12. Paid Parental Leave—Cost to IncreaseSUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister of FinancePaid Parental Leave—Cost to Increase12. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement to Radio New Zealand on 17 June 2016 that extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks would add when it's fully in place about $280 million a year"?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): No; I was incorrect and should have used the numbers in the veto certificate. This is a useful opportunity to clarify the numbers. The Government—[Interruption] well just listen—currently spends about $280 million a year on paid parental leave. Labour's proposal once fully implemented would cost around $120 million per year on top of that or $100 million per year net of tax. Net of tax the proposal would cost $280 million over the next 4 years. However I vetoed the bill based on the Government's view that this is unaffordable now particularly in the light of other spending priorities that we have. In short the policy costs too much and that is why we vetoed it. Sue Moroney: Why did he repeat that incorrect figure four times throughout that interview even when challenged by Guyon Espiner on the accuracy of it given that just the day before he had issued a financial veto certificate stating that the additional cost in the 2018-19 year of full implementation would be just $116 million? How did he get it so wrong on four occasions?Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked in a very lengthy fashion. Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because I confused the $280 million over 4 years with $280 million a year. Sue Moroney: Can he explain then why MPs Paul Foster-Bell Sarah Dowie and Mark Mitchell all claimed in their Committee stage speeches that the cost of the bill would be $445.8 million over the next 4 years which was further embellished by Brett Hudson who upped it to $466 million then the Ministers—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! It is doubtful whether there is ministerial responsibility but I will let the Minister—[Interruption] Order! I am allowing the Minister to address the question. Hon BILL ENGLISH: There has been a welter of numbers around the whole policy but I just remind the House what the current policy is. That is it was 14 weeks' paid parental leave this Government extended it over 2 years to 16 weeks and then to 18 weeks. That currently costs about $280 million a year and we vetoed the extension. Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Oh it is surely past due time now. He has—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. If she wants to raise a point of order I will listen to it but it is not about filibustering question time.Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order—Mr SPEAKER: Is?Sue Moroney: —and I was referring to—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will just hear the point of order.Sue Moroney: OK. The point of order is that I did not ask him about how many weeks there were—Mr SPEAKER: Order! And it was a question for which there was no ministerial responsibility for what various backbench members have said. I should have ruled it out of order in the first place.Sue Moroney: Does the Minister recall using the same tactic when the bill was first drawn in 2012 telling the public it would cost an additional $500 million over 3 years when he had in fact received official advice before making that statement showing that the true cost was a maximum of $285.6 million over 3 years? Why does he keep—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member needs to sharpen up her supplementary questions. [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! My patience will run out with Sue Moroney. We have had lengthy supplementary questions that are strictly out of order. I am trying to assist her to get an answer but if she continues to interject when the Minister rises to his feet I see no point in carrying on. The Hon Bill English briefly.Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member needs to sharpen up her ability to win electorate seats after I think five losses.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order—well I certainly hope it is.Rt Hon Winston Peters: First of all you ticked off the questioner for trying to put together a couple of examples of what the question was about and then the Minister got up and started off with a blatant insult and as usual you did nothing about it.Mr SPEAKER: And in retrospect I probably should have said to the Minister that the answer was not helpful but we have had a series of questions that have been very politically loaded. When you get such—[Interruption] Order! When you get questions like that it tends to lead to quite political responses from Ministers. We will move on.Sue Moroney: Supplementary question if I may Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Provided—[Interruption] Order! I just want to warn the member that provided it is in line with the Standing Orders I will allow her supplementary question. If it is a lengthy one like we have had—[Interruption] No no. I am speaking to the member. I will accept a supplementary question but it has got to be in line with the Standing Orders.Sue Moroney: Why is the National Party so determined to mislead New Zealanders on the cost of extended paid parental leave to 26 weeks by more than doubling the costs that have been determined by Government officials?Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will leave the question to stand but when the answer is political the House should not object.Hon BILL ENGLISH: The National Government is keen to extend paid parental leave as it can afford it weighed up with other alternatives. For instance on 1 April over a hundred thousand of the poorest families in New Zealand got $25 a week extra per week. We could have used that money to extend paid parental leave but we thought the best balance was some extension in paid parental leave and $25 a week for all families on a benefit with children. We think that balance is about right.Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very interesting answer but at no point did he—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again I invite the member to go back. The question started off by saying "Why did the National Party do something?". The Minister has responsibility for the Government but certainly not for the National Party."