Goodhew Jo: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoodhew Jo: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11819. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I am really pleased to take a call on this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill. In using the full title of the bill I particularly want to refer to Part 1 where we are looking at the changes between the number of weeks. Included in Part 1 of course there are the amendments around paternity leave entitlements and partners and around work contact. But philosophically the philosophy behind the Part 1 changes is around extending paid parental leave out to 22 weeks. Behind that philosophy and I am sure through the submissions to the Government Administration Committee what was heard was the difference it would make to extend through this bill paid parental leave to 22 weeks.In recognising what stage a baby is at and its attachment to its mother or in fact parental leave for its father between the difference of what this Government has done—taken14 weeks up to 18 weeks—and the suggestion in these amendments to the Act that it be taken out to 22 weeks what we have philosophically is a belief that it must be done for the good of the baby and the mother irrespective of the half a billion dollars of cost that has been projected over 4 years. The debate today in this Committee stage is about whether one is more worthy than the other. We are saying as a Government that we cannot afford to take it to 22 weeks at this time despite the philosophy of the bill’s sponsor that it must be taken at this time to the detriment of expenditure on other matters.I am remembering back to when our twins were 18 weeks old and the difference between that and 22 weeks. I think the philosophy behind paid parental leave and the importance of where we were some 8 years ago at 14 weeks and now at 18 weeks—that is a phenomenal difference in the age of a child or children as it was in our case.That has been with the full support of the Opposition a good move to have made. However there comes a time when it is really important to determine whether in fact the additional fiscal burden should be taken right at this time. That is why Part 1 and the amendments that Part 1 makes to the current Act taking it out from 18 weeks to 22 weeks is philosophically about whether now is the right time. As a Government we are saying “Not yet. There are other priorities for us.”but it must be remembered that we are completely committed to children having a good start in life to the development of that bond between the parent and the children and we have consistently said that we will extend it further than the 18 weeks which it currently is out towards 22 weeks at a time when this Government can afford it. In fact we have been consistently in favour of paid parental leave as evidenced by our extending it from 14 to 18 weeks.In addition to that the important thing that has been achieved before now instead of taking it to 22 weeks is the modernisation. In this particular part it is all about 22 weeks but the modernisation that we have done of paid parental leave to understand that there are some families who need it to be longer for a very good reason—and we have budgeted and provided the funding for that in legislation that has already modernised it.So my premise here is that this is a philosophical difference about whether now is the time to take it as Part 1 suggests out to 22 weeks. I sought today to be on my feet to say that I believe in paid parental leave but that now is not the time. We have competing interests as a Government and the half a billion dollars that this will cost over 4 years is not for just now. Thank you.