Martin Tracey: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1100. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First):I just want to say thank you very much to the member in the chair Sue Moroney for her contribution. That was very helpful. I just want to go over the changes so that the people who are listening understand what is very likely to be voted down with regard to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Regulations 2002 because this is what new clause 7 does: new clause 7 in Supplementary Order Paper 15 amends the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Regulations 2002. Nobody at this point in the debate has actually articulated this and said exactly what this does. It changes those regulations to say: “In the following provisions of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Regulations 2002 16 weeks means 16 weeks or in respect of a person who gives birth either to 2 or more children as a result of 1 pregnancy and assumes or intends to assume the care of those children or to 1 or more children before 37 weeks of gestation where the child or children survive birth for the duration of the parental leave payment or to a child whose impairment would entitle the person to a government-funded disability support service 22 weeks:”.So there are two numbers in there. There are 16 weeks and 22 weeks and this is how the regulations would be amended. Why are those two numbers really important when we amend the regulations?Well what is the difference between 16 weeks and 22 weeks? It is 6 weeks—6 weeks’ difference. When we are talking about these circumstances babies are born at about 35 or 36 weeks. Normal gestation would be 40 to 42 weeks. That is a 6-week difference. All that this change to the regulations is trying to do is bring these parents and these babies to a point of ground zero—to a point of ground zero—the same place that every full-term pregnancy ends up at. That is all it is trying to do. It is just trying to support those babies and those parents with that simple change to the 2002 regulations to allow these babies and these parents to be at ground zero like everybody else once those babies end up out of hospital. In my personal experience that is kind of where most people end up. We have much more tragic circumstances often we do but there are smaller numbers of those. Often it is a 35 or 36-week birth in the special care baby unit. Once you get to full term and everything is going tickety-boo then home you go and you can start at ground zero like everybody else. That is all new clause 7 is trying to do. That is actually all this whole piece of paper has been trying to do.So with all due respect to Ms Dowie who stood up and said the Government would love to it is nice but it cannot afford it—when you hear the numbers from Mr Hague and you think about the small numbers of New Zealanders who actually require it the argument does not stack up Ms Dowie. It becomes a philosophical argument and that is unfortunate because all these amendments to the 2002 regulations are trying to do is allow these parents and these babies to get to ground zero and then start off like everybody else.