that women play today in this Parliament and around board tables. That is a good thing but equally we should celebrate the fact that an increasing number of fathers are taking an increased role with their children. So if we're going to have a title that fairly reflects this bill perhaps we should include the amendment of a Victorian View of Families Amendment Bill" because the content of this bill undervalues the role that fathers should in New Zealand in 2017 and beyond play in the lives of young children and babies. I'm saying that the title of this bill should reflect that.Alternatively I'd be happy to accept if we had the phrase the "Paid Parental Inflexible Bill" in amending the legislation. Or if we wanted to be really blunt we could just call it the "Paid Parental Leave (Labour Nanny State) Bill" in the sense that what Labour members are effectively saying to New Zealand families is that you can only do it this way that we're not going to give you the flexibility for you to be able to choose how you can use the provisions of this bill that provide for paid parental leave in the way that best works for your family. And given the complete vacuum of arguments either from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety or from the Labour New Zealand First or Green parties as to why they oppose the greater flexibility that would support the increasing role that fathers play in parenting that would be a better title for the bill.Then can I come to the issue of commencement. I've heard these impassioned arguments from new members of the Government saying "Money shouldn't come into it; it should just be about supporting parents." So I'd love a member opposite to explain—if money's nothing to do with it and you do believe in 26 weeks' paid parental leave why does Part 2 get delayed? There's a contradiction there. Actually members on this side of the House have consistently supported paid parental leave. We've consistently supported it being extended but we've also said that you need to live within your means and it needs to be grown at the pace that the country can afford.The problem I have is that with not going to a Cabinet committee with no regulatory impact statement and with no select committee process how can this Parliament know that the timetable set down in clause 2 of this bill is affordable?Hon Simon Bridges: Oh well it's a "Complete Lack of Democracy Bill".Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well as my colleague Simon Bridges said we have not seen—it's quite clear absolutely clear that the reason we are staggering the introduction of paid parental leave is fiscal. That's reasonable but where are the numbers? Where are the finances? During the Cabinet committee process Mr Minister did we have the numbers and the comparison and the trade-offs around the commencement dates? No. Did we hear it in the committee stages? No. So how can I take Government members at their word that when it comes to children—and I see the Minister for Children sitting opposite; we've heard the impassioned pleas—that children have got to come first and that money should have nothing to do with it. Well if that is the case why are you deferring the 26 weeks? If you want to be consistent and say money's got nothing to do with it then you wouldn't have a staggered entry and so what we see in this bill is just a reinforcement.The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The Hon Simon Upton."