Smith Nick: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSmith Nick: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11815. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): There is little debate in Parliament around the merits of paid parental leave. The core issue in this part is whether there is some magical number of weeks in which falls the line between good Government policy for families and children and where it does not. The member in the chair for the bill puts that line at 26 weeks or half a year. The—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No no. Part 1.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Part 1. As I understand it Mr Chairman—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Twenty-six weeks is in Part 2.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —the duration of the extended leave is covered in this part Mr Chairman. Am I not correct? [Interruption]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! We are on Part 1 and that refers to 16—[Interruption] When I am ruling we will have some silence please. We are on—if the member would like to sit while I just rule on this.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Certainly.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are on Part 1 and Part 1 refers to 22 weeks. Part 2 refers to 26 weeks so I will ask the member to come back to 22 weeks in Part 1.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Indeed Mr Chairman. As I was saying there is an arbitrary argument around the exact number of weeks of paid parental leave that should be provided.Carmel Sepuloni: Like the number of houses that Minister was supposed to build—arbitrary number.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well actually we are building double the number of houses—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Now relevance here. We are not talking about roads of national significance and we are not talking about houses; we are talking about 22 weeks.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairman.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No no I have ruled so just carry on with Part 1 please.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If members opposite interject on a completely different topic—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am ruling. You have got the call and it is Part 1.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The debate around the number of weeks that it is appropriate to provide for paid parental leave effectively comes down to an issue of fiscal prudence. This Government stood on a platform of living within its means. Although paid parental leave has been extended we have worked very hard as a Government to ensure that we balance the booksbut let nobody misunderstand the surplus is absolutely wafer-thin. In fact every time there is a new level of forecasts there is a bigger difference from month to month in the size of the surplus. So for instance last year this Parliament debated back and forth and I do not think any Minister including the Minister of Finance knew whether it was going to be a black number or a red number. And even the 2 financial years where we are looking out in out-years those numbers are under 1 percent of what the Government spends.The problem is that in every single area of Government endeavour there is an argument from the Opposition that it is not enough. Paid parental leave is no different to any other area. Whether it is issues of mental health whether it is issues in the broader health care sector whether it is issues of housing or whether it is education medicine or whatever including paid parental leave the Opposition always says: “It is not enough.” And that is where the Opposition is in paid parental leave. The Government’s position is quite simple and is this: if we spent in every single area including this one where members opposite want to spend we would be back in the position we were in when they left Government—of horrendous and increasing deficits increasing debt.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Come back.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well at the core of the issue at the core of the debate about paid parental leave is the issue of affordability. The reason that members on this side of the Chamber say yes we are in favour of extending paid parental leave but at a rate that is affordable is that if we go down the road proposed by the Opposition—whether it be in this policy area or any other—the level of increase in expenditure will just get New Zealand into the sort of financial pickle that other Governments and previous Governments in this country have got themselves into. They know how to spend but they do not know how to earn and they do not know how to live within their means.So I simply come back again and say that paid parental leave is a good thing. This Government is proud of its record but what differentiates this Government from members opposite is that we know how to live within our means.Phil Twyford: You’ve borrowed more than any other Government in history.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Members opposite clearly do not know. I am simply saying I am very proud. Members opposite are questioning the Government’s fiscal record. I think the fact that we have produced three consecutive very small surpluses—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No. This is getting very wide. I would like to hear about 22 weeks. That is what Part—[Interruption] Order! The member will sit while I am ruling. It is all very well talking about surpluses and talking about deficits and talking about other things but this is really quite a narrow debate that talks about 22 weeks and I would actually like the member to mention somewhere 22 weeks.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am very happy to mention 22 weeks and the reason the Government does not support the extension of paid parental leave is that when we are running wafer-thin surpluses when we have worked so hard to get New Zealand back in the black when our Government has campaigned election after election successfully on a message of living within our means—