Hudson Brett: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionHudson Brett: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11841. Text is subject to correction.]BRETT HUDSON (National): I rise to speak on the title clause. I think the point here is more than just the fact that the Government Administration Committee recommended that we strike out “and Work Contact Hours”. It is more to the point of the significance of why that has come about. In its most obvious sense it is because the select committee recommended that the work contact hours provisions that were originally in Part 1 of the bill should be removed. But the real heart of the reason for that is that they are no longer required. That speaks to one simple fact that a measure that this Government has put in place actually provides work contact hours to the same extent or near to the same extent in another piece of legislation that has passed through the House and is now an Act. The Government has undertaken those measures which means that the provisions already exist in the law and therefore there is no need for them.But it speaks to more than that. What it shows is that while this bill and maybe other previous similar pieces of legislation have been in the House in the past the Government has been acting. The removal of the work contact hours from this particular member’s bill because the Government has already done something that means they are no longer required—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to require the member to resume his seat. I remind him that we are now debating the bill as it was passed at the second reading. The words that the member is debating are not part of the title and therefore are not part of the debate.Hon Ruth Dyson: A page a day. Get some advice from Paul Foster-Bell.BRETT HUDSON: One page a day—thank you Ms Dyson. In that case we will instead move on to the commencement date. The commencement date would see the first tranche of 4 additional weeks from 1 April 2017. As my colleague has noted originally that was going to be 1 April 2016 which of course would have been a bit of an impossibility so it was a very sensible decision and recommendation to move that forward to next year and then the further 4 weeks in 2018. But what that does is bring expenditure into those specific time periods and as we have heard through the debate the officials gave advice to the committee that the total expense over a 4-year period would be about $466 million additionally and these commencement dates would lock that in. It became very clear that through to the fiscal year of 2020 that would see an additional cost. These commencement dates in this bill would commit the Government to that sort of expenditure.The implications of that have been reverberating around the Chamber this evening where people are very strongly suggesting that the fiscal conditions of today when we could potentially enact the legislation simply do not permit for that increased level of expenditure. Although Treasury may be forecasting some surpluses—some incredibly good ones actually in the years to come—they are quite some years in advance and further ahead than even the commencement date of Part 2 if this bill were to be enacted. So both commencement elements of both Part 1 for an additional 4 weeks and Part 2 for a further additional 4 weeks would commit the Government to expenditure that does not easily fit inside the current fiscal envelope as projected by Treasury over the next couple of financial years—the period when each of them would come into effect.That is the heart of the Government’s position and has been throughout debate on the bill—that it is not about an additional dollar of paid parental leave; it is about the total cost of a programme. It has been the position that the total cost of 26 weeks is not affordable in what we have today or can see in the immediate term of the commencement of Part 1 and Part 2 and that remains our position. So as we come near the end of the discussion on these preliminary clauses we would restate that were these clauses to be passed or agreed to by the Committee at this stage and to progress to a third reading then they would be effectively seeking to commit the Government to expenditure that does not readily fit within the envelope today. It is expenditure that we say we should not be now committing to for this purpose. The Government has many responsibilities to meet and to expend more in this area would require a change in another area of expenditure. It is our view that what we have mapped out—at least in the Budget for the coming 4 years—is a better use of those projected funds. So the Committee will make a call shortly but it is our view—