Mitchell ClaytonCLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I would like to start New Zealand First's contribution today by just saying how disappointed New Zealand First is at the stance that this Government is taking particularly over this financial veto. This speech that I will be giving this evening is on three things: it is about democracy; the so-called unaffordability of the bill; and of course it is all about families which is what Sue Moroney has put forward with the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months' Paid Leave) Amendment Bill.I started off in the second reading by saying that this was divine intervention because of course there have been three cracks at getting this across the line and I thought by the will of the gods that this was clearly going to be the time that we were going to see some sense come through. We have got democracy in the House when the majority of this House are in support of looking after their families our families others' families and New Zealand families by extending that paid parental leave which actually puts us—well still behind the eight ball when we compare ourselves with other OECD countries around the world. The Minister when he speaks about it says you cannot just cherry-pick information from the OECD. But whenever he gets asked a question—in fact today in the House he was asked a question about employment—he goes back to using those OECD figures that he likes to put his hat on and say that we are doing very well. The reality is the stark reality is we are doing abysmally: we are right at the bottom of the OECD figures when it comes to the amount of money that is paid to families and the amount of time that we give our families. In fact we are in the four bottom countries in the OECD when it comes to looking after families.In 1943 a very very great leader gave a fantastic quote. Winston Churchill famously said: There is no finer investment for any community than putting milk into babies." The year 1943 was a very very hard time and finances were very very tight because we were of course in the precipice of war and going through war times. That quote there is a very very important one because it demonstrates cost versus value. When the priority of that Government was to make sure that it could fight a war and stand up for democracy it was putting the priorities of its families first making sure that those families and those communities were being looked after. It put the cost of a war aside for a moment for the values of families and children. It was not talking about fuelling aeroplanes—it was talking about putting milk into babies. This Government says that we cannot afford this bill. We say we cannot afford not to implement and support this bill.At a time that this country is seeing more and more disenfranchised families—disenfranchised youth who turn into disenfranchised adults who become dependent one way or another on the State or even worse can go on to commit horrible violent crimes—we need to get to the grassroots of this problem. This is a step in the right direction for a Government to understand that families need to come first. They need to come first before you put $10 billion into your war fund. They need to come first when we talk about the money that is not being collected when we are talking about corporate taxation. The Minister of Finance made a one-line mention of it in his Budget this year saying more needs to be done in this area. When you talk about affordability what about the billion dollars that you gave to your South Canterbury Finance mates—that money was found. We found $10 billion to go into our war coffers to make sure that that could be afforded. We could find $26 million for a flag referendum. I can carry on—$16 million to a Saudi businessman to build an abattoir in the Middle East. What about the $540 million out of our Future Investment Fund that is going into infrastructure in China?You can find the money when you want to but you are not prioritising it for our families. What about the reserve? What about the $7.5 billion that is not currently being collected by corporate tax—the one area that would make it affordable—you are not even putting any resources or energies into it. The point has already been made that $110 million to $115 million—I am going to read out this financial veto in a moment which will give you those numbers. [Interruption] The last time we had Mr Hudson in the House he was banging off all sorts of crazy figures. This Government can afford to pledge to the people that next year you can expect to see $3 billion in tax cuts which is 0.03 percent of the $110 million that we are proposing to put into this family bill—Brett Hudson: It's per year by the way.CLAYTON MITCHELL: It is 0.03 percent per year. Do the maths; I can tell you right now that there are a lot of years supported by the $3 billion that you are talking in a 1-year tax cut. I would like to just take a moment to read out—for the people back home who do not have the ability to get it easily—the impact of the veto from the certificate of financial veto under Standing Order 327: "The proposed Bill extends the duration of paid parental leave to a maximum of 22 weeks on 1 April 2017 and a maximum of 26 weeks on 1 April 2018. The proposed Bill would impact on the Crown's fiscal aggregates by increasing the Crown's total operating expenses by approximately $14 million in 2016/17 $72 million in 2017/18 $116 million in 2018/19 and $119 million in 2019/20"—Brett Hudson: You're not going to stop it then.CLAYTON MITCHELL: This is just because you have not read it Mr Hudson. "This amounts to $321 million over the forecast period. These figures are gross before tax and therefore it is correct to note that the government will receive tax revenue back on a portion of this expenditure of approximately $43 million. This results in an overall net increase to the Crown's total operating expenses of approximately $278 million over the forecast period."When the Minister was asked yesterday in the House by Sue Moroney about this very question—why he put the financial veto on this bill—he said that actually at first he thought it was $280 million per year—that is what he said. He said his initial thought was it was unaffordable because it was $280 million per year. Well we are four times better off from his first prediction. And that would be enough time surely to actually reconsider your position and support this bill because it is more than affordable as we speak about the $278 million over that 4-year period. Now they go dumb and silent they hang their heads in shame. I feel very very sorry for those members of the National Party who actually genuinely would like to support this bill but cannot do it because they are held over the barrel and they have to toe the party line. I do feel sorry for you and I know there are a number of you over there.We heard and we saw and we read over 6800 submissions leading into this bill through the select committee. Ninety-nine percent of those people were in full support of it because it makes sense it is about putting our families first and it is about ensuring families can bond together. We talk about mums because they are extremely important. In fact the last time I spoke I spoke about Mother's Day and what a great day that was and how important every single one of us make our mothers feel—because they are so precious to us. But dads play an equal role and we are seeing more and more dads getting more and more involved with their families. I have to say that the people in this room in this House are the lucky ones because they are in a position to actually take some time out with your families. But what about those families that are in financial hardship that do not get the same ability? This would enable that bond to be made tight with those family members with those dads and those mums with their babies to make sure that we can break down the cycle of neglect that starts at the root of the problem which we are seeing like a festering sore in this country when it comes to family violence and domestic violence. We need to be doing more to help our families out."