Rosewarne DanDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Kia ora. Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm taking this call to express my opposition to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Shared Leave) Amendment Bill. Before I begin my contribution I just want to do a shout-out to all the parents here in the House and then also to the parents that are probably listening to question time while on their parental leave at home. I have memories when I was a young dad at home with the kids of chucking the kids in the jolly jumper while watching question time and then running away to get bottles and things like that and yeah using the jolly jumper for babysitting probably. That's probably why my boy is so keenly into politics right now. The big thing for me was just to make sure that the house was tidy enough by the time that my wife got home. That was always a challenge but question time was a good babysitting mechanism for my kids. Now this bill would allow paid parental leave to be split between spouses or partners who are caring for a child. In that way during the birthing period one partner could give the other partner a few weeks of their paid leave so they can both be home for the child. Now while I truly believe the member that brought this bill before the House has the best of intentions the bill as it stands I feel doesn't quite go in the direction that we would like and there is definitely a lot more work required.Parental leave is an important right for new parents. It has been shown that taking parental leave greatly relieves stress on new parents and allows them to create a stronger bond with their children. That's why Labour extended the paid parental leave to 26 weeks in the first place when we came into Government in 2017. This was in line with the recommendation of the World Health Organization of exclusive breastfeeding for children up to six months of age and the finding that extending paid parental leave improved the health and happiness of both children and parents.When I think of parental leave I also look at the support that's required inside those 26 weeks. I do have memories of—you know we only had one car at the time. I'd get home from work the car would be running in the driveway Sheree would jump in the car and then she'd go to work. It was always like a double team in providing care for the kids. We were always short on cash you know and had to do side hustles to get enough money in the door to pay for things like formula and nappies. As we all know those can be quite expensive. So I was very proud of Labour's policies. Things like free prescriptions go a long way. Things like the Best Start payments and fees-free if you want to upskill while you're on parental leave and things like that are very important and provide that holistic approach while parents are on parental leave—and then also after those 26 weeks as well because it doesn't mean that everything's OK after that 26-week mark.I think that this bill as mentioned has the best of intentions. I even agree with its goal to allow parents to spend more time with their children. However the bill does not really achieve that. It does not represent real progress for parents. The bill divides existing leave between the partners and it does not create any additional time for parents to be with their children. The overall paid parental leave time available to the family does not increase as Camilla Belich mentioned in her contribution. The direction I want to go in is extending that leave for both parents overall. As it stands the bill would only create more complications for parents. My question is: why should we just slice it between parents? And if you look at the bill itself under new section 9A inserted by clause 5 it's got an example there where Abby is entitled to 26 weeks of primary carer leave." and then "Abby transfers 6 weeks … to"—who was it there?—"her partner". Now what if her partner was pressuring Abby to get back to work earlier so he could sit at home? I think sometimes there might be inequality there where the mother might feel compelled to get back to work earlier which is not in the best interests of that young infant. So for that reason the bill as it stands I do not commend to the House."