Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Madam Chair thank you. I ask the House: what's in a name? Would a bill by any other name smell as sweet? The name of this bill is the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill so let's look at that.Before I start analysing that in relation to the content of the bill I ask: have we talked enough about what's best for the child? We've heard a lot about what is best for the parents. We've heard a lot—as always—about what is best for adults but the perspective of the child the perspective of what is best for that young life or those young lives must surely be paramount.So first returning to my theme of the title of the bill. Parental" it says—from the Latin "parere" meaning "bringing forth". This word is not gender-specific. "Maternal" on the other hand from the Latin for "mother"—as I'm sure the sponsoring Minister knows—would imply something completely different. So if there is a renaming of the bill—I might add to the thoughts of my learned colleagues including the Hon Judith Collins in relation to alternate titles—might I suggest that the "Paid Maternal Leave Bill" might be at least a little bit more intellectually honest.Second regarding the process much has been said on this but I would like to relate this to a broader theme of the new minority Government and it's about this desire to have conversations. It's about the desire to have reviews. It's about the desire—stated in no less than two coalition agreements that the public's seen and possibly more that we have not—for inquiries. So specifically in relation to this particular bill I say let's have a discussion. Let's have a "conversation". Let's have heaven forbid an inquiry. One might almost say that if the procedures of this House allowed for such a thing we might call it a committee. We might even call it a select committee—we might even give that body a chance to have a look and have a discussion. Who knows they might come up with some ideas to improve the bill—ideas such as allowing both parents to have the ability to have some time off to raise the child.Much has been said in this House as well including in relation to this bill—you'll be pleased to hear Madam Chair—in relation to diversity. Gender pay gap is something that's also been raised. I put it to you Madam Chair that there can be no more significant diversity for a young life being brought into this country than to have the benefit of not one but two parents at home on paid leave. It's a doubling obviously in simple mathematical terms of the wisdom and care available to that child.I might add as a footnote—at the risk of straying from the ambit of the bill—that in relation to the discussion that's frequently held in this House regarding a gender pay gap gender gaps exist in other realms as well. In relation to parenthood I put it to the committee that it's been remarked before in relation to the bill at earlier stages—short though they have been—that it is highly important indeed crucial that the children have the opportunity not to have these gaps in their life. They will fall through gaps. They fall through cracks; we see it far too often.Too often the word "leave" in relation to parents in New Zealand has been one or tother of them leaving. The child deserves if the circumstances do allow—and I appreciate that there are complex and many different types of circumstances and family situations in this country but as a male I'm happy to say that oftentimes fathers are not present as they should be. While that is a matter of personal responsibility and family responsibility in many cases it's also the obligation of this House in passing legislation such as this to give what signals and what indications it can about the things that we think as the House of Representatives of the New Zealand people are most appropriate. To send a signal by refusing to allow this Supplementary Order Paper—effectively amendment—to allow both parents to be able to have some off is sending a very poor signal indeed it appears to me.Finally I note that with limited time to discuss this bill so far it would be perhaps in the interests of all sides of the debate in the House but more importantly New Zealand children to have it canvassed more fully."