O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Madam Chair.Hon Judith Collins: Why do you want to close down debate on such an important issue?SIMON O'CONNOR: I thought we would let that be heard—important. Look I'm very pleased to take a call on this Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. As my colleagues on this side have already indicated we are pleased to support it particularly in the elements around Part 1 which has seen the extension of paid parental leave beginning importantly on 1 July next year. I think it's important to note that because an element of the debate is why this has been done under urgency and why this has not been done in select committee. I think that remains an important element.First and foremost there is no rush. There is no need to rush particularly when there really is a concord or a consensus across the House and we do need to ask that. I think we also need to take a little bit of a query that we don't need to go to select committee. In fact I think when you look at the two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that are in front of us—one from Amy Adams one from Sarah Dowie—they're actually indicating arguably flaws in what's being proposed but perhaps if you wish to be more charitable these are opportunities. And while my colleagues are incredibly smart I think they'd also acknowledge that the general public has the smarts as well and I'm disappointed the Government hasn't taken the opportunity to engage with the public and that's a question I'd like the Minister in the chair to answer.I think too we've already had the argument that somehow it's already been to select committee. Well I might just point out to the Greens that when I was chair of the Health Committee we dealt with the marijuana question several times in the committee so that's bloody stupid. So I suspect they're going to withdraw their bill are they? Of course they're not. So let's be consistent around this. No consistency. It's what I call convenient democracy.So the next part though when we look at Part 1 it was raised by the coalition partner Tracey Martin—talking about complexities. There are complexities particularly with the suggestion that's been put forward by the Hon Amy Adams to allow parents to effectively share the entitlement. So they have 22 weeks. In theory each could take 11. I suppose in many ways we've actually traversed some of the arguments for that going right to the core of what the Hon Amy Adams is suggesting. The entitlement quite rightly as this House is supporting is 22 weeks. What is wrong with parents choosing to divvy that up and do it jointly to do that together? There are no reasons that we have heard from the Government side and again I'd like the Minister to answer this: what are the complexities that his coalition partner pointed to? Because I can't really think of the complexities. I suppose the Minister in the chair could suggest that's a lack on my part and I'm willing to accept that to a point but I don't see what the legal complexities are.We've also heard that the support from the Government side for Sarah Dowie's SOP is because it's proportionate and I think that's quite right. It is a proportionate response. But the same support for reasons of proportionality also applies in this case to the Hon Amy Adams' SOP. It is proportionate that parents who choose to divide up the entitlement is proportionate to their decisions. If they want some time as just the mother and/or the father separate that's fine. If they want to do it together at the same time that is fine. It's up to them to choose how the apportionment or the proportionate nature of those 22 and eventually 26 weeks—so I'm conscious that's Part 2—is done.In terms that might help particularly those to the far left in the Green Party when you start trying to avoid terms of mother and father when you start trying to talk about primary entitlements when you're saying that only one parent is allowed to be with the child—well paid to be—it's what they call discrimination. I know a lot of talk comes up about human rights at times but as a human rights theorist I have to say it's funny how we're having a discussion today that is actually saying to one parent—it doesn't matter if they're the mother or the father—that they are not able to be at home and be paid in the same way as the primary caregiver. That makes very little sense in a whole array of avenues. One is choice which is often put out strongly in this House and the other is in terms of discrimination.Hon Nikki Kaye: And equality.SIMON O'CONNOR: And equality. As you rightly point out how did I forget equality? Because at the end of the day if Part 1 and particularly the Supplementary Order Paper of the Hon Amy Adams is to stand—as it rightly should—the Government should allow parents to make the decision of how to use that 22 weeks and if they choose to parent together then that is a positive. If they choose not to that's a positive as well.